U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–667 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–549 

NOMINATION OF ALEXANDRA DUNN TO BE 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 29, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

NOVEMBER 29, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ..........................

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ...................

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island .........

WITNESSES 

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 12 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 15 

Response to an additional question from Senator Capito ............................. 25 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 26 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 27 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 28 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 31 

Senator Rounds ......................................................................................... 34 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 37 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from The Environmental Council of the States ......................................... 159 

Letters of support for the Nomination of Alexandra Dunn .................................. 161-208 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF ALEXANDRA DUNN TO BE 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

THURSDAY, November 29, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Capito, Boozman, Fischer, Rounds, 

Ernst, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Booker, Markey, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today, we will consider the nomination of Alexandra Dunn to be 

Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Ms. Dunn is a well-qualified nominee and will bring a wealth of 

experience and expertise to this critically important position. I commend President Trump for nominating such an accomplished 

American and dedicated public servant. 

EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention protects the American people and the environment from potential 

risks posed by pesticides and toxic chemicals. The office implements the Toxic Substances Control Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 

Pollution Prevention Act, and portions of other important environmental statutes. 

Ms. Dunn has an outstanding resume and is well-qualified to 

lead this essential work at the agency. As the current regional administrator for EPA’s Region 1, Ms. Dunn is in charge of Federal 

environmental protection efforts in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and ten tribal Nations. 

Previously, she built her career over two decades in a number of 

leadership roles in environmental law, legislation, policy, and regulatory affairs. Those roles included: executive director and general 

counsel of the Environmental Council of the States; executive director and general counsel of the Association of Clean Water AdminisVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:27 Apr 11, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35667.TXT VERNE
2 

trators; and general counsel of the National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies. 

Ms. Dunn has also served as chairwoman of the American Bar 

Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. 

Two former Obama administration assistant attorneys general 

for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources 

Division have enthusiastically supported Ms. Dunn’s nomination. 

Ignacia Moreno, who served in that position during President 

Obama’s first term, wrote that Ms. Dunn would make ‘‘an outstanding assistant administrator.’’ John Cruden, who served in the 

position during President Obama’s second term, wrote: She will 

bring great management skills, a passion for the environment, and 

the ability to work cooperatively with States, environmental 

groups, industry, and academia.’’ 

He goes on to say, ‘‘I can say, without any hesitation, that Alexandra Dunn is supremely well qualified, will be a great and good 

force for positive environmental action, and will be someone who 

carefully reviews, abides by, and implements the law.’’ 

Twenty-one former chairs of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources jointly wrote in support of Ms. Dunn’s nomination, as did Todd Parfit, the director of 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and numerous 

other leaders and stakeholders from across the political spectrum. 

I look forward to hearing from Ms. Dunn as the committee members consider her nomination. 

I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say, thank you for your willingness to take this on. 

Thank you to the people sitting behind you who have your back. 

Some of them have had your back since you were a kid, some in 

high school, some in college, one of them is actually married to you 

and one of them, your son. 

I understand your mom is out there. Is her name Barbara? What 

is your mom’s name? 

Ms. DUNN. Barbara. 

Senator CARPER. She is out there somewhere watching this on 

television. We thank her for helping to raise you. 

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for moving 

this nomination along and getting the nominee before us to see 

what she has to offer in leading EPA’s Chemical Safety Office. 

Just over a year ago, it was publicly made clear that the Trump 

Administration’s first nominee for this position, Michael Dourson, 

would never be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I am pleased that 

he withdrew and his name was withdrawn. 

I am pleased to say to Ms. Dunn, with whom I had the pleasure 

of meeting last week, you are clearly no Michael Dourson. 

A majority of Senators signaled their intent to vote against Dr. 

Dourson’s confirmation because they felt that he lacked the objectivity and credibility to be EPA’s top chemical safety regulator. 

I am withholding judgment until we hear from Sheldon 

Whitehouse. When he makes his introduction, we will see how that 

3 

goes. From what I know of Ms. Dunn’s professional reputation, she 

does not lack objectivity or credibility. 

What I hope to better understand today, as we consider her nomination, is whether she represents a change in personnel or a 

change in direction, an important point. We need both. 

When Congress, the chemical industry and the environmental 

community worked together to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016, failed environmental law that dates all the way 

back I think maybe to the Jerry Ford Administration and never 

really worked. 

After almost three or four decades of failure, we decided to rewrite the bill. We were so excited we found consensus. A bunch of 

us in this room, Cory Booker, Ed Markey and others on both sides 

of the aisle, worked very hard to get this done. 

The new Administration taking over implementation of this new 

law, we are so proud of, has been an abject failure. What started 

off as a great salvation, we did our job, worked together, found 

common ground with all the stakeholders and had near unanimous 

support, and watched that ship come ashore on the rocks. 

It is a new day. All of us from Jim Inhofe to Ed Markey, who 

worked hard to build the near-unanimous vote to enact the new 

law because it was a failure, made it all but impossible for EPA 

to ban, or otherwise regulate, some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. 

In any event, we are here today. You have been nominated and 

we think that is a good thing. 

The best I can tell there is almost no element of EPA’s TSCA implementation efforts that has the vote of confidence of anyone at 

all. Instead of using the new law to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals, the Trump Administration appears to have 

broken the new law repeatedly, subjecting itself to litigation that 

I, along with many others, believe the Administration will likely 

lose. 

Instead of looking at all of the uses of a chemical when evaluating a chemical’s safety the way the law requires, EPA is completely ignoring many of these uses. That has led, and will continue 

to lead, to weaker protections for the most vulnerable among us. 

Instead of imposing enforceable requirements to ensure that both 

the public and workers are protected from exposure to new chemicals, EPA seems to be assuming that companies will take voluntary 

action to do so. 

Instead of looking at all of the scientific studies related to a 

chemicals safety, EPA is deliberately excluding independent university research and giving more weight to industry-funded studies. 

The one positive step EPA said it would take to finalize one of 

three chemical bans proposed by the Obama administration has 

been stalled, as we know, for almost half a year. 

Neither I, nor many of my Democratic colleagues, were under 

any illusions that we would agree on everything the Trump Administration EPA did. Nonetheless, I believe that all of us had hoped 

that the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and compromise that this 

committee drew upon when we were writing the new law would 

also be reflected in the new law’s implementation. 

4 

I, for one, am profoundly disappointed that this has not been the 

case. I know others share that view. 

I would like to learn today, Ms. Dunn, whether you can change 

that dynamic. I think leadership is key to everything. I do not care 

about the size of the organization; the key is leadership. 

I know from our meeting that you want to change it. The question is, will you have the authority and support from the rest of 

the political leadership at EPA, outside the EPA and the Trump 

Administration to be a change in direction, not just a change in 

personnel. 

If the answer is yes, I think there is a real possibility that you 

could be confirmed in short order. If the answer is no, then your 

nomination could be pending for some time, which is not what any 

of us want. 

In any event, we will be listening to your answers to questions 

today to begin to gauge which course it is likely to be. Let me add, 

however, that we will also be looking to Acting Administrator 

Wheeler for some specific commitments that will make possible a 

real change in direction for EPA’s chemical safety efforts. 

Again, welcome to you and those who joined you today. To your 

Mom sitting back in Massachusetts, tell her we said hello and 

thanks for sharing her daughter with us. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much, Senator Carper. 

Now I would like to invite Senator Whitehouse to introduce Ms. 

Dunn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Colleagues, your eyes and ears do not deceive you. The Democratic junior Senator from Rhode Island is introducing a Trump environmental nominee. As you know, I have often vociferously opposed many of the current Administration’s environmental nominees. 

Alex Dunn is the current Administrator of EPA Region 1, covering my home State of Rhode Island. She has been nominated to 

lead EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Unlike the highly conflictive first nominee to lead the office, Alex 

has a solid career largely independent of industry. I first met her 

in 2015 through Janet Coit, our deeply respected director of the 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Janet 

and Alex worked closely together when Alex was executive director 

and general counsel of the State Environmental Commissioners Organization, the Environmental Council of the States. 

At ECOS, Alex worked on some of the most controversial national environmental issues including regulation of toxic chemicals. 

Alex worked closely with this committee as we worked on TSCA to 

articulate State viewpoints in the reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Her familiarity with the intricacies of this important statute will help her succeed in the role for which we consider her today. 

Throughout the past year, I have had the opportunity to observe 

Alex work diligently to fulfill EPA’s mission of protecting human 

5 

health and the environment as Regional EPA Administrator for the 

New England States. Ms. Dunn has a deep passion for working 

with communities, for environmental justice and for leveraging the 

expertise of non-governmental organizations. She has overseen enforcement actions that reduce public health risks as well as compliance initiatives that ensure proper chemical storage and management in New England. 

She prioritizes open communication around difficult issues and is 

well respected by our whole congressional delegation in Rhode Island. She is highly capable of successfully implementing the Frank 

R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act updating 

TSCA. 

This Lautenberg Act, as we remember in this committee, was the 

fruit of bipartisan negotiations involving many of our members 

across a wide spectrum of political orientation. That process exemplified the Senate at its finest, tackling a difficult issue in an effective way, ultimately through a compromise solution acceptable to 

both parties. 

We understand on this committee the bipartisan heritage of the 

Lautenberg Act, so does Ms. Dunn. If she is confirmed, I expect 

EPA leadership to allow her to implement the Lautenberg Act in 

the manner in which it was intended. I call on my colleagues on 

this committee to support Ms. Dunn in doing her job right. 

Bipartisan faith was forged here in the negotiation and passage 

of TSCA. The previous nominee was a living, walking breach of 

that faith. Ms. Dunn will keep the faith and I hope we all will too. 

That was a success of this committee that I hope we will honor. 

I am very pleased to welcome Ms. Dunn to the Environment and 

Public Works Committee and to support her nomination. I expect 

her to work closely with members of this committee, if confirmed, 

to ensure that the vision we had for the Lautenberg Act is realized 

as well as to carry out the many other important responsibilities 

at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. I will 

count on her to resist improper interference with her work. 

Thank you, Ms. Dunn. Welcome to our committee. 

I yield back the floor. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

I would like to add my welcome to you to the committee, Alexandra Dunn, nominated to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

I would like to remind each of you that your full written testimony will be made a part of the permanent record. I am looking 

forward to hearing that. 

I would say I do have a letter of commendation to follow that of 

Senator Whitehouse also from the New England States. This is 

from Senator Susan Collins and supports your nomination. I ask 

unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

6 


35667.009

SUSAN M. COLLINS 

The Honorable John Bat·rasso 

Chairman, Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

United ~rates ~cnate WASHINGTON, DC 20510~1904 

November 26, 20 18 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Ofrice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I write to express my support for Alexandra Dunn, who has been nominated to the position of Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

Over the last year, Ms. Dunn has served as the Region I Administrator for the EPA, which includes the state of 

Maine. Prior to her work at EPA, Ms. Dunn served as executive director and general counsel for the 

Environmental Council of States, a national nonpat1isan organization committed to helping state agencies 

improve environmental outcomes for all Americans. Additionally, she has served as executive director and 

general counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators. Through this nonpartisan environmental 

work, Ms. Dunn has earned the esteem and affection of her colleagues across the New England Region. 

In Ms. Dunn's tenure as Region I Administrator, she bas made the Brownficlds program one of her top priorities. 

This program, with Ms, Dunn's support, has assisted state and local communities as they assess, safely clean up, 

and reuse brownfield sites for economic development projects. The Brownfields Program has proven to be a 

major benefit to the overall health of communities; in 2018, Maine communities were granted $3.2 million. 

In addition to cleaning up hazardous substances and improving our environment, Brown fields and other EPA 

programs have helped communities create new development opportunities to attract businesses that create good 

jobs for Mainers, particularly in rurul areas. This includes the work Ms. Dunn has championed at the EPA to 

cleanup several of the retired pulp and paper mills in Maine. As many rural towns in Maine previously relied on 

mills for employment and economic activity, cleaning up these sites have allowed for local economic growth and 

new development oppo11unities. l applaud Ms. Dunn's commitment to not only protecting human health and the 

environment, but helping New England communities attain economic prosperity. 

Through her prior experience, her work in Maine, and her work in all of New England, Ms. Dunn has earned my 

support to serve as the next Assistant Administrator for the Oflice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at 

the EPA. I appreciate your consideration of her nomination. 

Sincerely, 

~/ft.~ Susan M. Collins 

United States Senator 
7 

Senator BARRASSO. I look forward to hearing your testimony. We 

will now hear from you. Would you like to start by introducing your 

family and friends and then please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA DAPOLITO DUNN, NOMINATED 

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL 

SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper, Senator Whitehouse, for your introduction, and to 

all members of the committee who are here. It is a great privilege 

to be here. 

In terms of introducing my wonderful family, in the order in 

which they are seated, I have my best friend from high school, my 

best dog watcher. 

Senator CARPER. The gentleman on the left? He went to high 

school? 

Ms. DUNN. That is my policy advisor. They are: my best friend 

from high school; my favorite dog walking friend; my sister-in-law; 

my husband, Chris; my son, Sean; the best hockey goalie in Virginia and the East Coast, Sam Blanton; his mom, Ann, I am a 

hockey mom; my good friend from college, Nancy Haller Bender; 

and my good friend from EPA, Sonia Altieri. 

Senator BARRASSO: Welcome to all of you. 

Ms. DUNN. My daughter, Caroline, is at college in Environmental 

Science right how. She said that her class would be streaming this. 

Hopefully they are having an educational experience right now at 

Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. Hopefully my mom figured 

out how to work the internet and is watching online. 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and 

distinguished members of the Committee. I am privileged to appear 

before you today as you carry out your responsibility to provide advice, and hopefully, consent for my nomination for the position of 

Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention. I am deeply honored that President Trump, 

Acting Administrator Wheeler, and this committee are considering 

me for this role. 

Members of the committee, I bring to this role 24 years of complete dedication to environmental law, policy, regulation, and its 

implementation. The many perspectives from which I have experienced the body of Federal environmental law have prepared me 

well for the role for which I have been nominated. 

I have worked for the Nation’s municipalities, built compromises 

across the environmental directors of all 50 States at ECOS. I have 

represented regulated industry on environmental justice and 

trained hundreds of future environmental professionals as a Dean 

at Pace Law School and Adjunct Professor of Law at three law 

schools. 

Since January, as you heard, I have had the privilege to serve 

President Trump as the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 1, 

New England. Alongside the incredible career EPA staff, all 520 of 

them in New England, who daily advance EPA’s core mission of 

protecting public health and the environment, Region 1 has taken 

very tangible steps to restore waterways; remove chemicals from 

8 

and accelerate the redevelopment of Superfund and brownfield 

sites; respond to deeply needy tribal nations; advance justice; implement lead protection strategies; contribute to the national conversation PFAS and reduce chemical hazards in our communities. 

This experience has increased tenfold my respect for EPA as a 

tremendous Federal agency with the capability to do great good 

and my appreciation of the career EPA staff who work daily to ensure public safety and environmental protection. 

If confirmed, I am confident I will lead and manage the Chemicals Office at EPA to deliver on Congress’ vision for an impactful 

and effective implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 

Safety for the 21st Century Act. 

As the only environmental statute overhauled in recent years, 

with overwhelming bipartisan support as referenced from many of 

you here today, this law’s implementation requires strong and 

transparent leadership. 

In preparation for today, I reflected on my own work regarding 

the statute’s long journey to reform. As debate was robust when I 

was Chair of the American Bar Associations Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, and while I was at ECOS, we worked 

across States collaboratively with Congress, particularly on the preemption provisions. 

I also met with many members of this committee. I spoke to environmental organizations, community and worker groups, States, 

and industry, to be here today. Without question, there are strong 

views about how this law should be implemented to realize the bipartisan vision that brought it across the finish line in 2016. 

If confirmed, I commit to keeping an open door to all groups and 

entities interested in seeing this law reach its full potential. With 

deadlines fast approaching and complex risk assessments ahead, 

EPA has a heavy workload. 

Under the letter of the law and the support of this committee, 

President Trump and Acting Administrator Wheeler, I am confident that EPA can fulfill with credibility and respect the role that 

Congress gave us when it put TSCA’s reauthorization and implementation in the agency’s hands. 

The Chemicals Office has many important roles and functions beyond Lautenberg’s implementation which I will carry out with 

equal dedication and interest. These include ensuring the safe regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

the Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 

as well as safer chemistry programs. 

In conclusion, Senators, if confirmed, I will ensure that all programs under my office’s responsibility thrive, produce meaningful 

environmental outcomes, demonstrate the highest and best use of 

science, and responsibly use taxpayer resources. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, while I would miss 

working with the team at EPA New England very much and perhaps miss living with my mother, I am ready to, with your advice 

and consent, return to Washington to my family to carry out EPA’s 

mission in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

with integrity and transparency. 

I respectfully request your support and I look forward to your 

questions. Thank you very much. 

9 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:] 

10 


35667.155

Statement of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

Nominated to be Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members 

of the Committee. I am privileged to appear before you today as you carry out your 

responsibility to provide advice, and hopefully, consent for my nomination for the 

position of Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. I am deeply honored that President Trump, Acting Administrator Wheeler, 

and this Committee are considering me for this role. 

I thank my husband Chris and son Sean, who are here today, my daughter Caroline- who 

I hope is in class at college- and my mother Barbara and many friends watching this 

hearing online, for their continued support of my career- which has been quite diverse in 

roles, responsibilities, and even geography. I thank the many professional colleagues 

from the academic, legal, scientific, non-profit, corporate, and non-governmental sectors 

who have given their support to me verbally and in writing through this process. 

Members of the Committee, I bring to this role 24 years of complete dedication to 

environmental law, policy, regulation, and its implementation. The many perspectives 

from which I have practiced, studied, written, taught, and experienced the body of federal 

environmental law has prepared me well for the role for which I have been nominated. I 

have worked for the nation's largest wastewater municipalities, built compromises 

between the environmental agency directors of all 50 states as Executive Director and 

General Counsel of ECOS, represented regulated industry on environmental justice and 

community engagement, and trained many future environmental professionals as a Dean 

at Pace Law School and Adjunct Professor of Law at three law schools. 

Since January I have had the privilege to serve President Trump as the Regional 

Administrator of EPA Region 1 New England. Alongside the incredible career EPA 

staff, who daily advance EPA's core mission of protecting public health and the 

environment with their consummate professional skills and personal passion, Region l 

has taken tangible and protective steps to: restore New England's iconic waterways; 

remove chemicals from and accelerate the redevelopment of Superfund and brownfield 

sites; respond to our Tribal Nations; advance community engagement and justice; 

implement an Integrated Lead Protection Strategy; contribute to the national conversation 

on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances by hosting the first regional public meeting on the 

topic; and reduce New Englanders' exposure to unsafe levels of chemicals in the 

environment and from chemical hazards in their communities. 

My Regional experience has increased ten-fold my preexisting respect for EPA as a 

tremendous federal agency with the capability to do great good as well as my abundant 

respect for the career EPA staff working every day to ensure public safety and to protect 

the environment. 
11 


35667.156

If confirmed, I am confident I will lead and manage the chemicals office at EPA and 

deliver on Congress' vision for an impactfu! and effective implementation of the Frank 

R. Laufenberg Chemical Safety for the 21-'1 Century Act. As the only environmental 

statute overhauled in recent years, with overwhelming bipartisan support- from many of 

you in this room today- this law's implementation requires strong and transparent 

leadership. In preparation for today, I reflected on my own work on the Stlftute's long 

journey to reform, as debate was robust while I was Chair of the American Bar 

Association's Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, and while I was at ECOS 

we worked across states collaboratively with Congress. I spoke with many members of 

this Committee, and with environmental organizations, community groups, states, and the 

regulated industry, who collectively put significant time, expertise, and personal 

commitment into the development of the new TSCA requirements. 

There are strong views about how this law should be implemented to best realize the 

bipartisan vision that brought it over the finish line in 2016. If confirmed, I commit to 

keeping an open door to all groups and entities interested in seeing this law reach its full 

potential. With continuous deadlines fast approaching and complex scientific risk 

evaluations that must be undertaken, EPA has a heavy workload. Under the letter of the 

law, and given the support of this Committee, President Trump and Acting Administrator 

Wheeler, I am confident that EPA can step up and fulfill with credibility and respect the 

role that Congress gave us when it reauthorized TSCA and put its implementation in the 

Agency's hands. 

The chemicals office has many important roles and functions beyond Laufenberg's 

implementation, which I plan to support and carry out with equal dedication and interest. 

These include responsibilities to ensure the safe regulation of pesticides under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and the Rodenticide Act, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act. 

In conclusion, if confirmed, I will ensure that all programs under my office's 

responsibility thrive, produce meaningful environmental outcomes, demonstrate the 

highest and best use of science, and responsibly use taxpayer and other resources. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to be 

here today. While I would very much miss working with the team at EPA New England, 

l stand ready to, with your advice and consent, return to Washington to carry out EPA's 

mission in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with the utmost 

integrity and transparency. I respectfully request your support, and !look forward to the 

questions of you and your colleagues. 
12 


35667.157

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nomination of Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency" 

November 29, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Alexandra Dunn 

Ranking Member Carper: 

In our private meeting, we discussed my concerns about the manner in which EPA is 

implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It is my belief that if EPA does not 

immediately reverse course, it risks having the majority of its TSCA implementation efforts 

overturned in litigation. I have several questions regarding some of these concerns. Since, in 

your previous capacity, you reviewed and provided input into versions of the legislation that was 

ultimately enacted, I expect that you will be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to 

provide me with the specific responses I am looking for. The attachments referenced in these 

questions consist of EPA technical assistance provided to Congress while the law was being 

negotiated, and are available at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ cachelfiles/f/O/ffi729fla4385-453f-b7f8-442825a0721 c/ A681 AA266D5CC024C98FCC85A 944EB5E.senator-carperguestions-for-the-record-to-epa-nominees.pdf. 

1. Section 26 of TSCA states that: 

"(4} CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES WITH COMPLETED RISK ASSESSMENTS.-

With respect to a chemical substance listed in the 2014 update to the TSCA Work 

Plan for Chemical Assessments for which the Administrator has published a 

completed risk assessment prior to the date of enactment of the Frank R. Lauten berg 

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the Administrator may publish proposed 

and final rules under section 6(a) that arc consistent with the scope of the completed 

risk assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other applicable 

requirements of section 6." 

Page 1 of Attachment 1 is an email sent by EPA on March 17, 2016, the substance of which was 

shared with the bipartisan and bicameral negotiators of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It 

states that EPA "just discovered a technical issue that will have significant policy implications 

for EPA's ongoing work under Section 6. As currently drafted, both Senate and House bills 

could frustrate EPA's ability to timely manage risks that have been (or may be) identified in our 

current Work Plan risk assessments." The email goes on to describe several risk assessments on 

chemical substances (TCE, NMP, MC and 1-BP) that had been completed or were near 

completion by EPA, and stated that "EPA is not looking at all the conditions of use for these 

chemicals. This approach, which might be characterized as a partial risk evaluation or partial 

safety determination, we see as simply not contemplated under the Senate and House bills. The 

section 6 structure in both bills would require EPA to assess a chemical in its entirety, based on 

illl_conditions of use- not just a subset of those uses." EPA then went on to state that if it were to 

move forward with rulemakings to restrict or ban some or all of these substances (which it has 

subsequently proposed to do), there would be some risk that the rules would be found to be 

inconsistent with the new statutory requirement to assess all conditions of use. EPA said that it 
13 


35667.158

would "welcome an opportunity to work with you on a drafting solution to this issue." 

a. Do you agree with EPA's March 17, 2016 view that if it had moved forward with these 

partial risk evaluations and rulemakings absent explicit statutory authority to do so even 

though the risk evaluations had not considered all conditions of use, that EPA could have 

been sued for not complying with the law's requirements? If not, please provide specific 

reasons why not. 

During my previous professional capacity, I was provided with an opportunity to 

offer input on behalf of state environmental directors on a range of issues, including 

the reauthorization ofTSCA. However, in my current experience as Regional 

Administrator in EPA Region 1, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

b. Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 consist of April2, 2016 Technical Assistance from EPA 

that was provided to the Senate on a drafting solution to address the problem identified 

by EPA on March 17,2016. Do you agree that this language, which is also drafted as an 

amendment to Section 26, bears a close resemblance to the language that was enacted 

into law, and, like the enacted text, provides EPA with statutory authority to complete 

rulemakings on the chemical substances on which it completed risk assessments prior to 

the enactment of the new law even though the risk assessments were not undertaken for 

all conditions of use? If not, please provide specific reasons why not. 

During my previous professional capacity, I was provided with an opportunity to 

offer input on behalf of state environmental directors on a range of issues, including 

the reauthorization ofTSCA. However, in my current experience as Regional 

Administrator in EPA Region 1, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

2. The newly enacted TSCA, for new chemicals, states that: I 

"(e) REGULATION PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF lNFORMATION.-

(l)(A) If the Administrator determines that-

(i) the information available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a 

reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of a chemical 

substance with respect to which notice is required by subsection (a); or 

(ii)(l) in the absence of sufficient information to permit the Administrator to make 

such an evaluation, the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or 

disposal of such substance, or any combination of such activities, may present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of 

costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially 

exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator 

under the conditions of use; or (II) such substance is or will be produced in 
14 


35667.159

substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be 

anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be 

significant or substantial human exposure to the substance, 

the Administrator shall issue an order, to take effect on the expiration of the 

applicable review period, to prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such substance or to prohibit or limit 

any combination of such activities to the extent necessary to protect against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of 

costs or other nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially 

exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator 

under the conditions of use, and the submitter of the notice may commence 

manufacture of the chemical substance, or manufacture or processing of the 

chemical substance for a significant new use, including while any required 

information is being developed, only in compliance with the order." 

Attachment 2 consists of a portion of EPA's Technical Assistance on an April 7, 2016 draft 

of Section 5 ofTSCA that EPA provided to the Senate. Comment A7 provides EPA's 

views on section S(e). This comment noted a change from previous drafts, observing that the 

draft allowed manufacture of a new chemical to proceed even if EPA did not have enough 

information to determine whether it posed an unreasonable risk. This is because the draft as 

written allowed for manufacture to proceed if EPA either took steps to obtain sufficient 

information about the chemical substance (but before it received and evaluated that 

information) OR if it imposed a risk management order. EPA also suggested some edits to 

this draft to restore the "functionality of the prior draft," which ensured that manufacture 

could not proceed unless/until the information about the chemical substance was sufficient 

and EPA made the necessary risk determination, or in compliance with an EPA-issued order 

to protect against unreasonable risk under the conditions of use while the information was 

being developed. Do you agree that the statute requires EPA to issue an order to protect 

against an unreasonable risk a new chemical substance may pose under the conditions of 

use, either while information EPA needs to assess the chemical substance is developed, or if 

EPA determines that the substance may present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of 

use, or if such substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance 

either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial 

quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance? 

If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your 

reasoning. 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 
15 


35667.160

3. Section 5(t)(4) ofTSCA states that: 

"(4) TREATMENT OF NONCONFORMING USES.-Not later than 90 days 

after taking an action under paragraph (2) or (3) or issuing an order under 

subsection (e) relating to a chemical substance with respect to which the 

Administrator has made a determination under subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B), the 

Administrator shall consider whether to promulgate a rule pursuant to subsection 

(a)(2) that identifies as a significant new use any manufacturing, processing, use, 

distribution in commerce, or disposal of the chemical substance that does not 

conform to the restrictions imposed by the action or order, and, as applicable, 

initiate such a rulemaking or publish a statement describing the reasons of the 

Administrator for not initiating such a rulemaking." 

Attachment 3 is an April 9, 2016 email from EPA providing responses to questions on the 

April 7 draft included in Attachment 2. The email asks whether the removal of provisions 

5(e)(4) and 5(t)(l)(C) in that draft would also remove EPA's requirement to consider 

whether to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) when it issued orders to a submitter of 

a pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) (and explain its decision if it chose not to do so). EPA 

responded in the affirmative. Do you agree that the enacted law retained the April 7 draft's 

requirement to consider whether to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) when EPA 

has issued an order to a submitter of a pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) (and explain its 

decision if it chooses not to do so)? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using 

statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

4. The newly enacted TSCA requires EPA, for existing chemicals that are designated a 

high-priority chemical substance or otherwise designated for a risk evaluation, to: 

''conduct risk evaluations pursuant to this paragraph to determine whether a 

chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 

environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including 

an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation 

identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the 

conditions of use." 

In the statute, 'conditions of use' is defined as: 

"the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical 

substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, 

distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.'' 
16 


35667.161

Attachment 4 is a December 12, 2016 (post-enactment) email conveying Technical 

Assistance from EPA that responded to several questions posed about how EPA was 

required to do risk evaluations for a chemical substance under the conditions of use. Do you 

agree with EPA's responses to these questions as well as the narrative that precedes the 

specific responses to questions? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, indicating 

in your response how your views are consistent with the statutory text excerpted above (or, 

as applicable, how EPA's responses are inconsistent with the statutory text excepted above). 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

5. Attachment 5 is a document that includes EPA's technical assistance and observations that 

compared an Aprill2 2016 Senate draft of section 5 to an Aprill8, 2016 House draft. 

a. On pages 2 and 15, EPA provides comments related to the 90-day period for review 

of a PMN. Do you agree that the enacted law includes text that reflects EPA's input 

in these comments? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory 

text to explain your reasoning. 

b. On Page 14, EPA notes the deletion of the requirement not to consider costs or other 

non-risk factors when considering section S(h) exemption requests. Do you agree 

that the enacted law retained this deletion in this subsection, but included the 

requirement in sections 5(a), 5(e) and 5(f)? lfnot, please provide specific reasons 

why not, using statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

6. Attachment 6 consists of EPA's comments to a draft of Senate section 5 dated around April 

12,2016. 

a. EPA's comment A22notes the absence of the requirement not to consider costs or 

other non-risk factors when considering section 5(h) exemption requests. Do you 

agree that the enacted law does not include the requirement in this subsection, but 

does include the requirement in subsections 5(a), 5(e) and 5(f)? If not, please provide 

specific reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

b. Do you agree that while this same EPA comment identifies one inconsistency 

between the above-described text that is absent from subsection 5(h) but appears 

throughout the rest of section 5, it does not identify another difference, namely the 

presence of the term "specific uses identified in the application" in subsection 5(h) 

versus the term "conditions of use" that appears throughout the rest of section 5? If 

not, why not? 
17 


35667.162

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

7. Attachment 7 consists of EPA's comments to an April3, 2016 Senate draft of section 5. 

a. On page !, EPA observes that "5(e) requires no action on the part of the 

Administrator whatsoever: it is wholly discretionary authority to impose 

requirements on the manufacture pending development of information.'' Do you 

agree that the enacted law requires EPA to either prohibit manufacture or issue an 

order to mitigate against potential risk while information is being developed by a 

manufacturer? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory text to 

explain your reasoning. 

b. On page 2, EPA responds to a question posed by Senate staff, stating "We think it is 

important not to limit review to the uses identified in the notice. If the identified 

uses seem fine, and EPA therefore does nothing, the submitter is free to submit an 

NOC and then manufacture in any way he or she wants. EPA often uses 5(e) orders 

to address uses beyond those specified in notices." Do you agree that the enacted 

statute requires EPA to review the conditions of use (as that term is defined in the 

statute) of a chemical substance when it reviews a PMN as EPA advised the Senate 

in this comment? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory 

text to explain your reasoning. 

c. On page 9, EPA says that "It seems like the best solution, per above comment, may 

be to drop the limitation above that the order pertain only to the conditions of use 

specified in the notice." Do you agree that the enacted statute incorporated EPA's 

proposed 'best solution' and did not limit orders only to the conditions of use 

specified in the notice? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using 

statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

d. A second EPA comment on page 9 states that "A possible solution would be, in line 

with the Senate bill and offer, to drop (e) and require EPA to issue an order under 

what is now (f) any time EPA either makes a may present finding or lacks sufficient 

info, as necessary to make the unlikely to present finding." Do you agree that the 

enacted text retains section 5(e) and also requires EPA to issue an order any time 

EPA either makes a may present finding or lacks sufficient information before 

manufacturing can commence? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using 

statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

e. On page 16, EPA responds to a question from Senate staff about whether, in the 5(h) 

exemptions section, it makes sense to deviate from the rest of the section's 

references to 'conditions of use' and instead limit EPA's exemption determination to 

the uses of the chemical substance identified in the exemption request. EPA 

responds by stating "We agree that the reference to specific uses makes sense, but 

not because of anything having to do with a SNUR. It seems to us that, if a party is 

seeking a partial section 5 exemptions, we would consider only the uses for which 

they are seeking the exemption, since the exemption would limit them to those." Do 

you agree that the enacted statute follows EPA's advice to retain the authority for 
18 


35667.163

EPA to consider just the uses of a chemical substance included in an exemption 

request, but does not make the same limiting change anywhere else so as not to so 

limit its review of all conditions of use of a chemical substance subject to a PMN? If 

not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your 

reasoning. 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office to discuss this matter. 

8. The following questions refer to the 'systematic review' document prepared by the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). Systematic review, in the context of 

chemical safety, refers to a methodology for deciding how to collect and evaluate scientific 

research that is related to the safety of a chemical. This document, which, unlike the 

systematic review document prepared by EPA's Office of Research and Development, has 

not been peer reviewed. It has also raised concerns 1 that it may intentionally have been 

crafted to exclude independent academic research from being used to evaluate the safety of 

chemicals. 

a. Other peer-reviewed examples of systematic review documents require a broad 

literature search to be conducted during the scoping and problem formulation phase 

of a risk evaluation, but the OCSPP document does not. Do you agree that the failure 

to conduct a broad literature search could result in a failure by EPA to fulfill its 

statutory obligation to use the 'best available science' when evaluating the safety of 

chemicals because it may not have a complete grasp of what science is 'available'? 

If not, why not? 

b. Other peer-reviewed examples of systematic review documents -as well as EPA's 

TCSA implementation regulations- require protocols to be developed for systematic 

reviews to be conducted, but the OCSPP document does not include such protocols. 

Do you agree that the use of a systematic review document that does not contain 

protocols for the conduct of TSCA risk evaluations could expose any chemical 

safety rules EPA promulgates to litigation risk because of the failure to follow 

EPA's TSCA implementation regulations? If not, why not? 

c. Other peer-reviewed examples of systematic review documents follow best practices 

to identify potential biases in scientific studies, but do not do so through the use of a 

quantitative scoring method. The OCSPP document does not follow these best 

practices, and instead uses a quantitative scoring method that results in the exclusion 

of scientific studies from consideration and use in the risk evaluation, and uses 

metrics that are not related to the quality of the scientific studies to do so. Do you 

agree that all relevant studies should be selected, evaluated for potential biases and 

1 See for example https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/epa-tsca-systematic-review-chemicals-fatallyflawed 
19 


35667.164

considered following the best practices described in peer-reviewed examples of 

systematic review documents? If not, why not? 

d. Other peer-reviewed examples of systematic review documents- as well as EPA's 

TSCA regulations- require scientific evidence to be integrated into the risk 

evaluation based on the relevance, quality, strengths and limitations of the entire 

body of the evidence in order to derive a risk value for the chemical. The OCSPP 

document does not follow these best practices or EPA's regulations. Do you agree 

that a failure to integrate the scientific evidence into a risk evaluation in a manner 

that is consistent with best practices and EPA's TSCA regulations could expose any 

chemical safety regulations EPA promulgates to litigation risk? If not, why not? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law nor have I been involved in the development of systematic review 

approaches. Thus, I cannot speak to the appropriateness of EPA's approach. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with 

your office to discuss this matter. 

l 0. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written 

policies limiting White House contacts with agencies that have investigatory and 

enforcement responsibilities. These policies have recognized that even a simple phone 

call from the White House to an agency inquiring about or flagging a specific matter can 

upset the evenhanded application of the law. 

a. Do you agree that it is essential that in making decisions, the Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention must be spared even the appearance of being 

subject to political influence or considerations? 

I agree it is essential in making decisions for the EPA, including the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to operate beyond the bounds of 

political influence. 

b. Will you commit to notifying this Committee within one week if any 

inappropriate communications from White House staff to OCSPP staff, including 

you, occur? 

I commit to restricting any inappropriate communications. 
20 


35667.165

11. Whistleblower laws protect the right of federal employees to make lawful disclosures to 

agency management officials, the Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel. 

They also have the right to make disclosures to Congress. 

Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 7211 states that the "right of employees, individually or 

collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress or to furnish information to 

either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered 

with or denied." Further, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), makes it a violation of federal law to 

retaliate against whistleblower because of "(A) any disclosure of information by an 

employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences-

(i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste 

offunds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or 

safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or 

another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of 

information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of 

any law, rule, or regulation ... " In addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505, it is against 

federal law to interfere with a Congressional inquiry. 

c. If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all OCSPP career 

employees to make lawful disclosures, including their right to speak with 

Congress? 

Yes, ifl am confirmed, I commit to protecting the rights of all OCSPP career 

employees to make lawful disclosures, including their right to speak with 

Congress. 

d. Will you commit to communicate employees' whistleblower rights via email to 

all OCSPP employees within a week of being sworn in? 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the EPA employee's whistleblower rights are 

communicated to them in a timely fashion. 

12. Last year, my staff was informed that EPA political staff verbally directed career staff to 

simply delete the majority of the benefits of the Clean Water Rule before submitting a 

revised document to OMB about the rule. If you are confirmed, do you commit to ensure 

that career staff at OCSPP will receive appropriately documented, rather than verbal, 

direction from political officials, including yourself, before they take action? If not, why 

not? 

I am not aware of the situation which you are referencing, but I will always seek to 

provide my directions clearly and transparently. 
21 


35667.166

13. Do you agree to provide complete, accurate and timely responses to requests for 

information submitted to you by any Member of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee? If not, why not? 

Yes, ifl am confirmed. 

14. Last year, EPA announced that then-Administrator Pruitt would be publishing brief 

summaries of his calendars biweekly, after dozens of Freedom of Information Act 

requests for this information as well as a March 2017 request by me and my colleagues 

that he do so. During the Obama Administration, the Administrator, regional 

Administrators and all those serving in confirmed roles published their calendars daily. 2 

If you are confirmed, will you commit to publishing your calendars daily? If not, why 

not? 

As Regional Administrator, I already make my calendar publicly available, and, if 

confirmed, will continue to do so in a timely manner. 

Senator Booker: 

15. Pursuant to EPA regulations, public files on new chemicals submitted for review under 

TSCA are required to be electronically available in dockets on regulations.gov and are to 

contain all relevant documents. EPA is not doing so, however. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring your office will promptly provide the 

public with such electronic access to the information EPA obtains or generates in 

its review of new chemicals, subject to redactions only to the extent authorized 

underTSCA? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the 

implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up 

with your office to discuss this matter. 

2 https:/lyosemite.epa.govlopaladmpress.nsf/Calendars?OpenView 
22 


35667.167

16. Health and safety studies are ineligible for Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

protection under TSCA. While elements in these studies that legitimately qualify as CBI 

can be redacted, TSCA section 14 specifically precludes protection from disclosure of all 

non-confidential information in these studies. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring your office will promptly provide the 

public with ready electronic access to full copies of all health and safety studies 

EPA receives or obtains for new and existing chemicals under TSCA, subject to 

redactions only to the extent authorized under TSCA? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the 

implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up 

with your office to discuss this matter. 

17. One of the goals ofTSCA was to make more information on chemicals publicly available 

by requiring company substantiation and EPA review, within 90 days, of most CBI 

claims. TSCA requires that EPA's determinations on those claims it reviews are to be 

made public. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring your office will review CBI claims and 

promptly provide the public with ready electronic access to the EPA 

determinations on CBI claims, and promptly disclose all information it finds does 

not qualify for CBI protection, as required by law? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the 

implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up 

with your office to discuss this matter. 

18. A 20 I 6 reform to TSCA assigned EPA an affirmative duty, in consultation with CDC, to 

"develop a request and notification system that, in a format and language that is readily 

accessible and understandable, allows for expedient and swift access" by first responders 

and other emergency personnel and health and environmental professionals to CBI they 

request and need to do their jobs. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring your office will promptly provide 

ready electronic access by first responders and other emergency personnel and 

health and environmental professionals to confidential information about the uses 

and potential hazards, exposures, and risks of specific chemicals, as required by 

law? 
23 


35667.168

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the 

implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up 

with your office to discuss this matter. 

19. Organophosphate pesticides (OPs) are a class of neurotoxic chemicals initially developed 

by the Nazis during World War II to serve as nerve gas agents. After the war, the 

chemical companies adapted the OPs to be used as pesticides, primarily as 

insecticides. In the U.S., many OP pesticides were licensed for insecticidal use before 

requirements to evaluate human toxicity or ecologic effects were established. OP 

pesticides are widely used across the U.S. even though EPA's risk assessments of this 

class of pesticides document health risks that exceed EPA's levels of concern. 

a. If confirmed, where preliminarily risk assessments for an OP pesticide show risks of 

concern, will you commit to prioritize finalization of the risk assessments and taking 

regulatory action? 

b. If confirmed, where preliminary risk assessments for OP pesticides demonstrate that 

there are risks of concern for communities from spray drift will you commit to 

imposing use restrictions that mitigate the risks of concerns such as buffer zones 

around homes, schools, day cares, play fields, and other places people gather? 

c. If confirmed, where preliminary risk assessments for an OP pesticide demonstrate 

that there are risks of concern for workers who mix, load and apply the pesticide or 

work in fields sprayed with the pesticide, will you commit to cancelling the uses and 

imposing interim restrictions (other than additional personal protective 

equipment) that reduce the risks of concern to workers, during the cancelation 

process? 

Although I have not been involved in the evaluation of organophosphate pesticides; 

if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with 

your office to discuss this matter. 

20. In 2009, EPA's Office ofpesticide Programs (EPA/OPP) within the Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, published "Revised Risk Assessment Methods for 

Workers, Children of Workers in Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides with No Food 

Uses." In this document, EPA/OPP promised to extend certain "advanced risk 

assessment techniques" routinely applied in dietary risk assessments to occupational risk 

assessments needed to protect hundreds of thousands of farm workers. It has been almost 

a decade, and EPA/OPP has failed to act. As a result, pesticide risk assessments 

conducted by EPA continue to understate risks to workers. 

In this 2009 document, EPA committed to assessing risks to the children of farm workers 

in agricultural fields, and to applying the additional safety factor of 10 to protect them. 
24 


35667.169

a. If confirmed, will you consult with EPA/OPP staff on the status of implementation of 

the 2009 policy with respect to children in agricultural fields, and provide an update 

to my office on what steps you will take on this issue? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

In this 2009 document, EPA/OPP committed to considering aggregate exposure by 

combining "all potential sources of exposure" to pesticides, including both occupational 

and non-occupational sources, when assessing risks to workers and their children. 

b. If confirmed, will you consult with EPA/OPP staff on the status of the 2009 policy 

with respect to aggregate exposure, and provide an update to my office on what steps 

you will take on this issue? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

In this document, EPA/OPP committed to assessing cumulative exposure to workers and 

their children from multiple pesticides. 

c. If confirmed, will you consult with EPA/OPP staff on the status of implementation of 

the 2009 policy with respect to cumulative exposure, and provide an update to my 

office on what steps you will take on this issue? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

21. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators (CPA) rule governs the training of nearly I 

million workers that apply Restricted Use Pesticides--including organophosphate 

pesticides--in agricultural, commercial and residential settings. The Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard (WPS) protects approximately 2.5 million workers and pesticide 

handlers (including 500,000 children) that labor in farms, fields, nurseries, greenhouses 

and forests. 

d. If confirmed, will you commit to the implementation of the WPS and the CPA rule as 

finalized on November 2, 2015 and January 4, 2017, respectively? 

Although I have not been involved in the implementation of this policy, if 

confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with 

your office to discuss this matter. 
25 


35667.170

22. When EPA conducts a risk assessment and finds that exposure to a pesticide exceeds 

levels of concern, the Agency may require personal protective equipment like extra layers 

of clothing and/or respirators to reduce exposure. A bedrock principle of occupational 

hygiene is the "hierarchy of controls," which is used by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) and others to identify options for controlling exposures to 

occupational hazards. The hierarchy prioritizes elimination of the hazardous agent or 

substitution of a less hazardous agent. These are preferable to the implementation of 

engineering controls, which in turn are preferable to requiring personal protective 

equipment. For workers who are protected by OSHA, personal protective equipment is 

always the mitigation measure of last resort. When it comes to protecting workers from 

pesticides, EPA is in charge and the agency starts by considering personal protective 

equipment, then considers engineering controls, and never considers substitution with 

less toxic options or practices. EPA's approach is backwards and incomplete. 

a. If confirmed, will you consult with EPA/OPP staff on this issue and provide an 

update to my office on whether EPA/OPP will begin to follow the hierarchy of 

controls when selecting options to reduce occupational risk from pesticides, and the 

justification for the EPA/OPP decision? 

Yes, if confirmed. 

Senator Capito: 

23. EPA's voluntary Safer Choice program allows companies to add a Safer Choice logo to 

product labels. The Safer Choice logo informs consumers that the product uses only 

safest-in-class ingredients. Without imposing regulations, the program has provided 

incentives to companies to formulate safer products and develop innovative new 

chemistries. Will you support continuing this program at EPA? 

If confirmed, I will manage EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention programs within the authorities and resources provided by Congress. 
26 


35667.171

Senator Duckworth: 

24. In December 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) program found ethylene oxide (EtO) to be much more 

carcinogenic at lower concentrations than previously thought. As a result, the 2014 

National Air Toxics Assessment showed that DuPage County residents have an increased 

cancer risk from EtO exposure. 

For years, the Chemical industry has tried to politicize the IRIS program by moving it to a 

regulatory office that is led by political appointees. If confirmed to be Assistant 

Administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, would you 

keep the IRIS program in the Office of Research and Development and condemn attempts 

to move it? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in any policy discussions 

regarding this issue; if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this matter and 

to following up with your office. 

25. Recent reports exposed multiple ways the Federal Government has failed to protect 

Illinoisans from toxic chemical exposure while intentionally and needlessly delayed the 

public disclosure of known cancer risks. For example, in Illinois, EPA worked behind the 

scenes to help one facility erase evidence of their ethylene oxide emissions. 

Specifically, I am concerned that EPA regularly fails to notify the public about public 

health risks, purges data and lacks the requirements to use the most rigorous public health 

standards.lfconfirmed, what steps will you take to inform communities, industry members 

and Congress of public health risks associated with chemical safety issues? 

Identifying, understanding, and communicating risk posed by elements in the 

environment is one of the most critical functions of the Agency. If confirmed, I look 

forward to being briefed on this issue and working with your office to identify ways 

to communicate risk with the American public. 

26. One issue that has emerged in Illinois is that EPA must be more coordinated with Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease Control Registry (A TSDR) and other public health 

agencies on their risk evaluations. If confirmed, will you commit to bringing the relevant 

public health experts together at EPA and ATSDR to help proactively review health risks? 

I believe that federal agencies should work together to effectively serve the American 

public. If confirmed, I look forward to finding ways to advance the coordination you 

seek and to discussing this further with your office. 
27 


35667.172

Senator Gillibrand: 

27. PF AS chemicals are contaminating the drinking water of thousands of communities, 

including Hoosick Falls, Petersburgh, Newburgh and Westhampton in New York, among 

many others nationwide. One study estimates that II 0 million Americans are drinking 

water contaminated with these "forever" chemicals, which have been linked to cancer, 

reproductive problems, and other serious health concerns. Facing increased public 

awareness on the potential harn1s posed by PFAS chemicals and the discovery of 

contaminated drinking water across the country, EPA has started to consider taking 

further action to address these chemicals. EPA is considering new regulations for PFOA 

and PFOS and health-based limits for PFBS and GenX, two fluorinated chemicals that 

are being manufactured as replacements for PFOA and PFOS. However, there are 

thousands of PFAS chemicals in commerce, not just 4. In just the last 16 years, EPA has 

allowed 112 new PFAS chemicals to be produced in large quantities, even though the 

publicly available data about PFAS chemicals is woefully inadequate. 

a. lf confirmed, will you commit to use your authority under TSCA to require toxicity 

data and testing for new and existing PFAS chemicals? 

In my role as Region 1 Administrator I have worked on PFOA and PFOS issues 

and how they are impacting New England communities. If confirmed, I commit 

to being fully briefed on these larger issues and working with your office in 

follow up. In particular, I will make it a priority to be briefed on OCSPP's 

authorities to manage exposures to PFOA and PFOS and other chemicals in this 

family in commerce to ensure protection of public health and the environment. 

b. Do you agree that EPA should have health effects data about PF AS chemicals before 

allowing additional PFAS chemicals onto the market? 

If confirmed, I commit to being fully briefed on these issues and working with 

your office in follow up. 

c. Will you commit to reconsidering EPA ·s decision not to look at "legacy uses" of 

chemicals when considering whether to take action on a chemical under TSCA? 

Although I have not been involved in the implementation of this policy, if 

confirmed, I look fonvard to being briefed on this issue and to following up with 

your office. 

28. Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide known to harm child brain development. After the EPA 

refused to ban this pesticide- against the recommendations of its own scientists -the 9'h 

Circuit Court required that Chlorpyrifos be removed from the market. Earlier this month. 

independent researchers found that the data submitted by Dow-DuPont to get 

Chlorpyrifos approved in the US and EU contained significant errors and omissions. 

a. Do you support the permanent withdrawal of Chlorpyrifos? 
28 


35667.173

b. If you are confirmed, how would you ensure that data provided by industry is 

accurate when they seek approval for products like pesticides, seed treatments, or 

biotechnology? 

c. How can you ensure independent verification of data, and will you commit to sharing 

safety study data submissions with independent academic researchers? 

d. How will you provide rigorous oversight of pesticide manufacturers even as the 

Administration continues to staff Agencies with pesticide industry executives? 

Although I have not been involved in EPA's actions regarding Chlorpyrifos in my 

role as Region 1 Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on 

these issues and to following up with your office. EPA will use our authorities to 

oversee manufacturers to protect public health and the environment. 

29. I ,4-Dioxane is a suspected carcinogen that is a very serious drinking water contaminant 

in New York, especially Long Island. Consumers are exposed to 1,4-Dioxane through 

their drinking water, through their personal care products, and through industrial releases. 

However, EPA's review of I ,4-Dioxane excludes many of these routes of exposure. 

a. How can EPA fairly evaluate the risks posed by 1,4-Dioxane if you don't properly 

estimate all the ways consumers are exposed to I ,4-Dioxane, including through their 

drinking water? 

b. By excluding routes of exposure like drinking water, aren't you tipping the scale in 

favor of less or even no regulation of this chemical, which has been linked to cancer? 

c. If confirmed, will you commit to include all uses, including reasonably foreseeable 

and legacy uses, in both new and existing chemical risk evaluations? 

Although I have not been involved in the implementation of this policy, if confirmed, 

I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office. 

Senator Markey: 

30. In 2016, my office authored a report called "The ABCs ofPCBs" that found up to 14 

million students may be exposed to toxic PCBs in schools. These chemicals lurk in 

fluorescent lights and other school building materials, leaking out to threaten the health of 

our children. The EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on PCBs 

in 20 l 0, but has yet to take action on this danger to children's health. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to finalize the rule requiring the replacement of light 

ballasts in schools and daycares that contain toxic PCBs? 

I agree that children should be safe in their schools. In my role as Region 1 

Administrator, I have not been involved in this rulemaking. If confirmed, I look 

forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office. 
29 


35667.174

31. In response to Senator Booker during the hearing, you said, "I think we can all agree that 

workers should be safe in their places of work. They should know that the chemicals that 

they are applying will not adversely affect their health." However, EPA has begun a 

policy of declaring chemicals "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" to workers, 

based on the assumption that it is sufficient to have an unenforceable Safety Data Sheet 

available to workers on site-this categorization allows new chemicals to go on the 

market with no safety restrictions at all. Safety Data Sheets are not enforceable and 

simply describe how a worker could control their exposure and use personal protective 

equipment to limit risks. This contravenes Congress's intent when it required that the 

EPA determine whether a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk to certain 

vulnerable subpopulations, including workers, as part ofTSCA. 

a. Will you commit to ensuring that EPA establishes requirements and restrictions for 

chemical manufacturers that ensure workers are fully protected from risks posed by 

new chemicals, if confirmed? 

b. If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing and revisiting the failure to issue 5(e) 

orders for new chemicals for which EPA determines there may be an unreasonable 

risks, as the law requires, and to ensuring that EPA complies with all the requirements 

of Section 5 ofTSCA? 

I stand by my statement regarding the importance of EPA's role in protecting 

workers. In my current capacity with EPA as Region 1 Administrator, I have not 

been involved in the implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this 

policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following 

up with your office. 

32. The revised TSCA requires EPA to consider "all reasonably available data" in evaluating 

whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In 

the 2016 TSCA revisions, the EPA got new order authority under Section 4 to require 

testing of chemicals. More than two years later, however, EPA has not issued a single 

test order for a chemical under TSCA. Meanwhile, EPA just released its first draft risk 

evaluation, for Pigment Violet 29, and claims that it considered all "reasonably available 

data" in reaching the conclusion that the chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk. It 

is contrary to the entire reauthorization ofTSCA for EPA to be reaching conclusions of 

no unreasonable risk based on chemicals with nothing more than a baseline data set that 

fails to include any chronic hazard endpoints such as cancer, endocrine disruption, twogeneration effects, neurobehavioral effects, and in most cases not even acute testing of 

the PV29 material itself. 

a. Explain your plans for exercising EPA's- thus-far unused-- Section 4 test order 

authority, as well as Section 8 information gathering and other tools, to ensure that 

EPA is assembling and reviewing a complete record of information on chemicals for 

prioritization and evaluation. 
30 


35667.175

b. Describe what you will do to address the Agency's deeply problematic approach to 

defining "all reasonably available data" so that EPA does not continue to reach "no 

unreasonable risk" determinations based on a record barren of scientific information 

or data. 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on these issues and to working with your office and others to address these 

matters of concern. 

33. EPA's Pesticide Office recently determined that glyphosate is "not likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans," contrary to the Agency's own Cancer Guidelines, career 

scientists in the Office of Research and Development, and the Science Advisory Panel 

that reviewed EPA's work. In doing so, the Pesticide Office discounted significant 

evidence of tumors in male mice due to glyphosate exposure. 

a. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all communications between OPPTS 

staff and all outside parties, including industry, are both appropriate and fully 

transparent? 

b. What will you do to ensure that the Pesticides office makes decisions that are 

consistent with the Agency's own Cancer Guidelines? 

Although I have not been involved in the glyphosate risk assessment, if confirmed, I 

look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office. 

34. On December 21, 2016, EPA issued a final risk assessment for tetrachlorvinphos 

(TCVP), a dangerous organophosphate pesticide that is used in some household pet 

products, like flea collars and shampoos. The risk assessment acknowledged that 

epidemiology studies have "consistently identified" neurodevelopmental effects 

associated with organophosphate exposure, including "delays in mental development in 

infants (24-36 months), attention problems and autism spectrum disorder in early 

childhood, and intelligence decrements in school age children." EPA concluded that 

"there is a need to protect children from exposures that may cause these effects." On 

January 4, 2017, EPA issued a press release about the TCVP risk assessment, 

acknowledging that it identified "risks to people, including children ... which exceed the 

Agency's level of concern." The press release asserted that the agency "will issue" a 

Proposed Decision on TCVP' s FIFRA registration in 2017. However, EPA took no 

further action on TCVP's registration in either 2017 or 2018. In the meantime, TCVP 

continues to be sold in household pet products, where it threatens the neurodevelopment 

of young children exposed through their pets. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to issuing a Proposed Decision on TCVP's registration 

in the first half of 20 19? 
31 


35667.176

Although I have not been involved in the TCVP risk assessment, if confirmed, I 

look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office 

on the timing of EPA's actions. 

35. If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing how EPA is interpreting "reasonably 

foreseeable" in the context of new chemical reviews, to ensure it is consistent with the 

letter and intent of revised TSCA? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office. 

Senator Merkley: 

36. The EPA announced in 20 I 7 that the TSCA new chemical review process would not 

include a consideration of the chemical safety risk across all uses of a new chemical, and 

instead would allow new chemicals to enter the marketplace after considering only the 

intended uses identified by the industry applicant. 

I'm concerned that, rather than evaluating the risk a new chemical may pose in the future, 

EPA is considering only the potential risk from the uses that the first manufacturer of the 

chemical initially identifies, even though if that chemical is allowed on the market on that 

basis without any conditions, other manufacturers are likely to use the chemical for other 

purposes. 

Under this approach, EPA would never consider the combined risks from both intended 

and other reasonably foreseen uses of the chemical. That could result in a failure to 

address all of the potential risks of the new chemical, and inadequate protection of human 

health and the environment. 

a. How do you plan on redirecting OCSPP to ensure that chemical reviews are 

implemented as required by TSCA? 

b. If confirmed, will you commit to including in both in both new and existing chemical 

risk evaluations ALL reasonably foreseeable future uses of chemicals under review? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the implementation of 

the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I look forward to being 

briefed on this issue and to following up with your office on these matters. 
32 


35667.177

37. EPA's final fee rule establishes the "user fees" Congress authorized EPA to collect from 

chemical manufacturers and processors to help defray EPA's costs for implementing 

TSCA. In that fee rule, the agency grossly underestimated not only the costs of reviewing 

Confidential Business Information claims (claiming its costs would be only one-fifth of 

its costs to meet a much narrower set of obligations to under the old TSCA), but entirely 

excluded its costs to provide ready access to CBl required under the new TSCA to state 

governments and other qualified persons, or to provide public access to information that 

does not qualify for protection from disclosure. 

a. If chosen to lead the OCSPP, will you commit to prioritizing adequate funding to 

ensure ready access to confidential business information to qualified states and other 

persons, and access to non-confidential information by the public? 

In my current capacity with EPA, I have not been involved in the 

implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy. If confirmed, I 

look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office 

on these matters. 

38. Millions of people are still exposed to asbestos every single day, in schools, commercial 

buildings, construction sites, factories, and homes. Yet EPA's ongoing asbestos risk 

evaluation does NOT account for the existing presence and ongoing use of asbestos. 

a. Do you support EPA's decision to ignore this risk by removing it from the scope of 

the risk evaluation? 

b. Can you pledge to work with this Committee to include legacy use and exposure in 

EPA's ongoing risk evaluation? 

I acknowledge the concerns around the risks posed by asbestos. Although I have 

not been involved in the work on these issues in my role as Region 1 Administrator, 

if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with 

your office. 

39. EPA's ongoing asbestos risk analysis also excludes several types of cancer and lung 

disease, along with all exposure to asbestos resulting from its release into the 

environment. 

a. Will you commit to removing these exclusions, and instead conducting a thorough 

and comprehensive evaluation? 

I acknowledge the concerns around the risks posed by asbestos. Although I have 

not been involved in the work on these issues in my role as Region 1 

Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to 

following up with your office. 
33 


35667.178

40. As you know, chlorpyrifos is a dangerous pesticide that can damage the developing 

brains of children, causing reduced IQ, loss of working memory, and attention deficit 

disorders. After finding unacceptable risks to children, residential uses of this pesticide 

ended in 2000, but it continues to be widely used in U.S. agriculture. 

Farmworkers are exposed to chlorpyrifos from mixing, handling, and applying the 

pesticide, as well as from entering fields where chlorpyrifos was recently sprayed. This is 

why health, civil rights, and labor organizations (including Pineros y Campesinos Unidos 

del Noroeste, Oregon's farmworkers union) sued the EPA to secure a ban on 

chlorpyrifos. 

In August 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration 

endangered public health by keeping chlorpyrifos on the market and ordered EPA to 

move forward with a ban. Unfortunately, the agency is currently appealing that ruling, 

despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies' 

brains. 

a. If confirmed as Assistant Administrator, will you commit to following the 9th 

Circuit's court order to revoke all food tolerances of chlorpyrifos and cancel all 

registrations for chlorpyrifos? 

Although I have not been involved in EPA's actions regarding Chlorpyrifos in 

my role as Region I Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed 

on these issues and to following up with your office. EPA is a rule of law agency 

and will comply with court orders when final following appropriate appeals. 

41. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act mandates that EPA's 

evaluations of chemicals determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk to human 

health or the environment. The law requires EPA to consider and protect susceptible 

populations, including children, pregnant women and workers- those who face greater 

exposure to chemicals or are more sensitive to the exposures they face. 

EPA is proposing to use, and may already be using, "New Approach Methods" for 

prioritizing and assessing the risk of chemicals in our environment, but these methods 

have some severe deficiencies that will lead them to underestimate the potential impacts 

to vulnerable populations. 

First, the New Approach Methods for estimating exposure to chemicals do not include 

children under the age of six, highly exposed populations (workers), and are limited in 

their ability to predict exposures for pregnant women. Using these methods for exposurebased decisions under TSCA would, therefore, fail to meet the statutory mandate to 

protect these populations. 
34 


35667.179

Second, the New Approach Methods for determining toxicity have multiple important 

gaps- limited capacity to determine the toxicity of chemicals that are metabolized in the 

body, and reduced ability to determine potential developmental or reproductive outcomes 

-that prohibit their use in identifying chemicals that ostensibly do not pose a potential 

for harm. 

a. Given these limitations, what actions will you take to prevent these tools from being 

used in ways that do not protect children and other susceptible populations and 

therefore fail to meet the requirements under the law? 

b. If you were presented with information that demonstrated the failure of these tools to 

protect pregnant women, what would you do to ensure that they are not used in a way 

that could harm future generations? 

c. Can you commit to ensuring full public disclosure of the ways in which new tools are 

deployed under TSCA including a demonstration that the new methods are protective 

of kids, families, and the people that labor every day to propel our economy? 

As a professor of environmental justice, I am committed to considering impacts on, 

and to protecting, all Americans- particularly our most vulnerable. While in my 

current capacity with EPA as Region 1 Administrator, I have not been involved in 

the implementation of the TSCA law and cannot speak to this policy, if confirmed, I 

look forward to being briefed on this issue and to following up with your office. 

Senator Rounds: 

42. Administrator Dunn, on November 4th, 2018, the Rapid City Journal published an article 

entitled "The Toxic Legacy ofFirefighting Foam." The article details the disturbing 

extent of contamination resulting from the Department of Defense's use of fire fighting 

foam containing non-stick chemicals called PFAS (pee-foss) near Ellsworth Airforce 

Base. As you know, these chemicals have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease and 

other negative health consequences. 

a. These dangerous chemicals have leaked into the water supply utilized by civilians in 

western South Dakota. Nationwide, the extent of the problem is not known. That is 

why I joined Senator Stabenow in sponsoring the PFAS Detection Act, which would 

direct the U.S. Geological Survey to perform a coast-to-coast survey of this problem. 

Should you be nominated, what actions do you plan to take to understand the extent 

of this contamination nationwide? 

b. As Region l Administrator, what have you done thus far to determine the extent of 

this problem in your region? 

c. Do you believe that industry is poised to assist with risk mitigation as it relates to 

PFAS? 
35 


35667.180

In my current capacity as EPA Region 1 Administrator I have had the opportunity 

to work closely with communities impacted by PFOA/PFOS contamination. All six 

New England states are impacted by PFAS contamination. I have met with 

community groups, parents, and with our state and tribal partners to discuss 

concerns and various methods of testing and site identification. I am proud of the 

opportunity we had in New England to host the first regional workshop on PFAS in 

June 2018 and to improve the level of communication with communities around 

these chemicals. If confirmed, I will remain committed to working on reducing the 

adverse impacts of these chemicals on human health and the environment, to 

leverage all sources of risk mitigation and risk communication- including having 

industry take action for cleanup where they are found responsible- and to being 

fully briefed on what specific authorities lie in OCSPP to address this concern. 

43. Administrator Dunn, in 2016, the EPA published a health advisory for PFAS and PFOA 

(pee-fo-uh), which established the level at which these chemicals become harmful to 

human health. While these advisories are helpful, they do not come equipped with federal 

resources to mitigate harm. 

a. From the most stringent to the least interventionist, what are the range of authorities 

the Office of Chemical Safety has to deal with these chemicals? 

b. Does Congress need to consider granting the EPA additional authorities to target this 

class of chemicals? 

c. You have a broad range of experience regarding environmental and chemical 

regulation. In you professional opinion, why was this issue not dealt with sooner? 

d. Are you confident that our scientific understanding of this issue is adequate, or does 

more need to be completed in that regard? 

In my current capacity as EPA Region 1 Administrator I have had the opportunity 

to work closely with communities impacted by PFOA/PFOS contamination. All six 

New England states are impacted by PFAS contamination. I have met with 

community groups, parents, and with our state and tribal partners to discuss 

concerns and various methods of testing and site identification. I am proud ofthe 

opportunity we had in New England to host the first regional workshop on PFAS in 

June 2018 and to improve the level of communication with communities around 

these chemicals. If confirmed, I will remain committed to working on reducing the 

adverse impacts ofthese chemicals on human health and the environment. If 

confirmed, I am willing to after briefing work with your office to explore whether 

EPA needs additional authority and to with my colleagues at EPA and across the 

federal agencies to assess the status of our scientific understandings. 
36 


35667.181

44. Administrator Dunn, on October 3, 2018, the Environment and Public Works Oversight 

subcommittee I chair held a hearing entitled "Oversight of the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Implementation of Sound and Transparent Science in Regulation." During the 

hearing, we heard testimony about opportunities for greater transparency at the EPA. 

a. In this new position, you will have a direct role in chemical regulation. Can you speak 

to the value you place on sound and transparent science? 

b. If you are confirmed, are you willing to work with me to explore greater opportunities 

for transparency at the EPA? 

I value sound and transparent science. If confirmed, I am committed to working 

with your office to explore greater opportunities for transparency at the EPA. 

45. Administrator Dunn, on April 30, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule entitled 

"Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science." This proposed rule would require 

the EPA to implement transparency measures designed to isolate the EPA's regulations 

from unknown biases. 

a. Have you had an opportunity to review this proposed rule? What is your opinion on 

this rulemaking effort? 

b. Do you believe there are ways in which this proposed rule could be improved prior to 

a final rulemaking? 

c. Should the EPA consider data disclosure requirements consistent with the practices of 

major peer-reviewed academic journals? 

Although I have not been involved in the consideration of this proposed rule in my 

role as Region 1 Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this 

issue and to following up with your office on this matter. 

46. Administrator Dunn, in my home state of South Dakota, agriculture is our number one 

industry. Consequently, when our agricultural economy is not allowed to thrive, the 

entire state suffers. In the past, the EPA has not been as receptive to agricultural concerns 

as they should have been. I am pleased that Acting Administrator Wheeler appears to be 

charting a better course at the EPA. 

a. As Region I Administrator, what has been your experience dealing with agricultural 

stakeholders? 

b. If you are confirmed, how do you plan to incorporate agricultural input into your 

decision-making? 
37 


35667.182

Agriculture plays a critical role in promoting American life and encouraging a 

vibrant economy. Several Region 1 states have vibrant agricultural economies and I 

have had opportunities to learn more about how important these activities are to the 

states' identities, workforce opportunities, and culture. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with all stakeholders, including agricultural stakeholders, to promote 

the mission of the Agency. 

47. Administrator Dunn, the Federallnsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, called 

FlFRA, allows the EPA to issue a "conditional" registration for a pesticide when the 

registrant meets certain criteria under FIFRA. In recent years, NGOs have successfully 

challenged these registrations. These revocations can be extremely harmful to the 

economic stability of what are often small businesses that are relying on their registration 

to market years of hard work. Further, these revocations hurt American innovation, 

consumers and agricultural operations that rely on these ground breaking new 

technologies. 

a. It is our understanding that the EPA has recently implemented a policy of not issuing 

any more conditional registrations despite the fact Congress specifically authorized 

the EPA to do so. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit vacated a nanosilver conditional 

registration over 18 months ago and EPA has not re-issued it. If confirmed will you 

commit to reassessing this new policy, and expedite the decision-making process for 

re-issuance of that and any other vacated conditional registration remanded back to 

your office? 

Although I have not been involved in the consideration ofthis policy in my role 

as EPA Region 1 Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on 

this issue and to following up with your office. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

48. Will you commit to reviewing EPA's final rule for chemical risk evaluations as well as 

the proposed problem formulations for asbestos, 1-bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, 

1, 4 dioxane, cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster, methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, 

perchloroethylene, pigment violet 29, and trichloroethylene? If you determine that any of 

these documents are inconsistent with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as 

amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, will you 

commit to rectifying these documents so that they are consistent with relevant statutes? 

Although I have not been involved in the assessment of the first 10 chemicals under 

TSCA in my role as EPA Region 1 Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to 

being briefed on these risk evaluations, to ensuring that EPA follows the law, and to 

following up with your office. 
38 


35667.183

49. 36 C.F.R. §1222.22 provides that federal employees must keep "adequate documentation 

of agency business." This is defined to include "document[ing] the formulation and 

execution of basic policies and decisions[ ... ], including all substantive decisions and 

commitments reached orally." Will you commit to familiarizing yourself with this and 

all other regulations governing records creation and retention and pledge to ensure that all 

OCSPP staff follows applicable federal rules governing records creation and retention? 

Yes, ifl am confirmed. 

50. Under 5. C.F.R. §2635.502, federal employees are not supposed to participate in specific 

matters such as litigation that involve their former employers or clients for a period of 

one year following the termination of the employment or client relationship. Earlier this 

year, Nancy Beck, a Deputy Assistant Administrator in OCSPP, received a waiver 

allowing her to participate in litigation in which her forn1er employer, the American 

Chemistry Council, had intervened. Do you agree that EPA should not make exceptions 

to ethics rules such as it did in this case, and will you commit to strictly enforcing ethics 

rules for all those who work at OCSPP? 

If confirmed, I will rely on the guidance from EPA's career ethics officials to 

determine any issues for which I am to be recused and ensure all employees under 

OCSPP do so as well. 

51. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has developed a systematic 

review protocol that has been reviewed by the National Academies. The National 

Academies' most recent report on the IRIS program gives the IRIS systematic review 

protocol positive marks. Political officials in OCSPP have developed their own, 

substantially different, systematic review protocol that has not been reviewed by the 

National Academies. Why should chemical risk evaluations depend in part on a 

systematic review protocol that has not been vetted by the National Academies? Will 

you commit to using a systematic review protocol for chemical risk evaluations that has 

been vetted by the National Academies? 

Although I have not been involved in the development of systematic review 

approaches; if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to 

following up with your office. 
39 


35667.184

52. The United States is a Party to the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Under the 

Convention, the United States has obligations related to reducing mercury use in product 

manufacturing and in industrial processes. The U.S. must also discourage new mercury 

product types, discourage new uses of mercury in manufacturing processes, and comply 

with reporting obligations related to each of these control measures. In 2019, EPA will 

be identifying the next round of 20 high priority substances for chemical risk evaluations 

under TSCA. Will you commit to including mercury and mercury compounds among the 

20 high priority substances to be designated in 2019, so that the U.S. can meet its 

international obligations? If you will not make such a commitment, please explain how 

the U.S. will meet its Minimata Convention obligations to reduce mercury use in 

products and processes without using its TSCA authorities to do so. 

Although I have not been involved in the work leading up to the selection of high 

priority substances for risk evaluation under TSCA in my role as Region 1 

Administrator, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this issue and to 

following up with your office regarding these matters. 
40 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Throughout this hearing and with questions for the record, the 

committee members will have an opportunity to learn more about 

your commitment to the public service and our great Nation. I 

would ask that you please respond both to the oral as well as the 

written questions that may be asked of you by the committee. 

I have to ask several following questions that we ask all nominees on behalf of the committee. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee or designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to your responsibilities? 

Ms. DUNN. I do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents in electronic and other forms of communication of 

information are provided to this committee and its staff and other 

appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. DUNN. Absolutely. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you know of any matters which you may 

or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of 

interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. DUNN. I am not aware of any matters. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for the answers. 

I am going to reserve the balance of my time for use during the 

hearing. 

Senator CARPER. If you are confirmed for this position for which 

you might be moving out of your mom’s house, does she know this? 

That is my first question. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. DUNN. She is aware. 

Senator CARPER. Is she OK with this? 

Ms. DUNN. She is OK with it. I think she is going to miss me. 

Senator CARPER. She will miss you when you are gone. 

Getting on to a more serious note, I know you worked hard on 

the laws and you talked about it here today. Some of our staff 

members behind me and on either side of me worked with you in 

your previous capacities, and folks back in Delaware, several Secretaries of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, one of who is now leaving the National Wildlife Federation. 

They know of your professionalism firsthand. We have heard a 

bunch of lovely testimonials about the work you have done and the 

way you have conducted yourself in your current capacity and previous capacities. Having said all that, none of that will matter if 

you cannot or do not make real changes in the agency’s chemical 

safety efforts. 

The first question is, can you tell us briefly what changes you intend to make if you are confirmed and what assurances you have 

from the political leadership at EPA that you will have the authority to make those changes? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, that is a very good question. If confirmed, 

I intend to immediately hold open door hours with the career staff 

at EPA. I want to find out where they are being listened to, how 

41 

they are being treated, and how their decisions are being valued 

by the team. 

I intend to work closely with all members of this very large office, but I do want to be open to them. I have learned working in 

EPA New England that the EPA career staff are experts. They 

know what they are doing, they have great recommendations, and 

they work hard. 

My first priority will be to connect with the career staff, let them 

know their opinions are valued, and let them know that, as a leader, I want to hear from them. I intend to, as Acting Administrator 

Wheeler has done, include career staff in briefings, and make sure 

we are listening to them. That is one change I intend to make. I 

do not know if it is a change but it is how I operate. 

The second thing I would like to do is prioritize the workload 

that we have. As you know, the statute has a number of deadlines. 

We have 3 years of work that has occurred under the reauthorized 

law and we have more things happening in 2019. 

I would like to work closely with you and your colleagues to find 

out where EPA can make the most impactful changes to the work 

that has occurred. Do we need to look backward or do we need to 

look forward? I am willing to do both but I think we have to 

prioritize which direction to go. 

I intend, as a second action, to take a very, very comprehensive 

look at the workload and prioritize the tasks we need to implement. 

Senator CARPER. Be very brief on the third thing because I have 

one more question I want to ask you before my time expires. 

Ms. DUNN. The third thing I would commit to doing is maintaining regular contact both with this committee, and also certainly the 

members of the House who are passionate about this statute, to 

hear firsthand what you expected. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Less than a year ago, I think in your previous capacity, you sent 

to the EPA a letter stating that the law requires all uses of a chemical to be evaluated. I would ask unanimous consent for that letter 

to be submitted for the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

42 


35667.052

EPA eases path for new chemicals, raising fears of health hazards 

Breaking News Emails 

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday 

mornings. 

4:28 AM EST I Updated Jan. 17, 2018 I 11 :31 AM EST 

By Suzy Khimm 

WASHINGTON The Environmental Protection Agency is shifting course under the Trump 

administration on how it assesses new chemicals for health and environmental hazards, streamlining a 

safety review process that industry leaders say is too slow and cumbersome. 

But some former EPA officials, as well as experts and advocates, say the agency is skipping vital steps that 

protect the public from hazardous chemicals that consumers have never used before, undermining new 

laws and regulations that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in20!6. 

According to these critics, that could mean that manufacturers might get approval to introduce a new 

chemical for one purpose, without getting a thorough, timely review of the chemical's safety if it is later 

used for a different purpose. Asbestos, for example, was commonly used in building insulation before the 

EPA cracked down on its use, but the carcinogenic chemical is still found in automobiles 

posing hazards for garage mechanics and is widely 

This Aug. 29, 2017 file photo shows the TPC petrochemical plant, with downtown Houston in the 

background.David J. Phillip I AP file 
43 


35667.053

In recent months, the EPA has quietly overhauled its process for determining whether new chemicals 

used in everything from household cleaners and industrial manufacturing to children's toys pose a 

serious risk to human health or the environment. Among other changes, the agency will no longer require 

that manufacturers who want to produce new, potentially hazardous chemicals sign legal agreements that 

restrict their use under certain conditions. 

Such agreements, known as consent orders, will still be required if the EPA believes that the manufacturer's 

intended use for a new chemical poses a risk to the public health and the environment But the agency 

won't require consent orders when it believes there arc risks associated with "reasonably foreseen" uses of 

the new chemical- ones that go beyond what a manufacturer says it's intending to do, but which the 

agency believes are reasonable to anticipate in the future. 

Instead the EPA will rely on a broader measure, known as ggniticant new-use rules, to regulate chemicals 

that are likely to pose a risk if they're used for a different purpose. The agency typically has to issue these 

rules 

whenever they want to restrict the broad use of potentially hazardous chemicals, since consent orders apply 

only to a single manufacturer. 

Eliminating consent orders in these cases would be "more efficient," said Jeff Morris, director of the EPA's 

taxies program. He laid out the agency's shift to significant new use rules at a public meeting in early 

December: "It's our belief that they could be equally protective but eliminate this one step." 

Chemical industry lobbyists had pushed for the change, arguing that the EPA's rising use of consent orders 

was unwarranted. Chemical manufacturers "are burdened by the delay of waiting for EPA to draft the 

orders, negotiating them with EPA, and then waiting for EPA to issue the orders,,, the American Chemistry 

Council, the industry's largest trade association, told the agency days before President Donald Tmmp took 

office. 

But consumer advocates, along with some former agency officials and research experts, believe that EPA's 

moves are sabotaging a safety review process that Congress had taken great pains to bolster. Richard 

Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, points out that the 2016law requires the 

EPA to assess the broad use of chemicals because manufacturers frequently find different uses for 

hazardous substances over time, as in the use of asbestos. 

"EPA is explicitly disavowing and downplaying a tool that's really been a cornerstone of new chemical 

regulation," said Bob Sussman, a former EPA attorney under Obama and counsel for the Safer Chemicals, 

Healthy Families coalition, which represents environmental and public health advocates. "'We believe EPA 

is taking a big step backward in the protection of health and the environment without an offsetting benefit,'' 

'Playing a dangerous game' 

Under EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's leadership, the agency has taken major industry-friendly steps to 

loosen its regulation of legacy chemicals. Last year, the EPA illlli\yed bans on chemicals already in 

widespread use, including a lethal substance in paint strippers and a pesticide linked to developmental 

disabilities in children. 

But the agency is also overhauling its process of reviewing new, unproven chemicals that have yet to bit the 

marketplace, The changes come in the wake of intense lobbying by the chemical industry, which 

complained that the EPA was taking too long to clear innovative new products for commercial use that the 

industry considered safe. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt testifies about the fiscal year 2018 

budget during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 27, 2017.Saul Loeb I AFP- Getty Images file 
44 


35667.154

"We were very concerned as an -----that was one of our 

administration," said Robert a lobbyist lor the Society 

Affiliates, who met with Pruitt last year. 

when l talked to the 

Manufacturers and 

When the Trump administration took oflice, the EPA was facing a serious 

safety reviews_ About 600 cases had piled up after Congress approved 

of new chemicals 

sweeping reforms to the 

fu!Jl§l!llli~_i&_!l!J:Qj-"~-<;JJI~~'A), which passed in June 20 J 6 after decades of deliberation and was called 

Safety lor the 21st Century Act, after the Democratic senator from New 

Jersey_ 

For the first time, the EPA under the act was required to make an explicit detennination that a new 

chemical was safe before it could be sold to consumers, using stricter criteria to evaluate their health and 

environmental risks_ The new law also required the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals already in 

commercial use, by specific deadlines. 

https:l!www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epa--eases-path~new-chem!ca!s-ralsing~fears-hea!th-hazards-n838201 4/11 

11/28/2018 EPA eases path for new chemicals, raising fears of health hazards 

At the urging of industry, ,.,__,~="-'" expedite the post-Lautenbcrg review process for new 

chemicals "to make the more efficient, while ensuring chemical safety." With great 

fanfare, he !!lllllil1!ll££lt!he EPA had cleared its backlog in August and unveiled its early refonns to the 

safety review process. 

But some public-health experts and tbnner officials say that the EPA's efforts to streamline the program are 

undennining its newly expanded authority to require testing when it believes there is insufficient data, or 

when future uses may pose a risk. 

"What I'm observing is an effott by the agency and also some in the industry to turn back the dock and 

behave as though the Lautenberg Act was never passed in the first place," said Lynn Goldman, dean of 

George Washington University's school of public health and a fonner EPA official under Clinton. "The 

agency has been granted more authority to do testing, then it put hands in its pockets and said it doesn't 

want to use this authority." 

Critics say there's a big diflerence between the consent orders they want the EPA to issue and the agency's 

proposed alternative. Consent orders often include mandatory testing of new chemicals lor potential health 

and environmental hazards. By contrast, significant new-use rules typically don't require testing, though 

they can recommend that it should happen in the future if a manufacturer wants to use a restricted chemical. 

have already been done, says Veena Singla, an environmental health 

researcher at the University San Francisco_ "Chemicals do end up being used for many 

different applications than what the manufacturer originally thought or intended," she said. "After the fact, 

we've seen what the problem is: The chemical is out there." 
45 


35667.054

How Much Has the EPA Changed One Year Since the Election? 

Nov. 8, 201702:42 

The Trump administration says that its safety reviews will be just as robust under its changes to the 

program. If a manufacturer wants to use a chemical for a new purpose that might be risky say, by putting 

the substance in water- it's still legally required to seek the EPA's approval ifthere are significant newuse restrictions in place. The EPA can then mandate more testing at that point, said Morris: "The end result 

is that there would be the same amount of testing." 

But public-health advocates say there's no guarantee that the EPA will require the same testing further 

down the line, arguing that consent orders provide far more assurance that the agency is properly 

scrutinizing toxic substances. They now fear that the EPA will go even further to relax the law: The agency 

is currently deciding whether it will allow manufacturers to commercialize new chemicals while it is still 

hammering out the rules restricting future, reasonably foreseen uses something that industry groups are 

currently pushing for. 

https:f/WMN.nbcnews.com/news/us~news/epa-eases-path-new-chemica!s-raising-fears-hea!th-hazards-n838201 6/11 

11/28/2018 EPA eases path for new chemicals, raising fears of health hazards 

Recommended 

J,OOO-pound steer is too big for the slaughterhouse 

Sens. Sanders, Lee explain bipartisan bill to end U.S. support for Saudi-led war in 

Yemen 

If the EPA lets these chemicals on the marketplace early, then it will be "blatantly violating the law" that 

Congress passed to tighten these safety reviews, said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who co-authored the 

Lauten berg Act and help push it into law after Lauten berg's death in 2013. 

The new law requires the EPA "to review the safety of all uses of a new, and potentially dangerous, 

chemical before allowing it to be sold to consumers, not just selective uses," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., 

the top- ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. If the agency allows a 

chemical to be sold before putting all its restrictions into place, that "contradicts the spirit and letter of the 

law," he added. 

"This may please Pruitt's corporate allies, but it is playing a dangerous game, with the safety of millions of 

Americans at stake," Udall said. 
46 


35667.055

'Regrettable substitutions' 

Consumer advocates say that it's critical for the EPA to be aggressive about putting the 2016 law into 

effect, given the agency's past failures to protect the public from toxic chemicals. 

Older flame retardants linked to cancer were phased out in the 1970s, only to be replaced by new flame 

retardants that were also linked to cancer, hormone disruption and development problems, despite passing 

the EPA's safety review process. 

Protestor Cathy McFeeters holds a sign up at the New Hanover County Government Complex on June 15, 

2017 during a press conference after officials from Chemours Company meet with Wilmington area 

officials about GenX, a chemical the company's plant in Fayetteville has been releasing into the Cape Fear 

River. The river water is used for drinking water in much of Southeastern North Carolina.Ken Blevins I The 

Star-News via AP 

Other "IT.grettablc substitutions" include bisphenol-S, which was intended to be a safe replacement for 

BPA; and 

GenX, a substitute for a carcinogenic substance used to make Teflon, only to be later linked to cancer as 

well. Right before Trump took office. the federal government agreed to pay more than $2 billion to veterans 

who 

developed leukemia, liver cancer and Parkinson's disease after exposure to water contaminated with 

trichloroethylene and other chemicals at a North Carolina military base. 

Such horror stories helped build broad bipartisan support for the 2016 overhaul, which Congress passed on 

a nearly unanimous vote. Under the old regime, the EPA didn't have to sign off on new chemicals if it 

concluded that they were likely to be safe. If the manufacturer never heard anything from the agency within 

90 days, it could go ahead and start making its new product. Under the new law. the EPA has to make an 

affirmative decision that a new chemical is safe before it can be commercialized-- the crux of its new 

safety review process. 

Getting to market sooner 

The chemical industry, however, insists that the 2016 overhaul was never intended to make radical reforms 

across the board. The new law "really doesn't do very much for new chemicals- the process was the part 

ofTSCA that was really working pretty well," Helminiak said. 

Before the EPA had unveiled its Trump-era changes, industry groups argued that the agency was taking a 

needlessly draconian approach toward new chemicals reviews, requiring consent orders where none were 

necessary. When a manufacturer wants the EPA to approve a new chemical, it describes its intended usc for 

the substance. So the EPA "accomplishes nothing useful" by subjecting them to consent orders for other 

purposes they have no intention of pursuing, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said in January. 

Instead, it would simply burden manufacturers with onerous testing requirements and other conditions that 

make it harder for them to sell innovative new products, industry groups said. 

The EPA's new approach is likely to reduce the testing that manufacturers who first bring these new 

chemicals to market are required to do. Using significant new-use rules (SNURs) "reduces the testing that 

the EPA is seeking to impose, because testing is rarely required in a SNUR," said Richard Engler, a former 

EPA scientist who now works for Bergeson & Campbell, a law firm that represents chemical 

manufacturers. "If someone is of the view that every consent order should have testing in it, then yes, 

switching to SNURs is going to produce less data," Engler said, though he believes EPA's new approach 

will be just as protective. 
47 


35667.056

But industry groups say the agency still hasn't gone far enough to speed up the safety review process, 

warning that the latest rcfonns could bring their own delays. 

Significant new-usc rules can take far longer to finalize than consent orders, since they are regulations 

subject to a public notice and comment period. If the EPA detennines that a new chemical is safe for its 

intended use, a manufacturer should be able to start making and selling that product immediately, without 

waiting for the EPA to finalize its new rules for separate, reasonably foreseeable uses, said the ACC' s 

Michael Walls: "There's got to be a way to get to market earlier." 

Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund warns the EPA against giving the green light too early. Even if 

a company sticks to the usc of a chemical that the agency has deemed safe, it can't predict what other 

parties might do with it once it's on the market, said Denison: "Companies say they can't control how 

chemicals are being used." 

'This EPA has worked very well with industry' 

The EPA says that it's still deliberating how long manufacturers will have to wait to bring their new 

chemicals to market. "This is an area that we are discussing," Morris said in December. 

Consumer advocates fear the EPA will ultimately heed industry's call. Under the new administration, 

industry heavyweights have been able to appeal directly to their fonner colleagues: Trump appointee Nancy 

Beck, a fonner senior executive at the ACC, is now a top deputy for the EPA's chemical safety office. 

Trump's nominee to lead the office, Michael Dourson, spent decades conducting industry-friendly research 

for the ACC and Dow Chemical, among others. He worked as a senior EPA adviser for months before 

withdrawing his nomination in December, under fire for his industry ties. 

In this video grab, Nancy Beck speaks about the use of science in the rule-making process on March 9, 

2017 in Washington.U.S. Senate Committee Channel 

In recent months, the agency has worked closely with the ACC to revamp the paperwork that manufacturers 

must submit to get new chemicals approved. With the group's help, the EPA consulted three industry giants 

Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, and the BASI' Corporation- to revise its new chemical application 

process. 

"It's always important to get feedback from companies using the document," David Tobias, an EPA 

scientist, said at the agency's December meeting. "We've already made some changes based on this 

consultation." (The EPA declined to specify the changes it's made and said it is working with "a variety of 

stakeholders" on the new chemicals program.) 

Industry groups say they're hardly getting a free pass: From their perspective, the EPA hasn't hesitated to 

tighten its scrutiny of new chemicals, placing more stringent restrictions on their use and expanding the 

scope of their reviews. But they acknowledge that Pruitt's EPA has been receptive to their concerns. 

"This EPA has worked very well with industry," Helminiak said. "They really have certainly listened to 

what the specialty chemical industry has to say." 

CORRECTION (11 :30 a.m., Jan. 17, 2018): An earlier version of this article misstated a chemical that 

was considered a "regrettable substitution" for another chemical by advocates. It was bisphenol-S that 

replaced BPA, not the other way around. The article also misstated the chemical that contaminated a North 

Carolina military base. It was trichloroethylene, not GenX. 
48 


35667.057

SPONSORED STORIES byTaboola 

Your Next Great App Awaits-Finish Signing Up for Azure 

Microsoft Azure 

Don't Be Embarrassed By Email Mistakes- Download This App 

Grammarly 

https:llwww.nbcnews.com/newslus-newslepa-eases-pa!h-new-chemicals-raising-fears-health-hazards-n838201 9111 

1112612018 EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk· The Salt: NPR 

Pick Your NPR Station 

There are at least two stations nearby 

The Salt 

LIVE RADIO SHOWS 
49 


35667.058

FOOD FOR THOUGHT 

EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite 

Its Own Evidence Of Risk 

LISTEN 3:44 

Download Transcript 

QUEUE 

March 29, 2017 ·4:02PM ET 

Heard on All Things Considered 

DAN CHARLES 

Pesticide warning sign in an orange grove. The sign, in English and Spanish, warns that the pesticide chlorpyrifos, or Lorsban, has 

been applied to these orange trees. 

https:l/www.npr.org/sectionslthesaltl2017/03/29/521898976/wiU-the--epa~reject-a~pesticide-or-1ts-own-scientific-evidence 1/11 

1112612018 EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk . The Salt: NPR 

Jim West/Science Source 

Update 7:06P.M. Eastern: The EPA says it's reversing course and keeping chlorpyrifos on 

the market. 
50 


35667.059

p 

Catch up on the 

SUBSCRIBE 

11/26/2018 EPA Decides 

N 

Despite lts Own 

the 

regulations, 

assemhled on 

sent every weekday, 

NPR 
51 


35667.060

"This chemical doesn't scare us at all," he says. 

He does wear special clothing to protect himself, though. Because this chemical attacks the 

nervous systems of insects and people. It can cause dizziness, vomiting and diarrhea. So he's 

careful when handling it. "You don't spill any of it. It goes into the sprayer, we don't splash it 

around and make a mess," he says. 

If he's spraying near the house, he might tell the kids to say inside until the job is done. "By 

doing all this, it's a safe product," he says. "It's doing it's job and it's doing it well." 

Fruit and vegetable farmers use this chemical on citrus trees, strawberries, broccoli and 

cauliflower. This can leave residues on those foods in the supermarket. Several environmental 

advocacy groups have gone to court to force the EPA to ban the use of chlorpyrifos by farmers 

because of the risks that the chemical poses to consumers and to people who live near fields 

where it's used. 

"Based on the harm that this pesticide causes, the EPA cannot, consistent with the law, allow 

it in our food," says Patti Goldman, an attorney with the environmental advocacy group 

Earthjustice. 

More than a decade ago, the EPA banned the spraying of chlorpyrifos indoors to get rid of 

household bugs. 

At that time, though, the EPA thought that use on the farm posed little risk. The agency was 

relying on scientific studies that directly measured the immediate effect of chlorpyrifos on the 

nervous system. Residues on food weren't nearly enough to keep 

https :1/www .npr. org/sectlons/thesa!t/2017/03129/521898976/wi!l~the~epa~reject -a-pesticlde«or -its-own-scientific-evidence 3/11 

11/26/2018 EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk The Salt: NPR 

nerves from working normally. 

But then new evidence surfaced. Jim Jones, who was assistant administrator of the EPA and 

responsible for pesticide regulation before he left the agency in January, says the new 

evidence came from studies in which scientists followed hundreds of mothers and their 

newborn children, monitoring their exposure to lots of chemicals. One of these studies, by 

researchers at Columbia University, measured the levels of chlorpyrifos in blood taken from 

umbilical cords when babies were born. 
52 


35667.061

While the study was going on, the ban on indoor uses of chlorpyrifos came into effect. So over 

the course of those years, scientists were able to gather data on children who had been 

exposed to very different levels of the pesticide. 

They found that exposure to chlorpyrifos caused small but measurable differences in brain 

function. At age 7, the average IQ of children who had been exposed to high levels of 

chlorpyrifos was a few percentage points lower than children who hadn't been exposed to 

much of the chemical at all. Other studies showed that some people are much more vulnerable 

to chlorpyrifos because of their genetic makeup. 

The studies suggested that this chemical was more dangerous than people had previously 

realized. 

Jones says the EPA struggled to translate the findings of these studies into a prediction of risk 

from chlorpyrifos residues on food. For one thing, the agency had to come up with an estimate 

of how much chlorpyrifos the women had been exposed to, based on levels of chlorpyrifos in 

their blood. 

"But once we cracked that nut, and you had the risk evaluated and in front of you, it became, 

in my view, a very straightforward decision, with not a lot of ambiguity in terms of what you 

would do," he says. 

The law on pesticides is very strict: It requires "a reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result" to consumers or people living in the areas where pesticides are applied. 

https:/lwww.npr.orgfsectionslthesa!U2017/03/29/521898976/wil!-the-epa-reject-a-pesticide-or-its-own-scientific-evidence 4/11 

11/26/2018 EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk The Salt: NPR 

In 2015, the EPA proposed a ban on chlorpyrifos. 

Dow Agrosciences, the company that sells chlorpyrifos, insists that a ban is unjustified. 

Jim Aidala, a former pesticide regulator at the EPA who now works as a consultant to Dow, 

says that many scientists -including those on a committee that the EPA asked to look at this 

question - aren't convinced by the scientific methods the EPA used. "There's a lot of 

controversy about this," he says. 
53 


35667.062

More From PR 
54 


35667.063

6/8/18 Boston Globe A 2018 WLi''IR 17619810 

Boston Globe (MA) 

Copyright 2018 BostonGJobe Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 

Jnne 8, 2018 Section: News 

EPA eases rules on evaluating chemicals Air, ground, or water contact won't be weighed 

Eric Lipton; New York Times 

WASHINGTON The Trump adrnin,isn·ation, after 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 the Environmental Agency show. 

Under a law passed Congress during the final year of the Obama administration, EPA was 

required for the tirst time to evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they 

should face restrictions. or even be 

everyday use, such as dry-cleaning 

products like shampoos and cosmetics. 

But as it moves forward reviewing the 

the market. The chemicals include many in 

substances used in health and beauty 

batch of I 0 chemicals, the EPA 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 than l ,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency. 

Instead, the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with chemical in the 

workplace or elsewhere. The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals leading to the 

contamination of drinking water, for will often not in deciding whether to restrict 

or ban them. 

The approach is a big victory tor the 

scope of its risk evaluations. Nancy B. 

industry's main lobbying groups. 

industry, which has repeatedly pressed the to narrow the 

the appointee to help oversee the EPA's 

executive at the American Chemistry Council, one of the 

A spokesman for the EPA said that the Clean Air the Clean Water Act and other laws already provided 

the agency with the authority to regulate chemicals tound in the air, rivers, and drinking water. so there was no 

need to revisit them under the 2016 which updated Toxic Substances Control Act !976. 

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 " said the spokesman, Jahan Wilcox. 

EPA eases rules evaluating chemicals, 2018 WLNR 1761!!810 

But three former agency officials, including former supervisor of the toxic program. said that the 

EPA's approach would result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals. 
55 


35667.064

"It is ridiculous," said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the 

EPA, 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." 

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 EPA was ignoring its directive for a 

comprehensive analysis of risks. 

"Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation's broken chemical safety laws, but 

Pruitt's EPA is failing to put the new law to use as intended," Udal! said in a statement referring to Scott 

Pruitt, the EPA administrator. 

A spokesman for Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate 

committee that oversees the agency, did not respond to a request for comment. 

Cumulatively, the approach being taken tor the l 0 chemicals means the EPA'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. 

Beck declined requests for comment. She had pushed the EPA during the Ohama administration to 

narrow the scope of the risk evaluations, in a fashion similar to the approach under her watch. 

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. 

The American Chemistry Council said in a statement last week that the EPA's approach met "the requirements 

of the law," adding that it wanted the risk assessments to be "protective and practicaL" 

Under the approach, the EPA 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 EPA as a likely 

carcinogen ·- during manufacturing or when using it in dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, or handling certain inkremoval products. 

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 EPA 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 EPA has discretion to select the 

conditions of use that it will consider." 

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. 

"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 EPA official who now works as a consultant to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an advocacy group. 

---- Index References 

Company: AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 
56 


35667.065

11/28/2018 Sources: EPA blocks warnings on cancer*causing chemica!- POLITICO 

POLITICO 

Sources: EPA blocks warnings on cancer-causing chemical 

Burying the formaldehyde study is part of an effort by Pmitt and aides to undermine EPA's rcseareh program, current and former officials tell 

POLfflCO. 

By ANNIE SNIDER I 07/06/2018 05:07AM EDT 

The Trump administration is suppressing an Rmironmcntal Protection Agency report that warns that most Americans inhale enough 

formaldehyde \'apor in the course of daily life to put them al risk of den-loping k~ukemia and other ailmenls, a current and a former agent.'}' official 

told POLITICO. 

tor Scott Pruitt arc delaying its release as part of a campaign to undermine 

chemicals. 

The warnings are contained in a draft health assessment EPA scientists completed just before Donald Trump became president, according 

to the officials. They said top adYisers to departing Adminlstra the agency's independent research into the health risks of toxic 

Story 

Formaldehyde is one of the most commonly used chemicnls in the country. Americans arc exposed to it through wood composites in 

cabinets and furniture, as well as air pollution from major refineries. The new assessment would giw greater weight to warnings about the 
57 


35667.066

Andrew Wheeler, the No.2 ofl1cial at EPA ·who will be the ag-enc'}''!> new acting chief as of Monday, also hus a history with the chemical. He was staff 

dircetor for the Sena!l' Environment and Public Works Commitle0 in 2004, when his boss, then~Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), sought to delay 

an earlier iteration of the formaldehyde assessment. 

our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use. 

https:/t\viNw. politico. com/story/20i 8/07/06/epa~forma!dehyde~warnings~b!ocked-696628 1 /5 

1 i/28/2018 Sources: EPA blocks warnlngs on cancer-causing chemica!- POLITICO 

clwmica1's risks and could lead to strider regulations from the EPA or class-action lawsuits targeting its manufacturers. as frequently occurs after 

tl1ese types of studies are rdeased . 

.. They're stonewalling every step of the way,'' the current offidal said, accusing: political appointees of interfeting with the fonnaldehyde assessment 

and other reports on toxic chemicals produced by EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. 1ndustty has long faulted the IRIS program, the 

agency's only independent scientific division !:)Valuating the health risks of toxic chemicals, whose assessments often form the basis for federal and 

Morning Energy newsletter 

Thes 

ource for energy and environment news- weekday mornings, in your lnbox. 

The current official and former offidal requBstc'Cl anonymity out of fear for their jobs and the impat't that speaking out could have on the IRlS 

program. 

interfering \-~lith the formaldehyde study is one of several steps Trump's EPA has taken to side with the businesses the agency is supposed to 

regulate and undermine the agency's approach to sdenc.e, critics say. Public health advocatt'S also expressed alarm after Pruitt replaced academic 

scientists with industry advocates on the agency's influential science advisory boards and sought to limit the types of human health research the 

EPA can rely on in rulemakings. 

The officials said Trump appointees bave required that care~)r officials recei\'e their permission before beginning the required inte,rnal review of the 

fommldehyde study and have canceled key bri<~fings that would have advanced it. That interference came after EPA career scientists revis<Kl the 

study once already last year to insulate it from political controversy, they said. 

In a statement, EPA denied that the assessrnent was being held back. 

"EPA continues to discuss this assessment with our agency program partners and have no further updates to provide at this time," EPA 

spokeswoman Kelsi Daniell said. "Assessments nf this type are oflen the result of nt,>-eds for particular rolemaklngs and undergo an extensive intraageD{.)' and interagency process." 

Hut as long ago as January, Pruitt told a Senate panel that he believed the draft assessment was complete. 

Five months later, it has yet to see the light of day. Meanwhil-e, internal doruments show, a trade group representing businesses that could face new 

regulations and lav<'suits if the study were released had frequent access to top EPA officials and pressed them to either keep it under v.nps or 

chan~?,e its findiugs. 

'·As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment ... will cause ilTeparahle harm to the t~ompanlcs represented by the Panel and 

to the many companies and jobs that depend on the broad use of the cht'mk.at" Kimber1y Wise Wbite, who leads the Anwrican Chemistry Council's 

Formaldehyde Panel, wrote in a Jan. z6letter to top officials at the EPA The panel represenls companies including the Koch Industri€'S subsidiary 

Georgia~ Pacific Chemicals LLC that could face higher costs from stricter regulations or lawsuits. 
58 


35667.067

EPA 

By ERIC WOLFf 

Nearly a million jobs ''depend on the use of formaldehyde," \Vhite 's letter argued. 

The holdup is attracting attention on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have already expressed alarm, arguing that the Trump administration has 

allowed politics to interfere in EPA's scientific assessments of threats such as toxic pollution and climate change. 

The agency must "move past politics and focus on its job of prote<.-'ting human health" by releasing the formaldehyde study, Sen. Ed Markey (DMass.) said in a statement to POLfriCO. 

"Because fonnaldehyde can be found in everything from wood products to women's hair stralghteners, the public health risks are 

our privacy pol!cy to find out more about the cookies we use. 

substantial," Markey said. ''Delaying the EPA's latest asses.::;ment of the health risks of formaldehyde only further endangers the health of 

Americans." 

https:t/www.pol!tico.com/story/2018/07/06/epa~formaldehyde-warnlngs-b!ocked-696628 2/5 

11/2812018 Sources: EPA blocks warnings on cancer-causing chemical - POUT!CO 

Public health advocates have similarly expressed fears that the Trump administra.tion has allowed EPA to be captured by the industries it regulates. 

The revelations about the formaldehyde stud}· come after Pruitt removed academic scientists from the agency's influential science advisory boards 

and in many c.ases replac;:..~d them with industry advocates, and after he proposed a policy to limit the agency's use of human health data while 

offering a carve-out for confidential industry studies. 

"At every corner, you see the agency trying to either minimize the role of science or manipulate the role of science or just ignore the work of 

scientists in doing the critical work to ensure that human health and the environment is protected," said Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist 

with the Environmental Defense Fund's health program. 

POLITICO also reported in May that Trump administration officials, including EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson, sought to delay an HHS study 

finding that nonstick chemicals pose health dangers at a lower level than EPA has said is safe. 

Insiders anticipate few major policy changes under Wheeler, who is \Videly expected to continue Pruitt's deregulatory agenda and is well- versed in 

chemicals issues. He began his cart.>er in EPA's chemical safety office, and after leaving Inhofe's staff lobbied for several chemicals companies, 

including Celanese Corp., a major formaldehyde manufacturer and ICOR International, a refrigerants manufacturer that was recently acquired by 

Chemours Co., a DuPont spin~off. A Celant>~e spokesman ~aid \Vheeler worked only on the Renewable Fuels Standard for the company, although 

Wheeler's disclosure forms describe his lobbying as being on the broad topic of"chemicals issues.~ Whef:ler is not barred from working on 

chemicals issues under the recusal statement he signed in May. 

Decades' of resear('h has linked formaldehyde to nose and throat cancer and respiratory problems, and newer research has suggested the 

connection to leukemia- controversial conclusions that would gain significant credence if EPA formally adopts them. The new assessment affirms 

those links to leukemia, nose and throat cancer and other ailments, according to the current and former officials familiar with its findings. 

The new assJ;'.ssment could lead the EPA to impose stricter regulations of chemicals refineries or wood products and could spur class- action 

lawsuits from eancer patients attempting to hold companies responsible for their illnesses. 

The agency officials said the political aides blocking the assessment include Jackson and Richard Yamada, a former staffer for House Science 

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who is now a top official in EPA's Office of Research and Development. And they said Nancy Beck, who criticized 

the IRIS program in her previous job as a top chemical industry e.xpert, is now helping to stymie the program's assessments in her new post as 

head of EPA's chemical safety office. ,Jackson, Yamada and Beck did not respond to requests for comment 

The EPA spokeswoman disputed the accusations and said Yamada and Jackson have, in fact, requested briefings on the assessment, 

The current EPA official told PO UTI CO that political appointees have managed to avoid creating written eviden<'e of their interference ~A"ith the 

formaldehyde assessment by refusing to send emails or cn~ate other records that eventually could become public, instead using what the official 

described as "a children's game of telephone." 
59 


35667.068

By blocking the report at the first step of the IRIS r-eview process, political appointee," are keeping it from being reviewed by the National 

Academies of Sciences, an independent panel of the country's top scientists that must weigh in on all such risk assessments. EPA has already paid 

the academies $500,000 for that review, the highest level of scrutiny a scientific study can receive, bul the work cannot start until Pmitt's aides 

send the study. 

"If the administration was really keen on prote('ting public health, why wouldn't they send this to the National Academy and give it a really good 

review?" the former EPA official asked. "If it survives that review, then there's a public health problem that needs to be dealt with, and ifit doesn't 

survive the review, then they can point the finger at IRIS and say, 'You're dead."' 

Energy & Environment 

How Scott Pruitt blew it 

By Alex Guillen and Andrew Restucccia 

The former official said there \vould be only one reason not to ask the country's top experts whether they agree with the analysis: "You don'twant 

thcans·wcr.~ 

Public health advocates say the administration's attacks on science have had especially significant implications for the IRIS program. The small 

office of about 35 experts pores over the huge body of existing research on chemicals, including indu.<>try-backed studies aimed at pro"ing the 

sum.i:ances &~.fe, to independently assess their risk.'>. While purely scientific, the program's reviews are looked to by regulators 

To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing, you accept our use of 

cookies. You can review our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07 /06/epa-forma!dehyde*warn!ngs~blo-ck.ed~696628 3/5 

11/28/2018 Sources: EPA blocks warnlngs on cancer-causing chemica!- POLITICO 

The Americ.an Chemistry Council, Beck's former employer, spent more than $7 million last year lobbying EPA and Congress on issues including 

IRIS, formaldehyde and the policy to limit EPA's use of human health research. Chemkals manufacturers, including Hex:ion, one of the country's 

largest manufacturers of fonnaldehyde. have also spent tens of thousands of dollars on lobbying related to the program this year. 

A National Academies panel agreed wi.th some of industry's criticisms of the IRIS program in a blistering review of an earlier iteration of the 

formaldehyde asses,"iment that recommended major changes to how IRIS decides how much weight to give conflicting studies, although it did not 

<.~ttack the substance of it<> findings about the health effects of formaldehyde. Critics of the IRIS program have pointed to that review frequently as 

they have sought to kill it, including in an appropriations battle this spring. The EPA spokesv.uman also pointed to that assessment in her 

statement. "The National Acad<.'my of Science and Congrc.<;;,'i in legislative reports have for years been highly critical of EPA's previous assessments 

involving formaldehyde," she said. 

But the EPA has overhauled the program since then .. hiring a fi{'\-\' dirL'Ctor for IRIS and a new head of tht~ National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, in which it is housed, The changes have received high marks from the National Academies in tv.•o more recent reviews, one in 2014 

and one this past April. The latest formaldehyde assessment is expected to demonstrate further progress implementing the academies' 

recommendations, potentially undermining industry critiques of the overall IRIS program if it were to be released. 

Although efforts to kill EPA's independent scientific arbiter have so far failed, EPA officials and public health advocates say the program has been 

significantly hobbled under an administration with clo..<>e ties to the c.hcmk-.als industry, 

White, the top staffer for the American Chemistry Council's Formaldehyde Panel, wrote the EPA three times between September 2017 and,Tanuary 

2018, urging the agency to incorporate industry-funded research that found no link between formaldehyde and leukemia, and arguing that the 

studies shifted the scientific consensus away from the conclusion that it does. In November, Pruitt appointed her to the agem.'Y's influential Science 

Advisory Board. 

Less than a week after the council's ,Jan. 24 meeting with EPA, Pruitt himself confirmed that the report had been complete for months. During a 

Senate hearing at the end of January, Markey asked Pruitt for an update on the formaldehyde assessment, saying it was his understanding "that the 

EPA ha.<; finalized it..;; conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukemia and other ('.<meers and that [the 1 completed new assessment is ready to be 

released for public review, but is being held up." 

"You know, my understanding is similar to yours," Pruitt replied, promising to follow up. 
60 


35667.069

Markey reminded Pruitt of the exchange in a May 17letter. In a response Thursday, the agt~m .. )''s principal deputy assistant administrator for 

science, Jennifer Orme<tavaleta, said EPA ~continues lo discuss the formaldehyde assessment internally and bas no further updates to provide at 

this time." 

About Us Advertising 

Breaking News Alerts Careers 

Credit Card Payments Dtgital Edition 

FAQ 

Feedback Headlines Photos POWERJobs 

I \J\:fl VC yt..~u "!C t..ICC>I.!A'""'''-"" C"),!C! <<;:< !'-<::1 U ""' :>J<.C ~!"'-"::><..VU"''""'' J! yvu <..VC '"" OU<:: <H UW:>H '\,II yvu O<..<..q.>< UW UClC Ul <..VUl'\1<;:>, ! t..IU u;l!! ! O::VO<::« 

our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use. 

Press 

Print Subscriptions 

RSS 

https://www.poiitico.com/story/20i8/07/06/epa~forma!dehyde~warnings-blocked~696628 4/5 
61 


35667.070

11/28/2018 Trump administration lifts ban on pesticides linked to declining bee numbers l Environment 1 The Guardian 

Th~. uaru n 

Trump administration lifts ban on pesticides linked 

to declining bee numbers 

Environmentalists say lifting the restriction poses a grave threat to pollinating 

insects 

Reuters 

Fri 3 Aug 2018 23.03 EDT 

The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides 

linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in 

dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted. 

Environmentalists, who had sued to bring about the two-year-old ban, said on Friday 

that lifting the restriction poses a grave threat to pollinating insects and other sensitive 

creatures relying on toxic-free habitats afforded by wildlife refuges. 

"Industrial agriculture has no place on refuges dedicated to wildlife conservation and 

protection of some of the most vital and vulnerable species," said Jenny Keating, federal 

lands policy analyst for the group Defenders of Wildlife. 
62 


35667.071

Limited agricultural activity is authorized on some refuges by law, including cooperative 

agreements in which farmers are permitted to grow certain crops to produce more food 

or improve habitat for the wildlife there. 

The rollback, spelled out in a US Fish and Wildlife Service memo, ends a policy that had 

prohibited farmers on refuges from planting biotech crops - such as soybeans and corn -

engineered to resist insect pests and weed-controlling herbicides. 

That policy also had barred the use on wildlife refuges of neonicotinoid pesticides, or 

neonics, in conjunction with GMO crops. Neonics are a class of insecticides tied by 

research to declining populations of wild bees and other pollinating insects around the 

world. 

Rather than continuing to impose a blanket ban on GMO crops and neonics on refuges, 

Fish and Wildlife Service deputy director Greg Sheehan said decisions about their use 

would be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Sheehan said the move was needed to ensure adequate forage for migratory birds, 

including ducks and geese favored and hunted by sportsmen on many of the nation's 

refuges. US interior secretary Ryan Zinke, whose department oversees the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, has made expansion of hunting on public lands a priority for his agency. 

Sheehan wrote that genetically modified organisms have helped "maximize production, 

and that neonicotinoids might be needed "to fulfill needed farming practices". 

It marked the latest in a series of Obama-era environmental restrictions to be reversed 

under Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to roll back government regulations. 

In a 2014 Obama administration memo announcing plans to phase in the ban, .Jim Kurth, 

head of the refuge system, wrote that seeds treated with neonics give rise to plants whose 

tissues contained compounds that could harm "non-target" species. He also said, "refuges 

throughout the country successfully meet wildlife management objectives without" GMOs ?r 

neonics. 

Thursday's memo named more than so national wildlife refuges across the country 

where the revised policy now applies. The entire system consists of 560 refuge units 

encompassing roughly 150 million acres nationwide. 

$0 contributed 

$0 

our goal 

In these critical times ... ... please help us protect independent journalism at a time when factual, trustworthy 

reporting is 

under threat by making a year-end gift to support The Guardian. We're asking our US 

readers to help us raise one million dollars by the new year so that we can report on the 

stories that matter in 2019. Small or big, every contribution will help us reach our goal. 

The Guardian's independence means that we can report on the stories that matter and 

pursue difficult investigations, challenging the powerful and holding them to account. No 

one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. Our journalists have the freedom to 
63 


35667.072

report on the facts, with no commercial bias and without politicians or shareholders 

influencing their work. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/04/trump-administration-!ifts-ban-on-pesticides-Jinked-to-dec!ining-bee-numbers 213 

11128/2018 Trump administration lifts ban on pesticides linked to declining bee numbers! Environment! The Guardian 

In 2018, The Guardian broke the story of Cambridge Analytica's Facebook data breach; 

we recorded the human fallout from family separations; we charted the rise of the far 

right, and documented the growing impact of gun violence on Americans' lives. We 

reported daily on climate change as a matter of urgent priority. It was readers' support 

that made this work possible. 

As 2019 approaches, we would like to ask for your ongoing support. Reaching our yearend target will ensure that we can keep delivering factual reporting at a critical time in 

US history. In an era of disinformation campaigns and partisan hots, trustworthy news 

sources that sort facts from lies are under threat like never before. With the free press 

and individual journalists increasingly under attack, The Guardian is committed to 

exposing wrongdoing and uncovering the truth. 

We are living in confusing times and understand that it can be tempting to turn away 

from news coverage. But we hope you feel, as we do, that we have to make sense of the 

world if we're going to have a chance of making it a better place. Our approach allows us 

to keep our factual journalism open to everyone, regardless of where they live or what 

they can afford. We are so encouraged by the support we have already received from our 

readers, and we want to say thank you. But we need many more readers to join for each 

year to come. 

By giving a year-end gift - however big or small - you are supporting The Guardian's 

independence and ensuring we can keep delivering factual, trustworthy journalism 

for the years to come. Thank you. 

-

Topics 

BeesGM 

Farming 

Trump administration Insects 

Wildlife news 

https:/lwww.theguardian.com/environment/20i8/aug/04ftrump~adminlstration~l!fts~ban-on-pesticfdes-!inked-to-declining-bee-numbers 3/3 

A Strong Case Against a Pesticide Does Not Faze E.P.A. tinder Trump- The New York Times 
64 


35667.073

HEALTH 

A Strong Case Against a Pesticide 

Does Not Faze E.P ..A .. Under Trump 

By RONI CARYN RABIN MAY 15, 2017 

Chlorp)Tifos is still on the market as an agricultural pesticide, routinely sprayed on common crops like 

apples, oranges, strawberries and broccoli. 

Some of the most compelling evidence linking a widely used pesticide to developmental 

problems in children stems from what scientists call a "natural" experiment. 

Though in this case, there was nothing natural about it. 

Chlorpyrifos (pronounced klor-PYE-ruh-fahs) had been used to control bugs in homes 

and fields for decades when researchers at Columbia University began studying the 

effects of pollutants on pregnant mothers from low- income neighborhoods. 1\vo years 

into their study, the pesticide was removed from store shelves and banned from home 

use, because animal research had found it caused brain damage in baby rats. 
65 


35667.074

Pesticide levels dropped in the cord blood of many newborns joining the study. Scientists 

soon discovered that those ~ith comparatively higher levels weighed less at birth and at 

ages 2 and 3, and were more likely to experience persistent developmental delays, 

including hyperactivity and cognitive, motor and attention problems. By age 7, they had 

lower IQ scores. 

The Columbia study did not prove definitively that the pesticide had caused the children's 

developmental problems, but it did find a dose-response effect: The higher a child's 

exposure to the chemical, the stronger the negative effects. 

That study was one of many. Decades of research into the effects of chlorpyrifos strongly 

suggests that exposure at even low levels may threaten children. A few years ago, 

scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that it should be banned 

altogether. 

Yet chlorpyrifos is still ffidely used in agriculture and routinely sprayed on crops like 

apples, oranges, strawberries and broccoli. Whether it remains available may become an 

early test of the Trump administration's determination to pare back environmental 

regulations frowned on by the industry and to retreat from food-safety laws, possibly 

provoking another clash with the courts. 

In March, the new chief of the E.P.A., Scott Pruitt, denied a 10-year-old petition brought 

by environmental groups seeking a complete ban on chlorpyrifos. In a statement 

accompanying his decision, Mr. Pruitt said there "continue to be considerable areas of 

uncertainty" about the neurodevelopmental effects of early life exposure to the pesticide. 

https://www. nytimes.com/20 17 /05/15/health/pesticides-cpa-chlorpyrifos-scotl-pruitt.html[ 1/24/2018 4:02:0 I PM] 

A Strong Case Against a Pesticide Does Not Faze E.P.A. Under Trump- The New York Times 

Even though a court last year denied the agency's request for more time to review the 

scientific evidence, Mr. Pruitt said the agency would postpone a final determination on 

the pesticide until2022. The agency was "returning to using sound science in decisionmaking - rather than predetermined results," he added. 

Agency officials have declined repeated requests for information detailing the scientific 

rationale for Mr. Pruitt's decision. 

Lawyers representing Dow and other pesticide manufacturers have also been pressing 

federal agencies to ignore E.P.A. studies that have found chlorpyrifos and other pesticides 

are harmful to endangered plants and animals. 

A statement issued by Dow Chemical, which manufactures the pesticide, said: "No pest 

control product has been more thoroughly evaluated, ffith more than 4,000 studies and 

reports examining chlorpyrifos in terms of health, safety and environment." 

A Baffling Order 
66 


35667.075

Mr. Pruitt's decision has confounded environmentalists and research scientists convinced 

that the pesticide is harmful. 

Farm workers and their families are routinely exposed to chlorpyrifos, which leaches into 

ground water and persists in residues on fruits and vegetables, even after washing and 

peeling, they say. 

Mr. Pruitt's order contradicted the E.P.A.'s own exhaustive scientific analyses, which had 

been reviewed by industry experts and modified in response to their concerns. 

In 2015, an agency report concluded that infants and children in some parts of the 

country were being exposed to unsafe amounts of the chemical in drinking water, and to a 

dangerous byproduct. Agency researchers could not determine anv level of exposure that 

was safe. 
67 


35667.076

In March, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, denied a petition 

brought by environmental groups seeking a complete ban on chlorpyrifos. 

An updated human health risk assessment compiled by the E.P.A. in November found 

that health problems were occurring at lower levels of exposure than had pre,iously been 

believed harmful. 

Infants, children, young girls and women are exposed to dangerous levels of chlorpyrifos 

~"''"""""'-"'-'"""--"-"'"""' the agency said. Children are exposed to levels up to 140 times the 

safety limit. 

"The science was very complicated, and it took the E.P.A. a long time to figure out how to 

deal with what the Columbia study was saying," said Jim Jones, who ran the chemical 

safety unit at the agency for five years, after President Trump took office. 

The evidence that the pesticide causes neurodevelopmental damage to children "is not a 

slam dunk, the way it is for some of the most well- understood chemicals," Mr. Jones 

conceded. Still, he added, "very few chemicals fall into that category." 

But the law governing the regulation of pesticides used on foods doesn't require 

conclusive evidence for regulators to prohibit potentially dangerous chemicals. It errs on 

the side of caution. 
68 


35667.077

The Food Quality Protection Act set a new safetv standard for pesticides and fungicides 

when it was passed in 1996, requiring the E.P.A. to determine that a chemical can be used 

with "a reasonable certainty of no harm." 

The act also required the agency to take the unique vulnerabilities of young children into 

account and to use a wide margin of safety when setting tolerance levels. 

Children may be exposed to multiple pesticides that have the same toxic mechanism of 

action at the same time, the law noted. They're also exposed through routes other than 

food, like drinking water. 

Environmental groups returned last month to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, asking that the E.P.A. be ordered to ban the pesticide. The court has 

already admonished the agency for what it called "egregious" delays in responding to a 

petition filed by the groups in 2007. 

The E.P.A. responded on April28, saying it had met its deadline when Mr. Pruitt denied 

the petition. 

Erik D. Olson; director of the health program at Natural Resources Defense Council, one 

of the groups petitioning the E.P.A. to ban chlorpyTifos, disagreed. 

"The E.P.A. has twice made a formal determination that this chemical is not safe," Mr. 

Olson said. "The agency cannot just decide not to act on that. They have not put out a new 

finding of safety, which is what they would have to do to allow it to continue to be used." 

Devastating Effects 

Chlorpyrifos belongs to a class of pesticides called organophosphates, a diverse group of 

compounds that includes nerve agents like sarin gas. 

It acts by blocking an enzyme called cholinesterase, which causes a toxic buildup of 

acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter that carries signals from nerve cells to their 

targets. 

Acute poisoning with the pesticide can cause nausea, dizziness, convulsions and even 

death in humans, as well as animals. 
69 


35667.078

The use of chlorpyrifos has been declining in California, where farmers have responded to rising demand for 

organic produce and to concerns about organophosphates. 

But the scientific question has been whether humans, and especially small children, are 

affected by chronic low-level exposures that don't cause any obvious immediate effectsand if so, at what threshold these exposures cause harm. 

Scientists have been studying the impact of chlorpyrifos on brain development in young 

rats under controlled laboratory conditions for decades. These studies have shown that 

the chemical has devastating effects on the brain. 

"Even at exquisitely low doses, this compound would stop cells from dividing and push 

them instead into programmed cell death," said Theodore Slotkin, a scientist at Duke 

University Medical Center, who has published dozens of studies on rats exposed to 

chlorpyrifos shortly after birth. 

In the animal studies, Dr. Slotkin was able to demonstrate a clear cause-and effect 

relationship. It didn't matter when the young rats were exposed; their developing brains 

were vulnerable to its effects throughout gestation and early childhood, and exposure led 

to structural abnormalities, behavioral problems, impaired cognitive performance and 

depressive-like symptoms. 

And there was no safe window for exposure. "There doesn't appear to be any period of 

brain development that is safe from its effects," Dr. Slatkin said. 
70 


35667.079

Manufacturers say there is no proof low-level exposures to chlorpyrifos causes similar 

effects in humans. Carol Burns, a consultant to Dow Chemical, said the Columbia study 

pointed to an association between exposure just before birth and poor outcomes, but did 

not prove a cause- and-effect relationship. 

Studies of children exposed to other organophosphate pesticides, however, have also 

found lower IQ scores and attention problems after prenatal exposure, as well as 

abnormal reflexes in infants and poor lung function in early childhood. 

"When you weigh the evidence across the different studies that have looked at this, it 

really does pretty strongly point the finger that organophosphate pesticides as a class are 

of significant concern to child neurodevelopment," said Stephanie M. Engel, an associate 

professor of epidemiology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Dr. Engel has published research showing that exposure to organophosphates during 

pregnancy may impair cognitive development in children. 

But Dr. Burns argues that other factors may be responsible for cognitive impairment, and 

that it is impossible to control for the myriad factors in children's lives that affect health 

outcomes. "It's not a criticism of a study that's the reality of observational studies in 

human beings," she said. "Poverty, inadequate housing, poor social support, maternal 

depression, not reading to your children - all these kinds of things also ultimately impact 

the development of the child, and are interrelated." 

While animal studies can determine causality, it's difficult to do so in human studies, said 

Brenda Eskenazi, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children's 

Health at the University of California, Berkeley. 

"The human literature will never be as strong as the animal literature, because of the 

problems inherent in doing research on humans," she said. 

With regard to organophosphates, she added, "the animal literature is very strong, and 

the human literature is consistent, but not as strong." 

If the E.P.A. will not end use of the pesticide, consumer preferences may. 

In California, the nation's breadbasket, use of chlorpyrifos has been declining, Dr. 

Eskenazi said. Farmers have responded to rising demand for organic produce and to 

concerns about organophosphate pesticides. 

She is already concerned about what chemicals vvill replace it. While organophosphates 

and chlorpyrifos in particular have been scrutinized, newer pesticides have not been 

studied so closely, she said. 

"We know more about chlorpyrifos than any other organophosphate; that doesn't mean 

it's the most toxic;" she said, adding, "There may be others that are worse offenders." 
71 


35667.080

Correction: May 18,2017 

An article on Tuesday about the pesticide chlorpyrifos described acetylcholine 

incorrectly. It is an ester of choline and acetic acid, not a protein. The article also 

misstated part of the name of a court that was asked to ban the pesticide. It is the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not the Ninth District. 

Follow @NYTHealth on Twitter. 1 Sign up for the Science Times newsletter. 

HEALTH 

E.P.A. Delays Bans on Uses of 

Hazardous Chemicals 

By SHEILA KAPLAN DEC. 19, 2017 

Senator Frank Lauten berg, Democrat of New Jersey, on Capitol Hill in 20t2, a year before his death. He 

urged the stricter regulation of toxic chemicals. 
72 


35667.081

The Environmental Protection Agency will indefinitely postpone bans on certain uses of three 

toxic chemicals found in consumer products, according to an update of the Trump 

administration's regulatory plans. 

Critics said the reversal demonstrated the agency's increasing reluctance to use enforcement 

powers granted to it last year by Congress under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt is "blatantly ignoring Congress's clear directive to the agency to 

better protect the health and safety of millions of Americans by more effectively regulating some 

of the most dangerous chemicals known to man," said Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of 

Delaware and the ranking minority member on the Senate Environment and Public Works 

committee. 

The E.P.A. declined to comment. In a news release earlier this month, the agency '\\Tote that its 

"commonsense, balanced approach carefully protects both public health and the environment 

while curbing unnecessary regulatory burdens that stifle economic growth for communities across 

the country." 

Agency officials dropped prohibitions against certain uses of two chemicals from the 

administration's Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which details short- and 

long-term plans of the federal agencies. 

The third ban was dropped in the spring edition of that report. 

The proposed bans targeted methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), ingredients in 

paint strippers, and trichloroethylene (TCE), used as a spot cleaner in dry-cleaning and as a 

degreasing agent. 

Under an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act last year, the E.P .A. initially is revie"~Ving 

the risks of ten chemicals, including other uses of these three. The updated law is known as the 

Frank R. Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late New Jersey 

senator who had long championed an overhaul of the loophole-ridden toxic substances law. 

The revised law had strong bipartisan support. The Senate passed the measure on a voice vote; the 

House approved it 403 to 12. The intention was to give the E.P.A. the authority necessary to 

require new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products, from 

laundry detergents to hardware supplies. 
73 


35667.082

E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt testifying before a House committee earlier this month. The E.P .A. has declined to 

pursue bans on certain uses of three toxic chemicals. 

In a compromise that disappointed some environmental advocates, the law required the E.P.A. to 

examine about 20 chemicals at a time, for no longer than seven years per chemical. But the law 

expressly allowed for faster action on high-risk uses of methylene chloride, NMP and TCE. 

Public health experts had been pushing for faster re\ciew of methylene chloride-based paint 

strippers after several deaths from inhalation, among them a 21-year-old who died recently after 

stripping a bathtub. 

It has been several years since the E.P.A. first declared these applications of the three chemicals to 

be dangerous. The agency itself has found TCE "carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure" 

and has reported that it causes developmental and reproductive damage. 

"Potential health concerns from exposure to trichloroethylene, based on limited epidemiological 

data and evidence from animal studies, include decreased fetal growth and birth defects, 

particularly cardiac birth defects," agency officials noted in 2013. 

Methylene chloride is toxic to the brain and liver, and NMP can harm the reproductive system. 
74 


35667.083

Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to oversee the E.P.A.'s chemical safety branch, in 

2010 represented the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance before the E.P.A., which was 

considering restrictions on TCE. 

Mr. Dourson, who withdrew his name from consideration last week, had been working as an 

E.P.A. adviser while awaiting confirmation. The agency did not respond to a query about whether 

Mr. Dourson had been involved in the evaluation ofTCE. 

The E.P.A. now describes the enforcement actions regarding TCE, methylene chloride and NMP 

as "long-term actions" without a set deadline. 

"The delays are very disturbing," said Dr. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist of the 

Environmental Defense Fund. "This latest agenda shows that instead of using their expanded 

authorities under this new law, the E.P.A. is shoving health protections from highly toxic 

chemicals to the very back of the back burner." 

Representative Frank Pallone, Democrat of New .Jersey and the ranking minority member of the 

House Energy and Commerce committee, agreed, saying, "These indefinite delays are unnecessary 

and dangerous." 

"The harmful impacts of these chemicals are avoidable, and E.P.A. should finalize the proposed 

rules as soon as possible," he added. 

A verston of this article appears in pnnt on December 20, 2017, on Page Ai6 ofthe New York edition with the headline· in Reversal_ 

Chemicals Are Cleared For Use. Order Reprints Today's Paper Subscnbe 
75 


35667.084

Pesticide Studies Won E.P.A. 's Trust, Until 

Trump's Team Scorned 'Secret Science' 

Backed by agrochemical companies, the current administration and Congress are 

moving to curb the role of human health studies in regulation. 

By Danny Hakim and Eric Lipton 

Aug. 24, 2018 

SALINAS, Calif.- Jose Camacho once worked the fields here in the Salinas Valley, 

known as "the Salad Bowl ofthe World" for its abundance oflettuce and vegetables. His 

wife still does. 

But back in 2000, Mr. Camacho, who is 63, got an unusual phone call. He was asked if he 

wanted to work for a new project studying the effects of pesticides on the children of farm 

workers. 

"This seemed really crazy," he recalled saying at the time, since he barely spoke English. 

"A research study?" 

The project, run by scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, and funded in 

part by the Environmental Protection Agency, is still going all these years later. Known as 

Chamacos, Spanish for "children," it has linked pesticides sprayed on fruit and vegetable 

crops with respiratory complications, developmental disorders and lower I.Q.s among 

children of farm workers. State and federal regulators have cited its findings to help 

justifY proposed restrictions on everything from insecticides to flame-retardant chemicals. 

But the Trump administration wants to restrict how human studies like Chamacos are 

used in rule-making. A government proposal this year, called Strengthening Transparency 

in Regulatory Science, could stop them from being used to justifY regulating pesticides, 

lead and pollutants like soot, and undennine foundational research behind national airquality rules. The E.P.A., which has funded these kinds of studies, is now labeling many 

of them "secret science." 

Studying disease trends in specific groups of people- a branch of medicine known as 

epidemiology- started to gain currency at the E.P.A. in recent years. These studies can 

be difficult because they require adjusting for all the various substances people are 

exposed to beyond pesticides. But researchers had amassed years of data from a wave of 

compelling chemical studies begun in the 1990s, giving regulators a new body of research 

to incorporate into their decision-making. 
76 


35667.085

Under the Obama administration, the E.P.A., which had long favored tests on rats and 

other laboratory animals in its pesticide regulation, began considering epidemiological 

studies more seriously. The agency leaned on this type of research in proposing to ban an 

insecticide called chlorpyrifos in late 2016, and has been repeatedly prodded to take 

action on the chemical by federal courts. 

But weeks after Donald J. Trump was elected president, CropLife America, the main 

agrochemical trade group, petitioned the E.P.A. to "halt regulatory decisions that are 

highly influenced and/or detennined by the results of epidemiological studies" unless 

universities were :torced to share more of their data. 

https:/lwww.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/bus!ness/epa-pestlcides-studies-epidemio!ogy.html 2/13 

11/28/2018 Pesticide Studies Won E.PA's Trust, Untl! Trump's Team Scorned 'Secret Science'- The New York Times 
77 


35667.086

Jose Camacho was asked in 2000 to participate in the study, which tracks families as they go 

about their normal lives. Such research was embraced by the E.P.A. during the Obama 

administration. 

Carlos Chavarria for The New York Times 

Industry leaders aggressively challenged such studies in high-level meetings and 

cmails with 

E.P.A. leaders, according to thousands of pages of documents obtained through 

Freedom ofinformation Act requests. One trade group invited a top E.P.A. official to 

meet with its Washington lobbyist last year, complaining that "carefully controlled" 

animal studies were giving way to "conclusions reflected in epidemiological papers." 

Gary W. Van Sickle, executive director of the California Specialty Crops Council, 

wrote to the agency last September that "there have been serious flaws with E.P.A.'s 

conclusion to use these data." 

The council, representing growers of crops as diverse as carrots, garlic, pears and 

peppers, cited "inappropriate use of the epidemiology." 

The E.P.A., whose new leadership is seeded with industry veterans, has responded. In 

a mid-July assessment of atrazine, a widely used weed killer long banned in Europe, 

the agency reviewed and dismissed 12 recent epidemiological studies linking the 

herbicide to such ailments as childhood leukemia and Parkinson's disease. It echoed 

the conclusions of research funded by Syngenta, atrazine's manufacturer, finding the 

chemical unlikely to cause cancer. 

Before scandals forced Scott Pruitt out last month as head ofthe E.P.A., he 

proposed the transparency regulation. It would ban many epidemiological studies, 

and other outside research, unless more data behind the studies was made public. 

In doing so, he revived a strategy advanced for years by congressional 

Republicans and corporate interests like tobacco companies. 

"The era of secret science at E.P.A. is coming to an end," Mr. Pruitt proclaimed at 

the time. The agency's new acting administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, says he's 

moving forward with the proposal, as the agency re-evaluates a class of widely 

used insecticides, called organophosphates, that have been the subject of numerous 

epidemiological studies like Chamacos. 

Nancy B. Beck, a chemical industry veteran who is the E.P.A.'s deputy assistant 

administrator, said there was no attempt to thwart epidemiology, adding that the 

agency was committed to "the best available science in the most transparent 

manner." 

But academics and state health officials say universities arc being pressured to 

release data that would ultimately divulge the identities of study participants, a 
78 


35667.087

strategy once used by tobacco companies seeking to undermine research on the 

dangers of smoking. While participant data is shared with regulators in drug trials, 

academics fear that the E.P .A.'s proposal would additionally require divulging 

confidential personal information, potentially violating privacy regulations for 

federally funded research. 

Ana Lilia Sanchez, a farmworker and the mother of a participant in the Salinas Valley study, said her 

family took precautions to avoid pesticide contamination. Carlos Chavarria tor The New York Times 

"It is a naked attempt to use a false claim that something nefarious is going on 

with these studies in an effort to allow industry to challenge conclusions that are 

not in their favor," said James Kelly, a manager of environmental surveillance at 

the Minnesota Department of Health. 

A Wave of Studies, an Uneasy Industry 

An advertisement in a Nebraska student newspaper was looking for people who 

wanted to "earn extra money." Thirty-six college student volunteers and others 

from the community who responded were paid $460 to drink gelatin capsules 

filled with the pesticide ehlorpyrifos, at up to 300 times levels the E.P.A. 

considered safe, without a full discussion of the risks. 

Sponsored by Dow Chemical, this study, conducted in 1998, was one ofthe last of 

its kind. That year, the E.P.A. banned the use of studies exposing people to 

pesticides, and it continues to severely restrict them. 

Epidemiology, which has been used to examine everything from the effects of 

climate change to childhood obesity, offered a way to continue studying disease 

trends, amid new legal requirements to examine how pesticides particularly affect 

infants and children. And it could do so by tracking people during their normal 

lives instead of treating them as if they were lab rats. Chamacos and other studies 

began almost immediately, although it took decades to collect sufficient data and 

study how participants changed over time. 

One study by Columbia University researchers linked an insecticide to 

developmental delays in toddlers. Another, by scientists at the University of 

California, Los Angeles, connected pesticides to Parkinson's disease. Academics 

at the University of Rochester found that pesticides lower sperm counts in men, 

while researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found lower fertility 

in women. 

By 2015, there was a growing body of research, often funded in part by the E.P.A. 

The agency decided that year to consult epidemiology more seriously in its evaluation 

of glyphosate, the world's most popular weed killer and the active ingredient in 

Monsanto's Roundup. 
79 


35667.088

"This is a watershed event in our Program, and one which I feel particularly 

proud to be a part (go epi!!)," Carol Christensen, then an E.P.A. epidemiologist, 

wrote in a 2015 email to a colleague 

-using "epi" as shorthand for epidemiology. "In the 35 year history of our program, 

this will be the FIRST time epi studies are actively considered in the decision 

making." 

Yet even then, there was friction over what to make of studies aiming to 

determine whether glyphosate causes cancer. 

One E.P.A. division, the Office of Research and Development, closely examined 

epidemiological research and came to believe either that glyphosate was likely to 

cause cancer or that there was at least some evidence suggesting a problem. But 

another division, the Office of Pesticide Programs, was dismissive of epidemiological 

studies and determined that glyphosate was not a carcinogen, a view that prevailed at 

the E.P.A., according to interviews, emails and an internal memo obtained by The 

New York Times. Those involved in the agency's debates on epidemiology spoke on 

the condition of anonymity because the discussions weren't public. 

Monsanto said in a statement that "we cannot speak to the internal E.P.A. 

discussions" but emphasized the agency's ultimate finding that glyphosate was not 

likely to cause cancer. 

The cancer question received renewed attention this month when a California jury 

awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper who alleged that the chemical had 

sickened him. In his closing argument, the plaintiff's attorney, R. Brent Wisner, 

called epidemiology one of "the three pillars of cancer science" that the case 

relied on. 

At the E.P.A., the debate swung in favor of epidemiology. While such studies are 

often complex and can be of varying quality, the agency was reluctant in the past 

to give them as much weight as lab experiments on animals. But by the Obama 

administration's final months, the agency moved for the first time to ban a 

pesticide largely because of epidemiological research. 

The pesticide, chlorpyrifos, was the same one ingested years earlier by 

unwitting Nebraskans. It is applied to crops like apples, oranges and 

strawberries to combat insects like spider mites and sap-sucking bugs. 

In California alone, chlorpyrifos was sprayed on 640,000 acres in 2016, according 

to state data. And research from Salinas, and the Chamacos study, became a 

central element in the E.P.A. 's recommendation. 

"There is a breadth of information available on the potential adverse 

neurodevelopmental effects in infants and children as a result of prenatal exposure 

to chlorpyrifos," the agency concluded in 2016, also citing epidemiological 
80 


35667.089

research from Columbia University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount 

Sinai. 

The pesticide industry's reaction was loud and intense. 

Monsanto, in emails with the E.P .A., was dismissive of critical epidemiological 

research related to Roundup, writing that "such studies are well known to be prone to 

a number of biases." 

A Trump administration proposal would prevent the E.P.A. from using many epidemiological studies, 

like the one in Salinas, unless more data behind them was made public. 

Carlos Chavarria for The New York Times 

Dow Chemical said in reports submitted to the E.P.A. that "the evidence from 

these studies is insufficient" and called chlorpyrifos a "proven first-line of 

defense" against new pest outbreaks. 

A month after taking over the E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt acted. He disregarded agency 

scientists and rejected the proposed chlorpyrifos ban, later calling for "a new day, 

a new future, for a common- sense approach to environmental protection." 

View From theField 

Ana Lilia Sanchez, 50, has worked in the fields in Salinas more than half her life, 

and one of her daughters has been a Chamacos study participant. 

Ms. Sanchez has learned to watch for drifting droplets or the whir of a helicopter 

spraying overhead. 

"Sometimes when we feel it, or we hear it, we start talking about it," she said 

recently, sitting with her 5-month-old granddaughter at her home on a Salinas 

cul-de-sac. "Why wouldn't they tell us, you know, to get out ofhcre, to not 

come today?" she asked. "Women, they cover themselves, but men are 

working in short sleeves, so they are more exposed." 

Insecticides like chlorpyrifos are organophosphates, from the same chemical 

family as nerve agents like sarin and Novichok, the Russian-developed compound 

linked to recent attacks in Britain. While the safety of insecticides is extensively 

tested, long-term health impacts, or even how far pesticides drift, are the subject 

of continuing disagreement. 

Ms. Sanchez showers after work, before touching her granddaughter. 
81 


35667.090

"I also put my clothes aside," she said. "We separate the clothes we use when 

we're working, both my husband and I, and wash them separately so they're not 

contaminated." 

While some human studies examine potential harm from pesticide residue found 

on fruits and vegetables, the Chamacos project is more personal, following 

hundreds of children in the heart of where American food is grown. California has 

the nation's largest agricultural industry and uses more than 200 million pounds of 

pesticides annually. 

Brenda Eskenazi, the director of the Salinas Valley project, said that "well-controlled epidemiologic 

studies" were essential for understanding "how things affect human health." Carlos Chavarria for The New 

York Times 

For locals, pesticides are part of life. "It's a big difference from when I was 

working," Mr. Camacho said, while standing in a strawberry field framed on three 

sides by distant hills. Men and women were bent over nearby, pulling weeds. "My 

supervisor would say: 'That's not dangerous. Just keep working.' There was no 

information." 

Chamacos is built on an unsettling premise: What happens to children of pregnant 

mothers certain to have pesticides in their bloodstreams? The E.P.A. and other 

government agencies have spent millions of dollars funding Chamacos. 

Half the Chamacos children have been tracked since before birth. Researchers 

have collected 350,000 samples of blood, urine, breast milk and even household 

dust and spent nearly two decades studying maturing children. They perform 

neurodevelopmental and physical assessments and study factors like diet and 

school performance. After nearly two decades, the study's data appears in more 

than 160 academic papers. 

During a visit to the Chamacos office in Salinas, Brenda Eskenazi, the director of 

the project and a professor of epidemiology at Berkeley, was testing out brain 

monitoring equipment, wearing what looked like a black swim cap strewn with 

knobs and wiring. She has long been fascinated with cognitive development, 

going back to when she saw a Woodstock reveler 

dive into pavement. 

one having a bad acid trip -

"Why did he do that?" Ms. Eskenazi remembers wondering at the time. "What 

was he thinking? What's going on in that brain?" 

"Any science is imperfect," she said, but stressed that "well-controlled 

epidemiologic studies" were essential for understanding "how things affect human 

health." She added, "Otherwise you're just making huge assumptions that a rodent 

is the same as a human." 
82 


35667.091

A Bitter Debate 

The day after Mr. Pruitt made his March 2017 decision to reject a ban on 

chlorpyrifos, he hosted top executives from one of the nation's largest farming 

and pesticide trade organizations for a closed-door conversation. 

Near the top of the meeting agenda was "Epidemiology Study Policy" in the 

aftermath of the "chlorpyrifos matter," according to internal records. 

"There are no guideposts, if you will, for what is a legitimate, useful epidemiology 

study and what is not," Jay Vroom, CropLife America's president, said in an 

interview, explaining what he had told agency officials at this and other meetings. 

In a subsequent letter to the E.P.A., a CropLife America lobbyist said the agency 

was relying on a "shortsighted approach," and the group submitted fonnal 

proposals to curb the embrace of epidemiology the E.P.A. undertook under the 

Obama administration. 

Mr. Pruitt responded with his proposal, made this past spring, to ban 

epidemiological and other studies that did not make study details public, including 

at least some information on study participants. 

Academics have resisted previous requests to review their data, notably at 

Columbia University. In a 2016 letter to the agency, a university official wrote 

that it could not provide "extensive individual level data to E.P.A. in a way that 

ensures the confidentiality" of"our research subjects." 

David Michaels, an epidemiologist at George Washington University's School of 

Public Health and head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

during the Obama administration, said Mr. Pruitt's plan was not about 

transparency but about discrediting studies that made pesticides look bad. 

"The underlying justification for this 'transparency' proposal is a caricature of 

how science really works," Mr. Michaels said at a recent hearing. "The cynical 

approach proposed by E.P.A. can be best described as 'weaponized 

transparency.'" 

It is no coincidence, he said, that the term "secret science" was also used in the 

1970s when the tobacco industry was trying to forestall critical research about 

smoking. 

Researchers have had wins. This month, a federal appeals court ordered the E.P.A. 

to ban chlorpyrifos, citing findings from human studies. The Trump 
83 


35667.092

administration is mulling whether to appeal. 

But epidemiologists are unsettled. In mid-July, after nearly two decades of work 

on Chamacos, the E.P.A. emailed Ms. Eskenazi requesting "the original data" 

from her research, citing "uncertainty around neurodevelopmental effects 

associated" with pesticides she has studied. The agency made a similar request to 

Columbia. 

Ms. Eskenazi, worried about her study participants' privacy, alerted university 

lawyers. She is now concerned that the E.P.A. may try to undermine her study's 

repeated findings that some pesticides may be harming children. 

"I knew this was going to come sooner or later," she said. "And here it is." 

Danny Hakim reported from Salinas, and Eric Lipton from Washington. 

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 26, 2018, on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: 

Once-Trusted Studies Are Scorned by Trump's E.P.A. 

TRUMP RULES 

Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on 

Toxic Chemicals? An Industry 

Insider Helps Call the Shots 

A scientist who worked for the chemical industry now shapes policy 

on hazardous chemicals. Within the there is fear that public 

health is at risk. (At right, a signing ceremony for new rules on toxic 

chemicals.) 

By ERIC LIPTON OCT. 21, 2017 
84 


35667.093

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. 
85 


35667.094

Dr. Beck testifying at a Senate hearing in March. She joined the E.P.A. in May after working as an executive 

at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's main trade association. L s. 

The E.P.A.'s abrupt new direction on legacy chemicals is part of a broad initiative by the 

Trump administration to change the way the federal government evaluates health and 

environmental risks associated with hazardous chemicals, making it more aligned with 

the industry's wishes. 

It is a cause with far-reaching consequences for consumers and chemical companies, as 

the E.P.A. regulates some 8o,ooo different chemicals, many of them highly toxic and 

used in workplaces, homes and everyday products. If chemicals are deemed less risky, 

they are less likely to be subjected to heavy oversight and restrictions. 

The effort is not new, nor is the how best to identify and assess 

risks, but the industry has not benefited from such highly placed champions in 

government since the Reagan administration. The 

cause was taken up by Dr. Beck and others in the administration of President George W. 

Bush, ·with some success, and met \'Vith resistance during the Obama administration. Now 

it has been aggressively revived under President Trump by an array of industry-backed 

political appointees and others. 
86 


35667.095

- firmly backed by the chemical industry that says the government too often directs 

burdensome rules at what she has called Jt!l!¢.!l!ll.ttu~!l.· 

Other scientists and administrators at the E.P.A., including Wendy Cleland- Hamnett, 

until last month the agency's toxic chemicals, say 

the dangers are real and the pushbaek is often a tactic for deflecting accountability - and 

shoring up industry profits at the expense of public safety. 
87 


35667.096

DOCUMENT 

E.P.A.'s Decision Not to Ban Chlorpyrifos 

The New York Times requested copies of email correspondence related to the March 2017 decision by 

the E.P .A. to reject a decade- to ban chlorpyrifos, that research 

suggests may cause delays in children exposed to it in in farming 

communities. Here are those documents. 

Since Mr. Trump's election, Dr. Beck's approach has been unabashedly ascendant, 

according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former E.P.A. and White 

House officials, confidential E.P.A. documents, and materials obtained through openrecord requests. 

The E.P.A.'s new leadership also agency scientists to re-evaluate a plan to ban 

certain uses of two dangerous chemicals that have caused dozens of deaths or severe 

health problems: which is found in strippers, and 

!Jj<:;hlQTI~!Jyj,sm~, which removes grease from metals and is used in dry cleaning. 

"It was extremely disturbing to me," Ms. Hamnett said of the order she received to 

E.P.A. political appointees. And then I was asked to change the agency's stand." 

The E.P.A. and Dr. Beck declined repeated requests to comment that included detailed 

lists of questions. 

"No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a "Liz 

Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., §.aid. in an email. "The only thing inappropriate 

and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified 

nrofessionals committed to servin~r their countrv." 
88 


35667.097

Before joining the E.P.A., Ms. Bowman was a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry 

Council. 

The conflict over how to define risk in federal regulations comes just as the 

E.P.A. was supposed to be fixing its backlogged and beleaguered chemical regulation 

program. Last year, after a decade of delays, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that 

would push the E.P.A. to determine whether dozens of chemicals were so dangerous that 

they should be banned or restricted. 

The E.P.A.'s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry's Pushback 

The chemical safety law was passed after Congress and the chemical industry reached a 

consensus that toxic chemical threats - or at least the fear of them - were so severe that 

they undermined consumer confidence in products on the market. 

But now the chemical industry and many of the companies that use their 

compounds are praising the Trump administration's changed direction, saying new 

chemicals are getting faster regulatory reviews and existing chemicals will benefit from a 

less dogmatic approach to determining risk. 

"U.S. businesses, jobs and competitiveness depend on a functioning new chemicals 

program," Calvin M. Dooley, a former congressman who is president of the American 

Chemistry Council, said in a statement. It was issued in June after Dr. Beck, his recent 

employee, pushed through many industry-friendly changes in her new role at the E.P.A., 

including the change in tracking legacy chemicals such as PFOA. 

Anne Womack Kolton, a vice president at the council, said on Wednesday that Dr. Beck's 

appointment was a positive development. 

"We, along with many others, are glad that individuals who support credible science and 

thorough analysis as the basis for policymaking have agreed to serve," she said in an 

email. "Consistency, transparency and high quality science in the regulatory process are 

in everyone's interests." 

The Trump administration's shift, the industry has acknowledged, could have financial 

benefits. Otherwise, the industry may lose "millions of dollars and years of research 

invested in a chemical," the American Chemistry Council and other groups wrote in a 

legal brief defending the changes Dr. 

Beck had engineered. 

But consumer advocates and many longtime scientists, managers and administrators at 

the E.P.A. are alarmed by the administration's priorities and worry that the new law's 

anticipated crackdo~n on hazardous chemicals could be compromised. 
89 


35667.098

Dr. Beck, left, and Ms. Ham nett, center, who clashed over changes to new toxic chemical rules, attended a 

signing ceremony with Mr. Pruitt. Video hy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Video by u.s. 

En-vironmental Protection Agency 

"You are never going to have 100 percent certainty on anything," Ms. Hamnett said. 

"But when you have a chemical that evidence points to is causing fatalities, you err 

more on the side of taking some action, as opposed to 'Let's wait and spend some more 

time and try to get the science entirely certain,' which it hardly ever gets to be." 

The divergent approaches and yearslong face-off between Ms. Hamnett and Dr. Beck 

parallel the story of the chemical industry's quest to keep the E.P.A.'s enforcement arm 

at bay. 

The two women, one a la'hyer from New Jersey, the other a scientist from Long Island, 

have dedicated their lives to the issue of hazardous chemicals. Each's expertise is 

respected by her peers, but their perspectives couldn't be more dissimilar. 

Ms. Hamnett, 63, spent her entire 38-year career at the E.P.A., joining the agency 

directly from law school as a believer in consumer and environmental protections. Dr. 

Beck, 51, did a fellowship at the E.P.A., but has spent most of her 29-year career 

elsewhere: in a testing lab at Estee Lauder, as a toxicologist in the Washington State 

Health Department, as a regulatory analyst in the White House and most recently with 

the chemical industry's trade group. 
90 


35667.099

Ms. Hamnett in Falls Church, Va. Last month, she retired as the top official overseeing pesticides and toxic 

chemicals at the 

E.P.A. "!had become irrelevant," she said about changes there under the Trump administration. 

Before Mr. Trump's election, Ms. Hamnett would have been regarded as the hands-down 

victor in their professional tug of war. Her decision to retire in September amounted to a 

surrender of sorts, a powerful acknowledgment of the two women's reversed fortunes 

under the Trump administration. 

"I had become irrelevant," Ms. Ham nett said. 

Her farewell party in late August was held in the wood-paneled Map Room on the first 

floor of the E.P.A. headquarters, the same room where Mr, 

"'-"~""-'"""'"-"~"""'""-uu executive order backed by business that called for the agency to 

dismantle environmental protections. 

Dr. Beck was among those who spoke. She thanked Ms. Hamnett for her decades of 

service. "I don't know what I am going to do without her," she said, according to multiple 
91 


35667.100

people who attended the event. 

Ms. Hamnett, in an interview, said she had little trouble envisioning the future under the 

new leadership. "It's time for me to go," she said. "I have done what I could do." 

'Unreasonable Risk of Injury' 

Chemical regulation was not part of the E.P.A.'s original mission. But several 

environmental disasters in the early 1970s prompted Congress to extend the agency's 

authority. 

Industrial waste, including highly toxic PCBs, led to fish kills in the Hudson River. 

Chemicals from flame retardants were detected in livestock in Michigan, contaminating 

food across the state. And residents in Niagara Falls, N.Y., first started to notice a black, 

oily liquid in their basements, early hints of one of the worst environmental disasters in 

United States history: Love Canal. 

President Gerald R. Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act in October 1976, giving 

the E.P.A. the authority to ban or restrict chemicals it deemed dangerous. It was hailed as 

a public health breakthrough. 

"For the first time, the law empowers the federal government to control and even to stop 

production or use of chemical substances that may present an unreasonable risk of injury 

to health or environment," a federal report said. 

A few years later, after graduating from George Washington University Law School in 

1979, Ms. Hamnett landed at the E.P.A. She arrived fully embracing its enhanced mission. 

She had grown up in Trenton, where the words "Trenton Makes, the World 

Takes" are affixed in neon to the side of a railroad bridge spanning the Delaware River. 
92 


35667.101

A bridge over the Delaware River in Trenton, N.J., says, "Trenton Makes, the World Takes." The Roebling 

Steel Company plant brought prosperity to the region, but also contaminated soil and groundwater with 

hazardous chemicals. 

It was this legacy, as well as the congressional directive to the E.P .A. to protect the public 

from harm, that Ms. Hamnett said guided her. 

During the Bush administration, she was drawn into a contentious debate 

involving lead paint that highlighted her resolve - and that of her opponents. 

Few environmental hazards are as well understood as the dangers of lead in paint. Since it 

was first used in homes in the United States, more than a century ago, it has poisoned 

children. Even after it was banned in the late 1970s, it remained a threat, particularly 

when renovations took place in the !!:!lS of million~_g_fhomilli_ with lead-based paint. 

The E.P.A. set out to establish standards governing home renovations, and Ms. Hamnett 

came to the discussions with a strong perspective. 
93 


35667.102

"What is the effect of exposure likely to be?" she recalled asking. "If it is likely to be a 

severe effect and result in a significant number of people exposed, if so, I am going to err 

on the side of safety." 

While the evidence was solid .that lead caused learning disabilities and other problems for 

children, it was less definitive on whether it was also a factor in adult diseases. 

To Ms. Hamnett and her colleagues, the results of multiple studies were compelling 

enough to establish an apparent link to cardiovascular disease in adults. They concluded 

in a report in 2006 that there was "stronger evidence for a relationship between lead 

exposure and blood pressure for adults," citing it as a factor for aggressive safety 

requirements. 

The home renovation industry filed protests over the "inappropriate and costly" rule with 

the Bush administration and Congress. Taking up its cause was a White House official 

with a reputation for assessing risk much differently: Dr. Beck. 

Throwing 'Sand in the Gears' 

As the Bush administration took office, John D. Graham, who ran the White House office 

overseeing regulations, unveiled a plan to ease the government's burden on business by 

reining in "the regulatory state." 

To that end, Mr. Graham hired scientists to review major federal regulations and make 

recommendations about their worthiness, something the E.P.A. 

itself had done over the years. 

Dr. Beck, Mr. Graham said, was an excellent addition to his staff. 

She had grown up in Oyster Bay, N.Y., an affluent suburb on Long Island, earned an 

undergraduate microbiology degree in 1988 from Cornell and a doctorate from the 

University of Washington a decade later. Her 

dissertation, which examined how the sedative phenobarbital impacts the metabolism of 

the liver, started with words still relevant to her today: "Each day the human body is 

confronted with many potentially toxic substances in the form of food items, medicinal 

products and environmental agents." 

She started her career at Estee Lauder, where she helped develop preservatives used to 

extend tile shelf life of cosmetics, and also designed laboratory tests to determine if 

products caused adverse reactions when applied to skin. 

When Mr. Graham hired her, she had been working as a science fellow at the E.P.A.'s 

center for environmental reviews. He described her as having "street smarts and thick 

skin," someone who did not need the limelight to be effective. 
94 


35667.103

"Dr. Beck is easy to underestimate," Mr. Graham said in an email. When the proposed 

lead paint rule came along in 2006, Dr. Beck, in her 

White House role, pressed Ms. Hamnett and others in the E.P.A. to revise the language to 

diminish the link to cardiovascular disease in adults, Ms. Hamnett recalled, before letting 

the rule go into effect. 

That was one marker in Dr. Beck's journey to redefine the way the government evaluates 

risk. Though they repeatedly found themselves on opposite sides, Ms. Hamnett said that, 

in a way, she admired Dr. Beck's effort during those years. 

She described Dr. Beck as a voracious reader of scientific studies and agency reports, 

diving deep into footnotes and scientific data with a rigor matched by few colleagues. She 

combed through thousands of comments submitted 

on proposed rules. And she had a habit of reading the Federal Register, the daily diary of 

new federal rules. 

All of it made Dr. Beck an intimidating and confident adversary, Ms. Hamnett recalled. 

"She's very smart and very well informed," she said. 

But there was a destructive side to that confidence, others said. In particular, Dr. Beck 

was seen as an enemy of scientists and risk assessors at the E.P.A., willing to challenge 

the validity of their studies and impose her own judgment, said Robert M. Sussman, a 

lawyer who represented chemical industry clients during the Bush administration and 

later became an E.P.A. la~yer and policy adviser under the Obama administration. 

"Her goal was to throw sand in the gears to stop things from going forward," said Mr. 

Sussman, who now is counsel to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of 

consumer and environmental groups. 

Jack Housenger, a biologist who served as the director of the E.P.A.'s pesticide program, 

had a more positive recollection. He said Dr. Beck asked reasonable questions about his 

findings related to a wood preservative used in playgrounds and outdoor decks that was 

being pulled from the market. 

"She wanted us to present the uncertainties and ranges of risk," said Mr. Housenger, who 

retired this year. "She was trying to understand the methodology.'' 

Paul Noe, a lawyer who worked with Dr. Beck during the Bush administration, also said 

her critics got her wrong. 

"What you really want to do as a government is to set priorities," he said. "If you don't 

have a realistic way of distinguishing significant risks from insignificant ones, you are just 

going to get bogged down and waste significant resources, and that can impede public 

health and safety.'' 
95 


35667.104

One of the harshest criticisms of Dr. Beck's tenure in the Bush White House came in 2007 

from the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences, which examined a draft policy she 

helped write proposing much stricter controls over the way the government evaluates 

risks. 

"The committee agrees that there is room for improvement in risk 

assessment practices in the federal government," the review said, but it described Dr. 

Beck's suggestions as "oversimplified" and "fundamentally flawed." It recommended her 

proposal be withdrawn. 

https://www.nytimes.com/20 17/1 0/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals·rcgulations.html[ 1/22/2018 12: 13:49 PM] 

Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots. The New York Times 
96 


35667.105

DOCUMENT 

E.P .A. and Toxic Chemical Rules 

An internal broken out in tbe Environmental Protection Agency over how to regulate toxie 

chemicals. These tell the backstory of the tension, which emerged after the Trnmp 

administration named an industry insider as a top agency regulator. 

Dr. Beck was so aggressive in second-guessing E.P.A. scientists that she became central to 

a~(~~~illmUoc~~~mrullitt~~~~~~~~ 

The committee obtained copies of her detailed emails to agency officials and accused her 

of slowing progress in confirming drinking-water health threats presented by chemicals 

like perchlorate, used in rocket fuel. "Suppression of Environmental Science by the Bush 

Administration's Office of Management and Budget," the committee wrote in 2009, 

before describing Dr. Beck's actions. 

The opposition became so intense that Dr. Beck's efforts started to get shut down. 

First, the new risk assessment policy she had proposed was formally withdrawn. Then, 

after Mr. Obama took office in 2009, Mr. Sussman recalled going to the White House 

along with Lisa P. Jackson, the new 

E.P.A. administrator, to ask for a commitment to curb Dr. Beck's power. 

"We told them that we need the White House out of the E.P.A. science program," Mr. 

Sussman said. "We demanded that. And we got it." 

Continuing the Fight 

During Mr. Obama's first term, Dr. Beck left the White House for the American Chemistry 

Council, DuPont and dozens of other major manufacturers 

and chemical companies. 
97 


35667.106

As the trade association's senior regulatory scientist, she was perfectly positioned to 

continue her second-guessing of the E.P.A.'s science. 

Now her detailed criticisms of the agency came on trade association letterhead and in 

presentations at agency meetings and events. 

"If the same person says the same thing three times, does this create a weight of 

evidence?" Dr. 2013, essentially mocking the scientific 

standards at the agency. 

Her point was often the same: Did the scientists producing work that federal regulators 

relied on adequately justify all of the conclusions about any risks? 

"Scientists today are more prolific than ever," she said in a lli?Y!lm!?!il:.£\illUlJ[§§§Ib§!imb 

later adding that "unfortunatelv, many of the scientific studies we read about in the news 

were not quite ready for prime time." 

But at the same time, the industry was confronting a much larger existential problem. 

E.P.A. and government-funded academic researchers were raising serious health 

questions about the safety of a range of chemicals, including flame retardants in furniture 

and plastics in water bottles and children's toys. i&ll§l!lill&I.£QllW:i&!@JJl!l.!lllililli§.llY' 

eroding. 

Some state legislatures, frustrated by the E.P .A.'s slow response and facing a consumer 

backlash, moved to increase their own authority to investigate and act on the problems -

threatening the chemical industry vvith an 

unwieldy patchwork of state rules and regulations. 

Dr. Beck and other chemical industry representatives were dispatched to the 

E.P.A. and Congress to press for changes to the federal regulatory system that would 

standardize testing of the most worrisome existing chemicals and improve and accelerate 

the evaluation of new ones. 

"'-''"-!.""'-'"-"~.!ill'-' passed last year with Democratic and Republican support, gave both 

sides something they wanted. The chemical industry got pre- emption from most new 

state regulations, and environmentalists got assurances that new chemicals would be 

evaluated on health and safety risks alone, not financial considerations. 

It was the most significant overhaul of the its 

enactment in the 1970s, and once again Ms. Hamnett was prepared to help shepherd it 

into place. The task was shaping up to be what she considered her final, crowning act at 

theE.P.A. 
98 


35667.107

Ms. Hamnett was invited to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a part of the White 
99 


35667.108

"Protecting people and the environment for decades to come," she said, recalling her 

thoughts, as she excitedly stood on the stage. "At least, that is what we planned." 

the 

They gathered in early June around a long confere11Ce table at the E.P.A. headquarters, 

the sunlight shining in from Constitution Avenue. In the crowd were Dr. Beck, Ms. 

Hamnett and other top agency officials charged with regulating toxic chemicals, as well as 

environmentalists worried about last-minute changes to rules being pushed by the 

chemical industry. 

Olga Naidenko, an immunologist specializing in children's health, said she was stmck by 

the head-spinning scene. Dr. Beck, who had spent years trying to influence Ms. Hamnett 

and others to issue rules friendly to the chemical industry, was now sitting at the 

conference table as a government decision maker. 

"I am running the show. I am now in the chair. And it is mine," Dr. Naidenko said, 

describing her impressions of Dr. Beck at the gathering. 

The Obama-era leadership at the E.P.A., in its last weeks, had published drafts of two 

criticalmles needed to start the new chemical urogram. The rules detailed how the 
100 


35667.109

agency would choose the most risky chemicals to be tested or evaluated and how the 

hazards should be judged. 

It would be up to Mr. Pruitt, the new E.P .A. chief, and his team to complete the process in 

time for a June deadline, set in the legislation. 

Dr. Naidenko, a staff scientist at the Environmental Working Group, was there to plead 

with the agency to ignore a request from the American Chemistry Council to make more 

than a dozen last-minute changes, some pushed by Dr. Beck while she was at the council. 

Dr. Beck did not seem convinced, recalled Dr. Naidenko and one of her colleagues, 

Melanie Benesh, a lawyer with the same organization. 

"Tell me why you are concerned. What is it about?" Ms. Benesh and Ms. Hamnett each 

said they recalled Dr. Beck saying. 

In fact, behind the scenes, the deed was already done. 

Before Dr. Beck's arrival, representatives from the E.P.A.'s major divisions had agreed on 

final wording for the rules that would be sent to the White House for approval. But they 

were told to wait until May 1, when Dr. Beck began her job as the acting assistant 

administrator for chemical safety. 

Dr. Beck then spent her first weeks on the job pressing agency staff to rewrite the 

standards to reflect, in some cases, word for word, the chemical industry's proposed 

changes, three staff members involved in the effort said. They asked not to be named for 

fear of losing their jobs. 

Dr. Beck had unusual authority to make it happen. 

When she was hired by the Trump administration, she was granted the status of 

"administratively determined" position. It is an unusual classification that means she was 

not hired based on a competitive process 

- as civil servants are - and she was also not identified as a political appointee. There 

are only about a dozen such posts at the E.P.A., among the 15,800 agency employees, and 

the jobs are typically reserved for technical experts, not managers ·with the authority to 

give orders. 

Cmcially, the special status meant that Dr. Beck did not have to abide by the ethics 

agreement Mr. Trump adopted in ,January, which bars political appointees in his 

administration from participating for two years "in any particular matter involving 

specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former 

clients, including regulations and contracts." 

Her written offer of employment, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act 

request, also made it clear that Dr. Beck's appointment was junior enough not to require 

Senate confirmation, which would have almost certainly delayed her arrival at the agency 
101 


35667.110

and prevented her from making changes to the rules ahead of the June deadline. 

None of these arrangements raised concerns with the E.P.A.'s acting general counsel, 

Kevin S. Minoli, who issued a ruling on her unusual employment status. Mr. Minoli saw 

Dr. Beck's background as a benefit, according to a memo he wrote that was reviewed by 

The Times. 

"You have extensive prior experience with the regulated industry's perspective and are 

already familiar with (and may well have authored) 

A. C. C. comments now under consideration," he wrote, referring to the American 

Chemistry Council. 

He added that Dr. Beck's "unique expertise, knowledge and prior experience will ensure 

that the agency is able to consider all perspectives, including that of the regulated 

industry's major trade association.'' 

https:/ /www.nytimes.com/20 17/1 0/21/usltrump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html [ l/22120 18 12: 13:49 PM] 

Why Has the E.P.A. Shifte<l on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots- The New York Times 
102 


35667.111

FROM: 

TO: 

an E.P.A. official addressed Dr. Beck's ability to be involved in matters affecting her former 

Others at the E.P.A., however, were stunned at the free pass given to Dr. Beck. 

"It was a clear demonstration this administration has been captured by the industry," said 

Elizabeth Southerland, who served as the director of science and technology in the Office 

of Water until her retirement in July. 

Getting Her Way 

In the weeks leading up to the June deadline, Dr. Beck made clear what changes she 

wanted. 

The conversations were polite, and Dr. Beck listened to counterarguments that Ms. 

Hamnett and her team made, Ms. Hamnett said. But in most cases, Dr. Beck did not back 
103 


35667.112

down, demanding a variety of revisions, particularly related to how the agency defined 

risks. 

It all had a familiar ring. Ms. Hamnett and the others had fielded many of the same 

demands from the American Chemistry Council and from Dr. Beck herself when she 

worked there. Ms. Hamnett took detailed notes in spiral notepads, ""'"""'""-"'"-""Y-'l"--"~~ 

;;he sl}()we<l_The Times. 

One area of contention was Dr. Beck's insistence that the E.P.A. adopt precise definitions 

of terms and phrases used in imposing rules and regulations, such as "best available 

science" and ="""~""-'~-"-"-""',cill"'· 

The agency had repeatedly rejected the idea, most recently in January, in part because the 

definitions were seen as a guise for opponents to raise legal challenges. 

"These terms have and will continue to evolve \\lith changing scientific methods and 

innovation," the Federal Register, three days 

before Mr. Trump was sworn in. "Codifying specific definitions for these phrases in this 

rule may inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness of the agency to quickly adapt to and 

implement changing science." 

Another area of dispute involved the "all uses" standard for evaluating health threats 

posed by chemicals. Under that standard, the E.P.A. would consider any possible use of a 

chemical when determining how to regulate it; Dr. Beck, ill\&..hll££!!;;M!&JJL!l!&l1!!2!d.Y, 

wanted the E.P.A. to limit the evaluations to specific intended uses. 

"There is no way we can look at thousands of uses," Dr. Beck told Ms. Hamnett in one 

meeting in mid-May, according to Ms. Hamnett and her notes. "We can't chase the last 

molecule." 
104 


35667.113
105 


35667.114

Ms. Hamnett's notes from meetings where changes in toxic chemical rules were discussed at the request of 

Dr. Beck, who had a history of second-guessing the E.P.A.'s scientists. 

As the June deadline under the new law approached, Dr. Beck took control of the 

rewriting herself, a highly unusual step at the E.P.A., where expert Civil Service 

employees traditionally hold the rule-writing pen. 

Ms. Hamnett said she did not try to stop Dr. Beck given she had the support of the 

agency's new leadership. 

Mr. Noe, the lawyer who worked with Dr. Beck during the Bush administration, was not 

involved in the rewriting of the new rules. But he said it was wrong to interpret Dr. Beck's 

actions as pro-industry; instead, he said, she was a defender of rigorous science. 

"Anyone who would question Nancy's ability or integrity does not know her at all and just 

has a political ax to grind," he said. 

Ms. Ham nett's handwritten notes, however, record increasingly urgent objections from 

across the agency, including from the Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division, the 

Office of Water and the Office of General Counsel. 

"Everyone was furious," said Ms. Southerland, the official from the Office of Water. 

"Nancy was just rewriting the rule herself. And it was a huge change. Everybody was 

stunned such a substantial change would be made literally in the last week." 

The general counsel's objections to the substance of the changes were among the most 

alarming, 

Laurel Celeste, an agency lawyer, questioned whether the last-minute changes would 

leave the agency's rule-making open to legal challenges. Her objections were outlined in a 

memo reviewed bv The Times that was marked "confidential attorney client 

communication. Do not release under FOIA," referring to the Freedom of Information 

Act. 

Federal law requires rules to be a "logical outgrowth" of the administrative record. But 

Dr, Beck had demanded changes that the staff had rejected, 

meaning that the rule contained items that "differ so greatly from the proposal that they 

cannot be considered to be the 'logical outgrowth' of the proposal and the comments," 

Ms. Celeste said. 
106 


35667.115

Her memo, sent by email on May 30 to Dr. Beck and more than two dozen agency 

scientists and staff members, also raised concerns about the preamble, an important 

piece of any regulation that must accurately reflect its contents. 

"We are also concerned that, as currently drafted, the preamble lacks an adequate 

rationale for a number of final rule provisions that have changed significantly from the 

proposal," Ms. Celeste wrote. 

The objections were strongly worded, but they fell short of an important legal threshold -

the formal filing of a "nonconcurrence" memo that would have triggered further review 

of Dr. Beck's actions. Several E.P.A. staff members said in interviews that they had been 

told by Mr. Pruitt's top deputies to air their concerns in so-called concur-with-comment 

memos, which put objections on the record but allowed the process to move forward. 

The rules, with Dr. Beck's changes, were sent to the White House and approved by the 

June deadline. Mr. Pruitt assembled the team in late June for a brief ceremony to 

celebrate the completion of the work. 

"Everybody here worked very, very hard," Ms. Hamnett said, as Mr. Pruitt signed his 

name, according to a video of the ceremony posted by the E.P .A. 

https:/ lwww.nytimes.com/20 17 /I 0121 lusitrump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html[ l /2212018 12:13:49 PM] 

Why Has the E.PA Shifted on Toxic Chemicals" An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots- The New York Times 
107 


35667.116

Calvin M. Dooley, a former congressman who is president of the American Chemistry Council. In May, Dr. 

Beck, his recent employee, pushed through many industry-friendly changes at the E. P .A. 

'Not One of My Best Days' 

Environmentalists were dismayed, but Ms. Hamnett emteri;ect from the whirl"ind process 

with some confidence that all was not lost. 

would maintain its commitment to honor Congress's intent in the 2016legislation. That 

would translate into a rigorous crackdovm on the most dangerous chemicals, regardless 

of the changes. 

But her confidence in the E.P.A.'s resolve was fragile, and it had been shaken by other 

actions, including the order Ms. Hamnett received to reverse course on banning the 

pesticide chlorpyrifos. 

The order came before Dr. Beck's arrival at the agency, but Ms. Hamnett saw the 

fingerprints all over it. Mr. Pmitt's chief of staff, Ryan ,Jackson, instmcted Ms. 

Hamnett to ignore the recommendation scientists, she said. 

The scientists had called for a !)an based on research SU§~ge:stlrtg the pesticide might cause 

developmental disabilities in children. 
108 


35667.117

Farm workers in a field picking berries. Chlorpyrifos, a pesticide blamed for developmental disabilities in 

children, is still widely used in agriculture. In March, Mr. Pruitt overrode agency scientists' 

recommendation to ban it. 

To keep the pesticide on the market, under E.P.A. guidelines, the agency needed to have a 

"rs~l!'iQlliillJ~~rni!ID;" that no harm was being caused. 

"The science and the law tell us this is the way to go," Ms. Ham nett said of a ban. 

But the reaction from her superiors was not about the science or the law, she said. 

Instead, they queried her about Dow Chemical, the pesticide's largest manufacturer, 

which had been against a ban. 

The clash is recorded in Ms. Hamnett notebook as well as in emails among Mr. Pruitt's 

top political aides, which were obtained Times. 

Mr. Jackson, Ms. Hamnett's notebook shows, then asked her to come up with alternatives 

to a ban. He asserted, her notes show, that he did not want to be "forced into a box" by the 

petition. 
109 


35667.118

Ms. Ham nett recorded Mr. Jackson's reaction to a pesticide ban in her notebook. 

"I scared them," Mr. Jackson l'[!Qte in an emailJo a colleague about his demands on Ms. 

Ham nett and her team. 

As a possible compromise, Ms. Hanmett's team had been talking to Dow about perhaps 

phasing out the pesticide instead of imposing an immediate ban. But Dow, after Mr. 

Trump's election, was suddenly in no mood to compromise, Ms. Hamnett recalled. Dow 

did not respond to requests for comment. 

She now knew, she said, that the effort to ban the pesticide had been lost, something Mr. 

Jackson's emails celebrated. 

"They know where this is headed," Mr. Jackson wrote. 

Just over a week later, Ms,.l:Iamnett submitted a draft order that would deny the request 

r a ban. 

"It was hard, very hard," she said, worrying that the pesticide would continue to harm 

children of farmworkers. "That was not one of my best days." 

The episode is one reason she worries the E.P.A. will defer to the chemical industry as it 

begins to evaluate toxic chemicals under the standards created by the new law. She 

became particularly concerned because of a more recent exchange with Dr. Beck over 

methylene chloride, which is used in paint removers. 

After more than a decade of research, the agency had concluded in January that 

methylene chloride was so hazardous that its use in paint removers should be banned. 

Methylene chloride has been blamed in dozens of deaths, including that of a 21-year-old 

Te!luessee man in April, who was overwhelmed by fumes as he was refinishing a bathtnb. 

"How is it possible that you can go to a home improvement store and buy a paint remover 

that can kill you?" Ms. Hamnett asked. "How can we let this happen?" 
110 


35667.119

Furniture-refinishing companies and chemical manufacturers have urged the E.P.A. to 

focus on steps like strengthening warning labels, complaining that there are few 

reasonably priced alternatives. 

Ms. Hamnett said Dr. Beck raised the possibility that people were not following the 

directions on the labels. She also suggested that only a small number of users had been 

injured. "Is it 1 percent?" Ms. Hamnett recalled Dr. Beck asking. 

Ms. Hamnett said she was devastated line of questioning. 

After years of successfully fending off Dr. Beck and her 

power at the agency had shifted toward the industry. 

allies, the balance of 
111 


35667.120
112 


35667.121

She had long planned to wrap up her work at the agency soon, as her husband, David, had 

retired three years ago. On Sept. 1, Ms. Ham nett turned in her badge and joined him. 

The American Chemistry Council, and its members, are among the top private-sector 

sponsors of Mr. Dourson's research. Last year, he collaborated on "-"'=""-'"''"was 

funded by the trade group. His fellow author was Dr. Beck. 

Sheila Kaplan contributed reporting. 

RELATED COVERAGE 

E.P .A.'s Top 10 Toxic Threats, and Industry's Pushback 

E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency's Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide 

E.P.A. Promised 'a New Day' for the Agriculture Industry, Documents Reveal 

AUG. 
113 


35667.122

11/28/2018 Trump's EPA is suppressing a report about formaldehyde and cancer- Vox 

Vox 

doesn't want 

By Julia Belluz @juliaoftoronto julia.belluz@voxmedia.com Jul6, 2018, 3:10pm EDT 

Formaldehyde is used in household products, including antiseptics, medicines, and cosmetics. 1 Getiy Images/Cultura RF 

Trump administration officials at the Environmental Protection (EPA) are 

a highly that would warn Americans 

about the cancer risks that come with one of the most common chemicals in our 

environment. 

The draft risk assessment, from the EPA's 

ex~)eCted to show that 

is 

hr<>·:>tn.,nn it in through car and 

furniture emissions, or it on our skin via cosmetics- can cause leukemia 

and nose and throat cancers. The was last and slated to 

move on to the National Academies of Science for external peer review. 

But more than five months after Scott Pruitt, the former EPA chief who 

Thursday, told a Senate that he believed the was it still 

hasn't seen the of 
114 


35667.123

Politico broke the story today that helps explain why: Top advisers to Pruitt 

have been dragging their feet in order to protect the chemical industry from 

damning revelations that would prompt stricter regulations and possibly classaction lawsuits by cancer patients. 

In a statement, an EPA spokesperson told Vox, "EPA continues to discuss this 

assessment with our Agency program partners and have no further updates to 

provide at this time. 

Assessments of this type are often the result of needs for particular rulemakings 

and undergo an extensive intra-agency and interagency process." 

But according to Politico, and a May letter from US senators to Pruitt, internal 

documents about the report tell a different story. 

Here's the May letter from Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse 

(D-RI) and Tom Carper (D-DE): 

"We have learned ... that multiple political appointees within EPA have expressed reluctance to 

move the assessment through the agency review process, have repeatedly set up briefings on thE 

assessment only to later cancel them, and/or have insisted that IRIS first set up briefings for 

industry stakeholders before completing agency review .... 

We have also learned that, at the same time as EPA political appointees' requests were delaying 

the formaldehyde assessment's movement through the agency review process, the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) as well as interested corporation such as ExxonMobil have been 

pressuring EPA not to release the assessment for public comment as drafted. 

Politico's Annie Snider, meanwhile, reports that a trade group representing chemica! 

businesses frequently contacted top EPA officials and asked them to avoid releasing 

the report: 

"As stated in our meeting, a premature release of a draft assessment ... will cause irreparable 

harm to the companies represented by the Panel and to the many companies and jobs that 

depend on the broad use of the chemical," Kimberly Wise White, who leads the American 

Chemistry Council's Formaldehyde Panel, wrote in a Jan. 26 letter to top officials at the EPA. The 

panel represents companies including Exxon Mobil and the Koch Industries subsidiary GeorgiaPacific Chemicals LLC that could face higher costs from stricter regulations or lawsuits. 

The story paints a pretty disturbing picture: Trump's EPA seems to be keeping 

information from Americans about their exposure to a ubiquitous cancer-causing 

chemical - and staving off regulations that would protect them. And given that 

Trump's appointee to 
115 


35667.124

oversee the EPA's toxic chemical unit, Nancy Beck, used to be an executive at 

the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade association for American 

chemical companies, this might not come as a surprise. 

The dangers of formaldehyde have long been known 

Formaldehyde is a colorless gas that's used to make building materials like 

particleboard, plywood, and fiberboard - so it's found in our houses and furniture. 

It's present in car emissions, industrial fungicide and disinfectant, and many 

household products (including cleaners, medicines, soaps, and cosmetics), 

according to the National Cancer Institute. It's also an ingredient in cigarettes, 

and some e-cigarette products. 

Products that contain formaldehyde release the chemical as a gas or vapor, so 

people can breathe it in or absorb it through the skin when it's in liquid form. 

In the short term, when formaldehyde is in the air at levels more than 0.1 ppm, 

exposure can cause "watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and 

throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation/' NCI says. 

Long-term exposure is known to cause leukemia and nose and throat cancer. 

(Though it's not known how much of the chemical is needed to become harmful 

and for how long a person would need to be exposed.) The National Toxicology 

Program says formaldehyde is "known to be a human carcinogen"; the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention says it causes cancer; and the World Health 

Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer calls the chemical 

"carcinogenic to humans." 

The EPA has lagged behind these other agencies on naming formaldehyde's cancer 

risks outright, calling it instead a "probable" human carcinogen. Since the EPA 

regulates environmental exposures, this distinction about the chemical's cancer risk 

matters for public health and the chemical industry: elevating formaldehyde to a 

known carcinogen would likely prompt class-action lawsuits from cancer patients, as 

well as tougher regulations. 

What's next for the risk assessment isn't clear. Andrew Wheeler, EPA deputy 

administrator and a former coal lobbyist, will take the helm of the EPA as acting 

director on Monday. 

Wheeler is expected to continue carrying out the Trump administration's 

deregulatory agenda, including weakening chemical regulators. So the question 

of whether the report will see the light of day may be more a matter of "if" than 

"when." 
116 


35667.125

EPA needs to get its SNURs in order 

underTSCA 

By Richard Denison I BioI Published: September 4, 2018 

Stephanie Schwarz, J.D., is a Legal Fellow. !1!.!:1.!E!!l\Ui!EL~~· 

Senior Scientist. 

is a Lead 

On Friday EDF §J!!m!f~L£Qm!l:lm:J!§JQJ;E8_Qili!..Q~tlQL§f9llli~D!l~L!:/.l~ 

Rules (SNURs) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on August 

1 pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

The SNURs relate to 145 new chemicals for which EPA had earlier issued 

consent orders that imposed certain conditions on the substances. Those 

consent orders date back to when EPA was still pursuing the development of 

such orders for many new chemicals it reviewed, and prior to the recent 

it has been making in an effort to avoid issuing orders by circumventing the 

requirements of the TSCA provisions governing new chemicals. 

TSCA anticipates that EPA will promulgate SNURs to follow up on 

issues an order, EPA must either promulgate a SNUR or provide a statement 

explaining why EPA is not doing so. And when EPA does promulgate such a 

SNUR, the SNUR must "identif[y] as a significant 

new use any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or 

disposal of the chemical substance that does not conform to the restrictions 

imposed by the ... order." 
117 


35667.126

EDF strongly supports EPA's use of SNURs to follow up on consent orders it 

issues. That is because the order only applies to the original company that 

submitted a premanufacture notice (PMN) to EPA for a new chemical. A proper 

SNUR then requires that company or any other company that seeks to deviate 

from the conditions in the order to first notify EPA, triggering a review of that 

"significant new use." 

While EDF supports EPA's issuance of SNURs for these 145 new chemicals, our 

review of the proposed SNURs raised concerns, prompting us to file "adverse" 

comments. Our comments raise two major concerns: 

First, EPA has adopted an ad hoc testing policy in the direct final rule that does 

not comply with the requirements of TSCA, without sufficient explanation, and 

without providing any notice .and opportunity for public comment on the policy. 

EPA needs to avoid adopting such an ad hoc policy. 

Second, as noted above, TSCA (as well as EPA's longstanding policy) requires 

SNURs to "conform" to the restrictions in the corresponding orders. Yet we 

identified numerous inconsistencies between the orders and SNURs. EPA must 

ensure that the final SNURs identify as a significant new use any activity that is 

not consistent with the restrictions in the corresponding consent orders. 

NOTE: EPA had published the SNURs both as a direct final rule and as a 

proposed rule, noting that if it received any adverse comments, it would withdraw 

the direct final rule and consider the comments received in the process of 

finalizing the proposed rule. We expect EPA will now pursue this course. 

257 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010 

!&Qyright © 2017 Environmental Defense Fund. All Rights Reserved. 

http:l/blogs.edf.org/health/2018/09/04/epa-needs-to-get-its-snurs-in-order-under-tsca/3/3 
118 


35667.127

11/26/2018 EPA's new rules underTSCA put public health at risk.: Here's what SHent Spring is doing about it 1 Silent Spring Institute 

Home » Silent Spring Institute's blog >> EPA's new rules under TSCA put public health at risk: Here's what Silent Spring is 

doing about it 

By Silent Spring Institute I Wednesday, February 28, 2018 

Over the past year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under administrator Scott 

Pruitt has been rolling back a number of key environmental protections, from reversing the ban 

on the toxic pesticide known as chlorpyrifos to weakening emissions standards for vehicles and 

power plants. As scientists, it is critical that we track these changes closely in order to fully 

understand their impact on human health. 

In our last blog post, we systemically documented the influence of industry on EPA's handling of 

the chemical safety law known as the Toll.ic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ("TSCA rules 

weakened under pressure from industry"). And we've been pushing back on the agency's decisiom 

by submitting official comments on its proposed rules for regulating chemicals. 

In our comments to EPA, we've highlighted the impact of environmental chemicals on women's 

health, specifically on breast cancer. Five of the first 10 chemicals EPA has prioritized for review 

under TSCA are mammary carcinogens. As a scientific research organization focused on breast 

cancer prevention, it is our duty to call out EPA for its proposed handling of these particular 

chemicals, which we feel does not adequately protect women from breast cancer. 
119 


35667.128

In other words, we are putting the agency on notice. Our comments are critical at this particular 

time not only because EPA is required to respond to our concerns, but also because our comments 

could help lay the groundwork for lawsuits by other organizations in the future. 

Here's a roundup of what we've submitted to EPA so far: 

The worst offenders: EPA has all the evidence it needs to regulate PBTs (Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic chemicals) 

Under TSCA, EPA has new authority to put PBT chemicals on a fast track for regulation. PBTs are 

toxic chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment and bioaccumulate in people and in 

wildlife. One of the PBT chemicals selected by the agency for this process is a flame retardant in 

the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) family, called decaBDE. Studies show decaBDE 

impacts the nervous system, disrupts hormones, and causes reproductive and developmental 

problems. DecaBDE is used in textile backings and electrical equipment. 

Because the chemical leaches out of products and into the environment, we consistently find 

decaBDE in dust samples from our household exposure studies. In a recent study we did on 

college campuses, we found high levels of decaBDE in student dormitories-the highest levels ever 

reported in a residential setting. Given the weight of scientific evidence demonstrating 

its pervasiveness in the environment and its effects on human health, we support 

regulating decaBDE under TSCA. 

The first ten chemicals: Don't ignore breast cancer 

EPA has picked a first set of 10 chemicals to review, five of which are mammary carcinogens. 

When making decisions about how these chemicals should be regulated, we urge 

EPA to consider the total impact of all exposure sources on developing breast tissue 

and other systems. We combed through the first draft of EPA's risk evaluations for these five 

chemicals and alerted the agency to the various ways in which its process will miss the risks these 

chemicals pose to public health. 

• We asked EPA to evaluate the total impact of each chemical from all sources combined, so that, 

for instance, a woman who is exposed to these chemicals in her workplace, through her consumer 

products, and in the air she breathes and the water she drinks every day, will be protected. 

https://silentspring.org/blog/epa%E2%80%99s~new~rules-under-tsca-put-pub!ic-health-risk-here%E2%80%99s-whaHilent-spring-doing-about-it 2/ 

11/2612018 EPA's new rules under TSCA put public health at risk: Here's what Silent Spring is doing about it! Silent Spring Institute 

• We said EPA should require that the chemicals that companies put into products are safe enough 

to be used under a range of real-world conditions. For example, a worker who uses a methylene 

chloride-based paint stripper to re-finish a bathtub should not die from harmful fumes because 

the bathroom was too small or not well enough ventilated. 
120 


35667.129

• We asked EPA to consider the safety of sensitive populations. Certain groups of people 

are more vulnerable to environmental chemicals than others. The body is also more susceptible to 

exposures during key developmental stages in life. For example, during development in the 

womb, during puberty and throughout the reproductive years, the breast is vulnerable to 

carcinogens and this increased susceptibility should be considered when evaluating these five 

mammary carcinogens. 

• For these five chemicals, we listed all the various health effects (including developmental and 

reproductive problems as well as cancer) that were missing from EPA's draft of health data. 

Prioritizing chemicals: A chanc~ght 

Moving forward, EPA asked for input on how to decide which chemicals v.ill be considered highversus low-priority. We commented that EPA's process for making these decisions must consider 

vulnerable populations. We also said that EPA should use exposure data in people, such as 

biomonitoring (e.g. blood and urine samples), as well as indoor air and dust 

measurements, to estimate how much people are exposed to certain chemicals. EPA 

should flag chemicals for which data on health effects is lacking early on, and not assign a 

chemical to a low- priority classification without adequate toxicity and exposure studies. For 

example, we commented that EPA should not give a chemical a low-priority pass based on limited 

evidence from computer model projections, which aren't yet strong enough to predict whether a 

chemical is safe, especially for deciding breast cancer risk. 

New chemicals framework: Public left in the dark 

Under the new TSCA law, EPA has the authority to regulate new chemicals coming onto the 

market; however, this process lacks transparency and does not include all foreseeable 

uses of the new chemicals, contrary to the law's intent. 

Alarmingly, EPA has already been using this proposed framework to review new chemicals, and 

their decision-making process is not yet available to the public. As of writing this, we know about 

the status of very few of the 250 chemicals that have been reviewed under this framework since 

July 2017. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is now suing EPA for using this new 

framework before the public comment process was complete. 

In our comments on EPA's process for approving new chemicals, we said: 

• Making non-binding agreements ·with chemical manufacturers (e.g. specifications in regards to 

production volume and occupational exposures) leaves the public vulnerable. There's nothing 

to stop manufacturers from deviating from such agreements, resulting in 

unapproved and unsafe exposures. 

EPA's process will limit public information on new chemical reviews. For example, the final 

conditions agreed to between manufacturers and EPA may not be made public, and most of the 

process and information used to evaluate a new chemical will remain behind the curtain. 

Now more than ever, it is important for EPA to hear from scientists, advocates, lawyers, and the 

general public, to ensure that the agency is putting public health and safety first. We need to hold 
121 


35667.130

the agency accountable and we need to hold it to the highest standard possible. For if we don't 

stand up for public health, women's health, and breast cancer prevention, who will? 

Jessica Helm, Phd, is a postdoctoral research fellow at Silent Spring Institute. She studies the 

sources and mechanisms of environmental effects on health, and created the Detox Me app for 

exposure reduction. 

Kathryn Rodgers, MPH is a staff scientist at Silent Spring Institute. Her work focuses on 

measuring exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals. 

Contributed by Silent Spring Institnte 

RECENT SLOGS 

Women firefighters and breast cancer: Mapping the exposome to uncover on-the-job risk factors 

October 3, 2018 

Silent Spring Institute pushes back on EPA's "transparency" rule 

August 23, 2018 

Back to School Basics: Silent Spring's Top 10 Tips 

AugustS, 2018 

https:/Jsi!entspring.org/blog/epa%E2%80%99s~new~ru!es*under*tsca~put~pub!lc~health*risk~here%E2%80%99s"what-silent~spring-doing-about-lt 

415 

11/26/2018 2 Years After Reformed TSCA Pruitt's EPA Has Failed to Protect Us from Toxic Chemicals 1 EWG 

Home> News> EWG News and Analysis> 2 Years After Reformed TSCA, Pruitt's EPA Has Failed to Protect Us from Toxic Chemicals 

The latest from EWG 's staff of experts 
122 


35667.131

2 Years After Reformed TSCA, Pruitt's EPA Has Failed to Protect Us from 

Toxic Chemicals 

The latest from EWG 's stq(fof experts > > 

On June 22,2016, President Obama signed law a significant overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, or 

TSCA, the nation's primary chemical safety law. It was the first update to the law> which was widely considered to 

be the least effective environmental on the books, in 40 years. 

The updated TSCA is supposed to regulate thousands of chemicals used industrially and also in an a•·ray of 

consumer products like paint, cleaning products, mattresses. clothes, insulation and more. 

But under Administrator Scott Pruitt's leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken every opportunity 

to undennine, not enhance, chemical safety. Two years later, here are lO ways P1uitt's EPA has failed to protect 

Americans under the new law: 

1. Rubber-stamping new chemicals 

The update to TSCA required the EPA to make affirmative safety decisions about new chemicals for the first time. At 

first, the EPA appeared to be taking this responsibility seriously by rigorously reviewing new chemicals before they 

could come onto the market. However, in August 2017, the Pruitt EPA fundamentally changed the way it was 

reviewing these new chemicals and eliminated a backlog of600 chemicals overnight. Since June 2016, the 

EPA has reviewed more than 2,000 new chemicalt:~, more than half of which have been approved to come onto the 

market. in Janumy, the Natural Resources Defense Council :sued the EPA over its actions on new chemicals. 

2. Delaying a ban on a toxic paint~stripping chemical that has caused four deaths in one year 

the EPA signaled in December that the ban would be delayed indefinitely. At !east four people have died using paint 

Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that until recently most consumers could buy at 

their local hardware stores. In the waning days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning it. However, 

strippers containing the chemical since the ban was proposed, and more than 50 people have died from it since 

1980. Although the EPA recently reversed course and announced it would be taking action on methylene chloride 

after 
123 


35667.132

EWG NEWS AND ANALYSIS 

The latest from EWG 's stqff of experts > > 

11/2612018 2 Years After Reformed TSCA, Pruitt's EPA Has Failed to Protect Us from Toxic Chemicals 1 EWG 

meeting with victims' families, many important details remain unknown. In the absence of EPA action, several 

retailers- including Lowes, Sherwin Williams and Home Depot·- have taken steps to remove methylene chloride 

paint strippers from their shelves. 

The fate ofN-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, another toxic paint-stripping chemical the EPA previously considered banning, 

remains uncertain. 

3. Abandoning proposed bans on uses of TCE, the chemical from '"A Civil Action" 

Trichloroethylene, or TCE, is a known carcinogen made infamous in the book and movie "A Civil Action.'' It has 

caused various cancers in former residents of the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina, and it contaminates 

military bases throughout the U.S. TCE is also linked to birth defects, hom1one disruption, Parkinson's disease, and 

damage to the immune system and kidneys. The EPA proposed btuu:ling some uses ofTCE in aerosol degreasing, 

spot cleaning and vapor degreasing~ in December 2016 and January 2017, But earlier this month, the Pruitt EPA 

signaled that it would delay or even scrap these proposed bans. The EPA also laid the groundwork to ignore a key 

study linking TCE to birth defects. 

4. Gutting proposed '~framework rules" 

The updated TSCA requires the EPA to develop two so~cal!ed "framework rules" governing bow the EPA chooses 

chemicals to assess and how it conducts those assessments. The EPA issued two proposed framework rules that were 

robust and health protective in the final days of the Obama administration. However, in July 2017, the Pruitt EPA 

gutted those proposed rules before finalizing them to be in line with the chemical industry~s priorities, More than a 

dozen environmental and public health groups have sued the EPA in response, 

5. Cooking the books on risk assessments by excluding key exposures 

The updated TSCA requires the EPA to, for the first time, systematically and comprehensively assess chemicals 

already on the market by looking at aU uses and exposures to a chemical. However, when the EPA released key 
124 


35667.133

seeping documents for its assessments of the first 1 0 chemicals last year, it excluded critical sources of exposureslike asbestos in old building materials, and 1,4-dioxane in personal care and cleaning products. In so~called 

.. problem fonnulations'' released earlier this month. the EPA narrowed these assessments even further and excluded 

major routes of chemical exposure like air pollution, waste disposal and even drinking water. An analysis by the 

Environmental Defense Fund found that the EPA will ignore more than 68 million pounds of seven out of the I 0 

chemicals released into air, water and land every year. 

6. Stacking leadership positions with industry~friendly nominees and appointees 

The EPA has also looked to industry advocates to fill leadership positions in the offices responsible for implementing 

the new law. Nancy Beck, who holds a leadership position in the EPA's chemical safety office, came to the agency 

directly from the American Chemistry Council, \vherc she lobbied for weaker chemical safety regulations. Michael 

Dourson was nominated for the top post in the EPA's chemical safety office after a long career of doingjunk science 

for the chemical industry. He withdrew his nomination after significant public backlash. 

7. Protecting .. secret chemicals" 

The updated TSCA limits the amount of information fhe EPA can keep secret about chemical information submitted 

to the agency, including safety studies. However, an analysis earlier this year found that the EPA is routinely 

ignoring this change in the law, and is failing to release health and safety studies provided with new chemical filings. 

In recent guidance, the EPA also failed to acknowledge its obligation to give certain government and medical 

professionals access to chemical information the agency possesses. 

8. Cutting critical agency resources 

https://www.ewg.org/news~and-analysis/2018/06/2-years-after~reformed-tsca-pruitt-s-epa-has-failed-protect-us-toxic 214 

11/26/2018 2 Years After Reformed TSCA, Pruitt's EPA Has Failed to Protect Us from Toxic Chemicals 1 EWG 

The new law imposes many new requirements on the agency. To meet these new obligations, the agency needs 

adequate resources. Nonetheless, the fee rule proposed by Pruitt's EPA dramatically underestimates costs and lets 

the industry get away without paying its fair share. Additionally, the president's budget, released in February, 

proposed significant cuts to the EPA- including deep cuts to programs that remediate lead in homes and research 

hormone-disrupting chemicals. Additionally, the EPA has put significant pressure on employees to leave the agency 

with early buyouts, putting the agency at its lowest staffing levels since 1988. 

9. Undermining EPA science 

At the end of April, the EPA proposed radically changing the kinds of science the agency can rely on to guide 

decision~making. This so-called "'secret science'" mle would prevent the agency from relying on studies based on 

confidential medical data- even if those studies are thoroughly peer-reviewed. The proposed rule would also restrict 

some studies that haven't been published. Even Nancy Beck acknowledged that these draconian measures would 

make it more difficult to make decisions under TSCA. In emails released to the Union of Concerned Scientists, she 

warned the proposed rule would ·jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re~registration review process and likely 

all TSCA risk evaluations." 

10. Failing to adequately consider vulnerable populations 

The updated TSCA requires the EPA to explicitly consider and mitigate risks to vulnerable populations like children, 

pregnant women, workers and the elderly. But by excluding key sources of exposure from its chemical safety 

evaluations, the EPA fails to protect these susceptible populations. For example, children drink more water per 

pound of bodyweight than adults. By excluding drinking water from its chemical risk evaluations, the EPA is failing 

to account for particular risks to children. By excluding waste disposal and air pollution from its evaluations, the EPA 

is failing to consider special risks for fence line communities, where there may be higher concentrations of chemicals 

in the air or soil. 
125 


35667.134

KEY ISSUES: - 0 Comments EWG News and Analysis 

Login 

. Recommend 

Sort by Best 

This discussion has been closed, 

Subscribe 

d Add Oisqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd 

& Oisqus' Privacy PolicyPrlvacy PolicyPrivacy 

News Release: Cosmetics Reform Featured in Latest Episode ofKceping Up With The Kardashians 

Article: EWG Analysis: Tmmp 's Fam1 Bailout Payments Flowing to City Slickers 

https:/Jwww.ewg.org/news~and-ana!ysls/2018/06/2-years-after-reformed-tsca-pruitt-s-epa-has-fai!ed-protect-us-toxic 3/4 
126 


35667.135

11/26/2018 Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules to Favor Chemical Industry 1 NRDC 

EXPERT BLOG > JENNIFER SASS 

Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules 

to Favor Chemical Industry 

June22, 2017 

Jennifer Sass 

The Trump-Pruitt Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a set of rules today that will 

make it easier to ignore chemical risks and disregard harmful exposures. The final rules introduce 

loopholes that could allow EPA to ignore important exposure routes and chemical product uses. 

This opens the door for EPA to disregard exposures to the most vulnerable and susceptible 

populations such as pregnant women and children or highly-exposed workers, which the Toxics 

Substances Control Act had sought to protect. 
127 


35667.136

https:/ !www. nrdc. org/experts/trump-epa~weakens-tsca-ru les-favor -chemical-industry 1/5 

11/26/2018 Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules to Favor Chemica! Industry] NRDC 

Children's products that may contain hazardous chemicals 

These are the first rules released since a Chemical Industry lobbyist took charge of the EPA 

toxics office and its process for evaluating toxic chemicals. 

The rules finalized today describe how EPA will evaluate the health threats from chemicals under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The prioritization rule codifies the general process by 

which EPA will sort chemicals into "high priority" and "low priority" buckets. High priority chemicals 

will move forward into the risk evaluation process, while low priority chemicals will not (though the 

classification can change based on new evidence). The risk evaluation rule codifies the general 

process by which EPA will assess a chemical's hazards and exposures, then determine if the 

chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. 

The draft version of these [!Jies were the result extensive public consultation that including 

chemical industry manufacturers, retailers, health impacted groups, medical professionals, and 

public interest groups, They had bipartisan support from Congress and the Obama While House 

and were applauded by health experts for creating a rigorous process to identify and control 

harmful exposures to toxic chemicals linked to significant health threats link cancer, reproductive 

disease, and learning disabilities. 

Unfortunately, the versions released today have been extensively tampered with outside of the 

public view by !he Trump-Pruitt EPA with at the helm of the 

https:/lwww.nrdc.org/experts/trump-epa-weakens-tsca~ru!es~favor-chemical~industry 2/5 

11/26/2018 Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules to Favor Chemical Industry 1 NRDC 
128 


35667.137

agency's toxics program-recently rotated in from the industry trade group the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC). 

noted that Nancy Beck had been "very involved" with these rules since 

moving from the chemical industry ACC to the EPA, and that she <;lid not recuse herself because 

the rules are "matters of general applicability". Moreover, Beck was cleared to talk with her recent 

past employer, ACC, about the rules by Annie Snider and Alex Guillen). 

Concerns about Beck's obvious industry bias and conflicts of interest regarding her involvement 

in TSCA rules were raised by Representative the top Democrat on the House 

Energy and Commerce Committee (D-NJ). Beck now serves as EPA's Deputy Assistant 

Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), and oversees 

finalizing the TSCA rules that she had lobbied on while at ACC. Rep. Pallone noted that, "the role 

she appears to be playing in finalizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rules 

:ttlr!'lalen !he success of the TSCA Reform legislation passed las! year". It seems that the threat 

has become a reality. 

Sadly, the new rules on prioritizaliQ.Q_and risk evaluation have been weakened and are now much 

more favorable to the chemical industry !han the versions agreed upon through the public 

consultation process. 

The exposures to toxic chemicals in the products we use every day are harming 

our health and contributing to disease. These rules will favor the continued use of chemicals that 

should be taken off the market We will continue to hold EPA accountable to its job to protect 

public health. 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/trump..epa~weakens~tsca-rufes-favor-chemical-industry 

1 i/26/2018 Trump's EPA May Be Weakening Chemica! Safety Law- Scientific American 
129 


35667.138

We use cookies to 

personalize content and 

ads, to provide social 

media features and to 

analyze our traffic. We 

also share infonnation 

about your use of our 

site with our social 

media, advertising and 

analytics partners. 

I'Nacv 2oJicll. . 
130 


35667.139

ENVIRONMENT 

Safety Law 

The agency has released controversial new rules for evaluating a chemical's 

By Annie Sneed on August 16, 2017 
131 


35667.140
132 


35667.141

ADVERTISEMENT 
133 


35667.142

11126/2018 Trump's 
134 


35667.143

"I thought they were clearer, cleaner and more focused," says Lynn Bergeson, a lawyer whose firm 

Bergeson & Campbell specializes in chemical issues. She adds the new rules will result in a "better 

use of EPA resources." Schmidt says the law will allow the agency to focus on the highest risks, 

rather than getting bogged down in looking at all the different uses for a substance. "A chemical 

might be used in hundreds, thousands of commercial applications," she notes. "Risk evaluations 

need to be driven by public health ... , and also yield results on a timeline." 

The EPA maintains its rules will support TSCA. ''The agency will make determinations for 

chemical substances in ways that are both protective and efficient," an EPA spokesperson wrote to 

Scientific American in an e-mail. "This means directing greatest attention to those uses that pose 

the greatest potential for risk to health and the environment." 

We use cookies to 

personalize content and 

ads, to provide social 

media features and to 

analyze our traffic. We 

also share information 

about your use of our 

site with our social 

media, advertising and 

analytics partners. 

flvacv t'.all!:;)L. 

Sign up for Scient(lic American's 

Other experts point to the Trump administration's pro-industry stance as well as its connections 

vvith the chemical business as motivation for rewriting the rules. "Industry wants to control what 

the use is stated to be," Steinzor says. They point to Nancy Beck, who previously worked for the 

ACC and is now deputy assistant administrator for the EPA office that oversees TSCA. "Our 

concerns are magnified by the fact that...Nancy Beck, who has a reputation over many years of 

being very favorable toward industry ... , is in charge of implementing TSCA at EPA," Steinzor 

https:/twww.scientificamerican.com/art!cle/trump-rsquo-s..epa-may-be-weakening-chemica!-safety-law/5/9 

11/26/2018 Trump's EPA May Be Weakening Chemical Safety Law - Scientific American 
135 


35667.144

We use cookies to 

personalize content and 

ads, to provide social 

media features and to 

analyze our traffic. We 

also share information 

about your use of our 

site with our social 

media, advertising and 

analytics partners. 

l'lvacv EllJi.c¥. 

funding. "My worries go beyond the wording of the framework rules to things like the budget and 

personnel who head the office," Sachs says. Environmental groups, however, intend to make sure 

the EPA fully enforces the TSCA-last week the Environmental Defense Fund. the Natural 

Resources Defense Council and others filed lawsuits intended to force the EPA to strengthen the 

framework rules. 

ADVERTISEMENT 

Rights & Permissions 

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR(S) 

https://w.NW.scientificamerlcan.com/artic!eltrump-rsquo~s-epa~may-be-weakening-chemica!~safety-!aw/ 6/9 
136 


35667.145

11126/2018 In battle over pesticide ban, Trump's EPA aims to undermine the science I Science l AAAS 

437 0 0 369 0 

Log in 1 My account i Contact us 

ll member Renew my subscription 1 Sign up for newsletters 

Chlorpyrifos is one of the most common pesticides sprayed on U.S. farms. ROGER SMITHIFUCKR (CC BY·NC·ND 2.0) 

In battle over pesticide ban, Trump's EPA aims to undermine the 

science 

By Corbin !liar, E&E News Aug. 23, 2018, 2:15PM 

Originally published by Eli:E News 

President Donald Trump's administration is assailing the science behind an influential study 

that helped lead to a ban on a widely used insecticide linked to brain damage in children, 

mirroring arguments made by !he pesticide industry. 

A federal appeals court this month dealt a blow to Trump's team when it ordered the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a full prohibition of the bug killer 
137 


35667.146

chlorpyrifos. The ban was nrr'nr"'"'rl by 

when 

https 1/<AONw .sciencernag.orglr<rewr;/2018108/bat!le-rover-pesticidre-ben-tnimp-s-erra-ain"-'mde<rmir<e-sr:ience 1 ii 3 

Aug_ 9 ). 

Sign 

Email Address * 

scrap its proposed ban 

which has produced several 
138 


35667.147

nerve 
139 


35667.148

The groundbreaking study-based on a series of tests given over three years to more than 250 

mothers and children of color in low-income New York City communities and published in the 

peer- reviewed journal Pediatrics-helped spur a 2007 petition from environmental groups to 

completely outlaw chlorpyrifos. EPA had already prohibited indoor uses of the insecticide in 2000 

due to the acute poisoning risks, but the agency continued to allow farmers to spray it on their 

fields. 

The Columbia study was also a key piece of evidence that led the Obama administration in 

2015 to finally agree to the petition and propose the full ban on chlorpyrifos. 

Later studies from Columbia and other institutions have found chlorpyrifos exposure is linked to 

structural abnormalities in children's brains, diminished IQ scores and Parkinson's disease in 

adults. 

Long-running data dispute 

The fight over chlorpyrifos data comes as the Trump EPA is seeking to overhaul which science 

can be used in regulations by relying only on studies in which the underlying data are made 

publicly available. This pesticide disagreement shows how that policy might play out in shaping 

public health rules, where patient information is often kept confidential. 

EPA has justified its concerns about the Columbia study by pointing back to data requests that 

the university rebuffed during the Obama administration. 

"We cannot submit this extensive individual level data to EPA in a way that ensures the 

confidentiality of the children and mothers who are our research subjects," Dr. Linda Fried, the 

dean of Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health, told the agency in May 2016. 

43 ~T~e intiJiid~s 1111e in a geographically limited community in New York City, and the data tb 

large number of detailed sociodemographic and health-related data elements that could 

potentially be used-alone or in combination with other data sources-to identify research 

participants," she said in a letter. "The disclosure of this data would therefore constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of these children and their mothers." 

At the same time, Fried floated the idea of working with EPA to develop "properly de-identified" 

data sets so the agency could conduct its own analyses and invited "EPA staff to review and/or 

re- analyze the original individual-level data in a secure data enclave onsite at Columbia" 

EPA ultimately sent researchers up to New York but continued to press the university for its full 

data set. 

"We thought that it was better to have the data for transparency reasons than to just go into a 

room, manipulate it and then come out," Jack Housenger, the former director of EPA's pesticides 

office, explained in an interview. He retired in February 2017 after four decades at the agency. 
140 


35667.149

Asked to elaborate on the "transparency reasons" for EPA needing the data, Housenger 

acknowledged it was largely to address industry concerns. 

"If you're taking action on a chemical company's compound, they want to be able to say, 'Hey, we 

looked at these data and our scientists say this,"' he said. 

Companies often told Housenger "we want to be able to analyze these data and defend our 

chemical," he said. 

Industry influence 

To environmentalists, the chlorpyrifos data dispute is evidence that Croplife and its member 

companies have been effective at convincing regulators to pressure scientists to turn over 

confidential medical information. 

"There has been a long history of EPA and other agencies using published, peer-reviewed 

scientific literature to make decisions," said Erik Olson, a senior director at the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) in Washington, D.C., one of the groups that filed the 2007 petition 

calling for the chlorpyrifos ban. "It's really only been recently that the chemical industry has been 

pushing very hard to ask-or demand, frankly-that agencies request and reanalyze all of the 

data from all the studies." 

Olson, who leads NRDC's advocacy efforts on health, food and agriculture issues, argues 

that the leaders of EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide programs 

have effectively kept chlorpyrifos on the market for years longer than it should have been. 

"Their line scientists have long been fine with-in fact, supported-banning chlorpyrifos," Olson 

said. "It's been some of the people in management that have been pretty tight with the chemical 

industry anttook ~ sgme <fl]those arguments." 

For instance, Sheryl Kunickis, the career official in charge of USDA's Office of Pest Management 

Policy, in January 2017 said in a letter to Housenger that she had "grave concerns about the 

EPA process" for evaluating chlorpyrifos' health risks and "severe doubts about the validity of the 

scientific conclusions underpinning" its proposed ban. 

Three months later, when Pruitt reversed course on chlorpyrifos, Kunickis got a note from former 

CropLife lobbyist Rebeckah Adcock praising the move, EPA records show. 

"Thank you!" Kunickis wrote from an email address that was redacted for personal privacy 

reasons. "It is a great week for our growers and the decision is much appreciated." 

She copied EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson on her response along with her USDA email 

account, where all work-related communications are supposed to be directed. 
141 


35667.150

Kunickis' boss. The former 

she 

records show. 
142 


35667.151

unclear whether 

"The subsequent meeting was 

altogether," he said in an emaiL 

[nongovernmental orn;o;nl7,.tlnn 

hearing the Supreme Court 

"I don't think they're 

over Vroom's position as 

said he had 

addressed other matters 

included one environmental 

proposal 60 

see motions." 
143 


35667.152

Board of Directors 

Lmd~ Remstem 

President 

Ukn Cnst~ 

Secretary 

K11nbctly Cccchim 

Member at Large 

Ll!enTunkelrott 

Treasurer 

N:uional 

Spokesperson 

iorda11 Zevon 

Science Advisory Board 

Arthur L Frank, MD, PhD 

Co-Chair 

RKhard Lemen, PhD, MSPH 

Co-Chair 

Dr Brad Bl~ck 

Dr. Barry Castleman 

Dr. i\hch~el Harbut 

Dr.StevenMarko\;ritz 

Dr.ChmtineOliver 

Prevention Advisory Board 

Christme\X'inter 

Co-Chair 

Mm-kCatlin 

ClaJre0C\lCOI1 

Tum Laubenth~l 

John ~ewguisr 

TonyRJCh 

Mark Winter 

''ll o~no Asbestos L "' Disease llwanmm Organization"' n Volco of tho Vfctlmo 

Submitted Electronically and via U.S. ·Mail 

November 26, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 1 Chairman 

Commjttee on Environment and Public \Vorks 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washin1,'1:on, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public \Xlorks 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Alexandra Dunn EP\'V' Committee Nomination Hearing 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking i\1ember Carper, 

As the largest asbestos victims' organization in the United States, the Asbestos Disease 

Awareness Organization (ADAO) is closely follmving the nomination of Alexandra Dunn for 

the position of Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Americans demand and deserve a political appointee that will place the health of the public and 

our environment before corporate Thursday's her nomination is an 

important opportunity to ensure 

already know, OCSPP plays a vital role in protecting the public from the dangers of 

and, if confirmed, Ms. Dunn \\'111 be in charge of carrying out this responsibllity. 

There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that there is no safe level of 

exposure to asbestos. Despite the voluntary elimination of many asbestos products, the death 

toll from asbestos exposure remains alarmingly high. At the 14th Annual Asbestos Disease 

Awareness Conference in \'<7ashington D.C. this year, Dr. Jukka Takala DSc, MSc, BSC, 

President of the International Commission of Occupational Health, reported that asbestosrelated deaths in 2016, numbered 39,275, --more than double the previous estimates of 15,000 

per year. 

As this Commlttee is aware, the failure of previous efforts to ban asbestos in the 1980s were a 

major motivation for overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, ADAO 

welcomed this bipartisan TSCA update, which strengthened the EPA's authority to protect 

Americans from asbestos in their homes, schools, workplaces, and our environment. 

ADAO and many other observers expected that the new law would enable the EPA to 

reinstate the comprehensive ban on asbestos use it had imposed in 1989. The decision to 

include asbestos in the first 10 risk evaluations seemed to reinforce this hope. 
144 


35667.153

RE: Alexandra Dunn EPW Committee Nomination Hearing 

However, we have since been disappointed by the Agency's narrow and heedless approach to the asbestos 

risk evaluation. We are concerned that the EPA is on a path to ignore important exposure pathways and 

the populations they put at risk, as their current approach seems destined to reach dangerously inadequate 

conclusions about asbestos' ongoing and future dangers to public health. The flaws in the risk evaluation, 

in turn, could limit the Agency's ability to impose the comprehensive asbestos ban that is long overdue. 

If confirmed, Ms. Dunn will have the opportunity to change course on asbestos and make protection of 

public health her top priority. As such, we believe the Committee should press Ms. Dunn on a number of 

important issues pertaining to asbestos regulation. We urge the Committee to question Ms. Dunn about 

whether she is prepared to strengthen and expand the ongoing asbestos risk evaluation under TSCA. Her 

willingness to reverse the troubling exclusions of legacy use and disposal from the evaluation must be 

discussed. Her view of the questionable proposed Significant New Use Rule should be examined, with the 

expectation being that she will move to permanently ban discontinued asbestos products. We ask you to 

call on Ms. Dunn to grant the ADAO Right-to-Know petition seeking to eliminate the asbestos loophole 

in TSCA repotring requirements. We urge the Committee to press the nominee to effectively implement 

the safeguards for school children and teachers in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 

(AHERA). Finally, Ms. Dunn should also be asked whether she supports a comprehensive asbestos ban 

underTSCA. 

By addressing these essential issues, ADAO believes that the Committee may best safeguard the health and 

security of Am.,;,ican citizens. We look forward to working with the EPA and the EPW Committee to ban 

asbestos once and for all. 

On behalf of your constituents, thank you for your leadership, perseverance, and dedication to protecting 

the health of Americans and our environment. 

Sincerely, 

Unda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, President and Cofounder 1525 Aviation Boulevatd, 

Suite 318 

Redondo Beach, California, 90278 (310) 251-7477 

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is a rq.,,ristered 501 (c) (3) nonprotit organi;mtion "United !Or Asbestos Disease Awareness~ Education~ Advocacy, 

and Community Support"1525 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 318 · Redondo Beach · California· 90278 · (.110) 251-7477 :'I~~Q!cl.'1&J'.g 
145 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Dunn, do you still agree that the law requires EPA to evaluate all the ways someone might be exposed to 

a chemical? If you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure that 

EPA follows that part of the law? 

Ms. DUNN. If confirmed, Senator, I commit to implementing the 

law, following the law, and bringing all the provisions of the law 

to full effect. 

Senator CARPER. The new law includes language, as you may recall, directing EPA to use the best available science as it evaluates 

a chemical’s safety. Unfortunately, Trump’s EPA is not implementing that part of the law well, at least in our estimation. Specifically, currently politically, the office you have been nominated 

to lead has developed a document that would have the result of 

systematically excluding scientific studies from being used as part 

of EPA’s chemical safety effort. 

For example, scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed high quality scientific studies that showed that exposure to some flame retardant was harmful to children, a conclusion that the National Academy of Sciences later said it agreed 

with but EPA’s new process would actually prevent studies like 

that from being considered. 

Don’t you think that the best available science should mean that 

all relevant studies should be considered by EPA when it is assessing the safety of a chemical? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I agree with you. EPA is a science-driven 

agency. That is why we were founded, to be based on science. I 

commit, if confirmed in this position, to using the best available 

science to make our decisions. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

I want to follow-up a bit about some of the things in the law. I 

want to discuss a class of about 5,000 chemicals known as PFAS, 

the polyfluoroalkyl substances. Members of the public, State officials and many in Congress are concerned about the threat that 

these chemicals pose to human health and the environment, an especially urgent concern among those living on or near military 

bases, which is a fundamental point here. At a minimum, I think 

the EPA must speak clearly about the level of risk associated with 

these chemicals and not just talk about it but take decisive action 

where it is warranted. 

I know you have had experience with this issue as EPA’s Region 

1 Administrator. If confirmed, could you talk about how you intend 

to address these PFAS chemicals nationally? 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Senator. 

New England is often considered ground zero for the PFAS issue. 

We have many affected communities. All six New England States 

have detected the presence of PFAS in their communities. 

As Regional Administrator, I was proud to be able to host the 

first national regional forum on PFAS constituents. We met for 2 

days. We made sure that community groups were front and center 

at that event so that we could hear from, frankly, the groups of 

parents, mothers and true activists who have learned about the 

presence of these contaminants in their communities, and who 

have become environmental experts when that is not their day job. 

146 

They have researched and they have learned. We created a forum 

for them to bring forward those views. 

At EPA, we now are working hard to complete a national action 

plan around PFOS and PFAS. My understanding is that national 

action plan will be ready soon. 

Senator BARRASSO. I wanted to turn to TSCA which has already 

been raised by Senator Whitehouse in his introduction. It is something Congress passed in 2016, comprehensive legislation to reform 

a 40-year-old law. 

Since then, the EPA’s implementation has received some scrutiny. The environmentalists and chemical manufacturers have both 

been critical of EPA’s implementation of the new chemical program 

for different reasons. 

If confirmed, how do you intend to address the competing interests surrounding the TSCA reform legislation? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, this is a part of how I have operated 

throughout my entire career with very, very diverse opinions. I respect diverse opinions but I often find that if you have open and 

real conversation, you can reach a middle understanding. 

What I would like to do is try to bring those groups together, if 

they can be brought together, then meet with them separately, 

hear their concerns and then work to find that path forward that 

allows EPA to make progress, meet our statutory deadlines, provide protection of the American public, but to keep the system moving forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to now discuss methylene chloride. I 

understand this chemical has been blamed in dozens of accidental 

deaths across the country. In 2017, at one point, the Obama administration proposed banning methylene chloride for use in consumer 

and chemical paint strippers. In May of this year, the EPA indicated it would finalize that ban. EPA has yet to do so. In the meantime, Home Depot, Lowe’s and Sherwin Williams have announced 

they are going to remove these paint strippers from their shelves. 

If confirmed, do you have plans for addressing this issue? 

Ms. DUNN. Absolutely, Senator. I am absolutely aware of the 

dangers of this chemical and the widespread public concern regarding it. If confirmed to this position, I will make it a top priority to 

be briefed on where we stand in the process and report back to 

your office and any others on this committee who have an interest 

in the status of this work. 

Senator BARRASSO. My final question is with regard to FIFRA. 

For years, members of the public have expressed concerns that 

EPA is not doing a better job addressing the hazards associated 

with pesticides. In many instances, the public has turned to State 

governments and even the courts for stricter controls on pesticides. 

I think it is fair to say that a patchwork of State regulations is 

not what anyone wants in terms of what is out there on this specific topic. If confirmed, how would you boost the public’s confidence in the EPA’s regulation of pesticides under FIFRA? 

Ms. DUNN. Currently, Senator, we are in a position to be retaining new expertise, bringing on additional staff so that we can be 

more timely with our work under FIFRA. Also, I believe we can 

communicate our work as expeditiously as possible. I agree that a 

147 

patchwork of regulations can be problematic and in fact, that is 

what TSCA was designed to try to address. 

I commit to working with you and your office on ensuring that 

FIFRA works well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for your answers. 

Senator MERKLEY. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much for your service in the cause of trying to 

build a better world and a better environment. 

To begin, the question I have is in regard to asbestos. Specifically, 60 countries have banned it, saying there is no safer controlled use of it. Now we have the EPA setting up a SNUR process 

that essentially lists 15 potential uses but anything outside of 

those 15 could be done without EPA review. It is like a free pass. 

Why would we want to give a free pass to any potential use of 

asbestos in our environment? Is that something you have been 

briefed on and any concerns about? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, in my current role as Region 1 Administrator, I am not responsible for asbestos regulation. However, I 

commit to you that, if confirmed to this position, I will be immediately briefed on this matter. 

I understand the great concern with asbestos in the environment 

and the deaths that have occurred due to asbestos exposure. I 

would like to work with your office on this. 

Senator MERKLEY. From a philosophical point of view, though, 

you do not have any inclination that we should necessarily have 

new uses of asbestos that do not go through some form of chemical 

review? 

Ms. DUNN. New uses of asbestos, my understanding is they 

would be reviewed through the significant new use rule. 

Senator MERKLEY. Apparently not, according to the briefing we 

received on this, if outside the 15 listed uses. That is the concern. 

There is also Section 6 in the law of TSCA. It says EPA has the 

authority to prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, distribution, so on and so forth, of a chemical that represents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. That unreasonable 

risk has been demonstrated for asbestos time and time and time 

again. 

Would you commit to looking at Section 6 as a pathway to possibly joining the other 60 nations that have banned asbestos in 

order to ban it here in the U.S.? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I absolutely understand your concern with 

asbestos. I commit, if confirmed to this position, to being briefed on 

this matter, looking at all opportunities that we have under the 

law, the authorities we have to manage this risk, and immediately 

report back to your office. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

One of the things that symbolically disturbed me is we do not 

manufacture asbestos in the U.S. anymore. It previously came from 

Brazil but they banned it because they said, no, this is hurting people. 

Now we import it from Russia. Russia sent over their packing of 

asbestos with a picture of our President, with written in Russian 

148 

a word that represents endorsement, implying that our government 

endorses the use. Symbolically, that is not where we want to be. 

The whole point of TSCA was to take chemicals that had not 

been reviewed in the past that were everyday household products 

and say, no, we are actually going to consider human safety in 

their use. It was in 1991, I believe, when the ship ran ashore on 

controlling toxic substances in everyday use. 

Here we are a generation later, finally with this chance. You 

would be the captain of that ship. Can we count on you to be a 

good captain on this topic? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, you can definitely count on me to work with 

our team and come up with the most public health protective and 

environmental protective outcomes under the law. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, diplomatically stated. 

I wanted to turn to the new chemicals. In this case, there is a 

process that has been underway in which the law said the chemical 

should be reviewed for proposed uses by the manufacturer, intended uses, but all other known or reasonably foreseen future 

uses. 

That latter clause has been essentially nullified, dramatically 

changing the congressional intent. Can you take a look at that and 

make sure the law, as written, which said look at both what the 

manufacturer says it is going to be used for, but all other potential, 

reasonably foreseen uses or known uses and that full scope gets examined so we are not just looking at a single use as stated by a 

manufacturer? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, in my preparation for today, I learned that 

is an issue of great concern to many groups. If confirmed to this 

position, I commit to being briefed on the matter by our team, getting back to your office and answering your question directly. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the Ranking Member. 

I want to thank our nominee. Thank you for your past service 

and future service. I think it is a great chance for us to get to hear 

from a very qualified nominee in Ms. Dunn. Thank you for being 

here. 

I want to go back to PFAS. You and I visited in my office. I know 

before you were living with your mother, you were in Loudoun 

County and will be back to Loudoun, Virginia which is right across 

the way from where we have had some issues with PFAS in West 

Virginia. 

This has already been touched on but it since it hits several communities in my State, I just want to reinforce my feelings and some 

frustrations we have had over the last year, I would say, in not getting the full picture and release of the full data around possible effects of PFAS in the communities. 

Having said that, you have had a lot of experience with it but 

I would like to have your commitment that you will work with all 

of us and the public to make sure we are getting all of the released 

studies, recommended levels and all of those things and be able to 

make a fair comparison and also an informed decision. 

149 

Ms. DUNN. Absolutely, yes, Senator, I can commit to making sure 

the studies you are asking about are available and that we look at 

a full suite of information regarding these chemicals and their persistence in the environment. It is certainly something I have been 

working with in New England, as I mentioned, in all six of our 

States. 

Senator CAPITO. It was mentioned that some of these are around 

military installations which is the case of our one in Martinsburg. 

I have to say we were able to get some concessions from the Department of Defense in the appropriations bill this past year to 

help these local communities on the cleanup of these areas. 

I do not think it has completely taken care of all the issues but 

it is certainly a good start for our areas. I am pleased about that. 

Let me ask you this. We have, from time to time and probably 

more times, conflicts between our State and Federal regulators, 

who has primacy, who has jurisdiction, and who is encroaching on 

who. I think it becomes a very sensitive issue at the State level certainly for all of us who work with our State regulators all the time. 

You have a lot of experience in working with State regulators. I 

am sure you have experience in seeing the tensions that can exist 

from time to time. In your new role, how would you address that 

issue? How do you see your office, your new office, in terms of decisionmaking, overruling States, or working with States? How do you 

work out those issues because they can be very difficult from to 

time? 

Ms. DUNN. Yes, they can, Senator. I agree with you. States have 

assumed 98 percent of the delegable programs under Federal environmental law. States bring 90 percent of the enforcement actions. 

Certainly coming from ECOS, I have a healthy respect for our 

State environmental agencies. They are truly the boots on the 

ground and do excellent work. 

In New England, we have developed a real partnership where we 

consult with the State on matters. Sometimes the State asks for 

our help and we are happy to be there. However, we do not just 

assume that EPA is welcome. We ask the State if they need our 

resources and support. 

For example, we have done that on PFAS or vapor intrusion 

where some of our New England States have specifically asked 

EPA to come in and assist them. We have that capability. Also, if 

a State is short on resources or needs our capacity, we are able to 

bring that additional capacity. 

Our presumption has been that the State is able to take effective 

enforcement actions and they have largely proven that to be correct. Yes, the agency sometimes needs to over file if something is 

not going well in a State, but that is usually after consultation with 

the State. We speak with them and say it is now time that EPA 

has to step in and do this work. 

In my new role, the chemicals and pesticides programs are a bit 

more headquarters-centric, not all the authorities are given to the 

States as they are under air, water, and land. Notwithstanding any 

actions we take, I will maintain open and regular communication 

with our State environmental officials. 

Any State that would be impacted by our decision deserves early 

and open communication, not just being told what we are going to 

150 

do but being consulted and asked how it will impact the State and 

then making a decision that works for both. 

Senator CAPITO. I think in terms of asking the State, working 

with the State is the way to go. I think some State regulators get 

very frustrated and feel they take opinions, they weigh in on certain actions and then it is like blowing in the wind, they do not 

either get a response or any feeling they are really a part of the 

process. 

I think if we are going to expect to do the enforcement actions, 

the policing and have the work force to be able to do that, we have 

to work together on this. I appreciate that. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Ms. Dunn. It is good to see you here in Washington 

and not just up in Rhode Island, our wonderful New England region. 

I have noticed, as the political staff have been working on this 

issue, in this Administration that there has been what I consider 

to be unnecessary and unjustified narrowing of the exposure pathways that EPA will consider in enforcing the TSCA risk evaluations. 

I would ask whether, as the first Senate-confirmed Assistant in 

this Administration, you will review what has been done before you 

and come to your own conclusions about what those exposure pathways should be? 

Ms. DUNN. Yes, Senator Whitehouse, I understand this is an 

issue of great concern. I have heard it raised by many of the environmental organizations I have spoken with. Yes, I confirm to be 

fully briefed on this matter, finding out exactly how and why we 

are taking the approach we have been taking, and then coming 

back and talking to you about whether there are alternate approaches we could implement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On another matter, the Lautenberg Act 

amendments that revived TSCA are fairly recent. On this committee are both Republican and Democratic staff who worked very 

carefully and well together to help us put together a bill that could 

pass with the strong support this received. 

I would propose to you that might be something you could consider as a resource, particularly speaking with bipartisan groups of 

those staffers, as you and your team work through what our intention was in trying to amend and revive this law. 

Ms. DUNN. We are of similar mind there, Senator, because I have 

thought that perhaps regular communication with the staff that 

helped draft the provisions and worked on the law, they know what 

they intended, that those kinds of conversations would be really 

important as we move forward with new obligations and new steps 

under the statute. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Terrific. Thank you. 

My last question is more of a process question. We have received 

a lot of reports about political staffers in EPA, including in your 

area, presuming you are confirmed, responsible to the office you 

will hold, refusing to put instructions to career staff in writing. 

151 

That sends up a bit of a red flag for many of us who think congressional oversight is an important responsibility. It also appears 

to run afoul of 36 CFR 1222.22 which is a regulation requiring Federal employees to ‘‘document the formulation and execution of basic 

policies and decisions, including all substantive decisions and commitments reached orally.’’ 

When you have political staff, many of whom have highly suspicious contacts with the regulated industry, who are dealing with 

officials and refusing to go on record, refusing to follow that regulation, as you can imagine, that sends up all kinds of warning signals. 

These regulations are there for a reason. Congressional oversight 

exists for a reason. Presuming you are confirmed to this position, 

I hope you will be firm about assuring that the procedural requirements for agency decisionmaking are properly met. 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I am not in that office now, so I am not 

aware of the practices that have occurred but given my experience 

in EPA New England, whenever you work in a large office with 

multiple players, it is very important to be able to codify in writing 

what the manager is asking of the staff so that everyone is clear. 

It certainly seems reasonable to proceed in that direction. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Last question is will you answer your 

mail? 

Ms. DUNN. Any mail that I receive, I will absolutely answer the 

mail. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. Thank you. God knows how many 

of our letters have gone into the great black hole of EPA with no 

response whatsoever from anyone. We would like to improve on 

that. 

Ms. DUNN. I will answer your letters. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator BOOZMAN. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We appreciate that. Even if someone is on the 

other side of the aisle, that is something we all have in common. 

It really does not matter what Administration is in power at the 

time. It is frustrating not to get answers as to what is going on. 

We appreciate your willingness to do that. 

It is good to have you here. We appreciate the great work you 

have been doing since being appointed as Regional Administrator 

for Region 1. You have many, many accomplishments. 

You hosted a national summit to curb harmful chemicals in 

drinking water, issued a report outlining the agency’s efforts to 

promote recycling, cleanup rivers and implemented a plan to reduce stormwater runoff. It is worth noting that you were able to 

accomplish these great things while earning praise from New England environmental leaders and Curt Spalding, your predecessor 

from the previous Administration. 

I guess the question is how do you feel your current role as regional administrator has prepared you for the role of Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemicals Safety and Pollution Prevention? 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

152 

Being a regional administrator is wonderful preparation for coming back to headquarters, if confirmed, to run what we call national 

programs. When you are in the regions, we have 520 career staff 

at EPA New England, and you realize how often you receive missives, directives, and memos from headquarters that ask the regions to take certain actions or various steps. 

I have been able to see how those transmittals kind of ripple 

through the agency and through the staff. I have really learned, 

coming to Washington, the importance of clarity from what we are 

seeking as a national program out in the regions, if we need the 

regions to take certain steps, to be very clear about those steps. 

The other thing I have really learned is when you become a regional administrator you are a solo political appointee essentially. 

You immediately work side by side, shoulder to shoulder with the 

EPA career staff. You cannot surround yourself with other appointees. There are no other appointees. 

I learned that the career staff at EPA has the agency’s and public health’s best interests at heart. They want us to succeed. They 

want the appointee to succeed. They want to give us good advice. 

I will bring back to headquarters great appreciation for the expertise of the career staff at EPA and will turn to them for good 

guidance and good input on the decisions we need to make. 

Senator BOOZMAN. It seems you have had the ability to be able 

to work with both sides of the aisle, to reach across and get consensus. Tell us about that. What has been your secret in doing that 

and are you committed to doing that in the future? 

Ms. DUNN. Maybe what I have learned reflects a time when I 

was at ECOS when we were in the middle of discussions about air 

quality and climate. We had a bit of a debate between the California EPA Secretary and the Texas Commissioner. 

When I walked away from that, actually all of us listening 

walked away, realizing that both people had very, very good reasons for bringing the perspective they brought. The Texas Commissioner talked about issues surrounding Texas and energy that he 

was facing. The California Secretary had a different perspective. 

What you walk away with from something like that is realizing 

that both perspectives are valid. If you immediately discount one 

or the other, you are really losing the opportunity to come up with 

an outcome that works for everyone. By not validating or seeing as 

valid an opinion that might differ from your own, I think you might 

run the risk of ending the conversation prematurely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think that is well said. We do appreciate the 

fact that you are willing to take on a big job. This is very, very important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Dunn, I have a working relationship with you in the EPA 

but it is a long way from Rockport to that seat. 

Ms. DUNN. Yes, it is. 

Senator MARKEY. A long way and a different environment in this 

committee, and I would like to go through a few issues with you. 

153 

I was the Ranking Member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction as this bill went through in 2015 and 2016. There were many 

things in the bill I wanted to make sure were included, but one 

thing was I wanted the firefighters to be happy. That goes to asbestos and formaldehyde. 

I told them nothing would move and I would have to hold until 

we got what the firefighters would guarantee me would make them 

happy. It is in the bill. You need implementation. 

I have repeatedly asked the EPA leadership, including Pruitt and 

Administrator Wheeler, to release an EPA analysis that indicates 

formaldehyde causes cancer. Administrator Pruitt even admitted 

this analysis had been completed but it is reportedly being suppressed by political staff. 

Ms. Dunn, can you commit right now that you would release this 

analysis in your first month as Assistant Administrator, if confirmed? We need someone who is going to cut through political censorship at the EPA, not compound it. Will you release that report? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I commit to you, if confirmed to this position, 

immediately finding out the status of the formaldehyde work, why 

it is not completed along the timeframe that you had heard it 

should be, and to getting right back to you and letting you know 

what timeframe it will be on. 

Senator MARKEY. If it is completed, I expect it to get released. 

I will just say that to you right now. 

The office you are nominated to lead decided to create its own 

method for evaluating scientific evidence. This method significantly 

diverges from standard review practices. This untested, unreliable 

system means, for example, that a recent study revealing damaging 

impact to children’s intelligence from exposure to hazardous flame 

retardant might not be included in reviews required by the Toxic 

Substance Control Act. 

Will you commit to having the TSCA systematic review process 

peer-reviewed by the experts at the National Academy of Sciences? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I have heard a lot about the systematic review process that the office is currently implementing. It is not 

something I have been fully briefed on but I will commit to making 

it a top priority, if confirmed, and coming back to you and letting 

you know exactly what we can do to address your concerns. 

Senator MARKEY. I want the National Academy of Sciences to review it because I want to know what chemicals are affecting the 

health of America’s children. I want to know that the EPA is using 

sound science to deal with it. 

Will you commit to using the National Academy of Sciences as 

a review back up? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, what I would like to do is learn why we may 

not be using the Academy right now. I have worked with the Academy before and they are an excellent entity. I will commit to getting back to you on whether that is a possibility. 

Senator MARKEY. Since 2011, the EPA has warned that the toxic 

chemical trichloroethylene, TCE, causes cancer. The Environmental 

Working Group estimates that TCE contaminates the tap water of 

14 million Americans. 

This is one of the toxic substances found in Woburn, Massachusetts. I was on the committee that wrote that bill in 1980, so a lot 

154 

of that language was included in the original Superfund bill because of Woburn and my ability to get the language in. Woburn 

parents, like Anne Anderson, worked tirelessly to expose the link 

between hazardous waste and high rates of leukemia in their children. 

The EPA, the Obama EPA, proposed to ban TCE in January 

2017. In December 2017, the EPA, the Pruitt EPA, decided to indefinitely postpone the ban on this deadly chemical. We do not 

have time to waste. The victims of this toxic chemical deserve a 

resolution and deserve justice. 

Ms. Dunn, if confirmed, can you commit to not delaying this ban 

any longer and finalize it immediately? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, Woburn was one of the first communities I 

visited when going to New England. You and I talked about how 

horribly the community was impacted by the presence of chemicals 

in their environment. Ms. Anderson is really a local hero. I understand the concern about exposures to these chemicals. 

If confirmed to this position, I commit to you to find out where 

we are in the process of looking at the degreasing and dry cleaning 

elements of this chemical and getting back to you on a timeframe. 

Senator MARKEY. Thirty years later, when I announced for the 

U.S. Senate in 2013, I asked Anne Anderson to introduce me as the 

candidate. That is how profoundly powerful that issue is for me. 

Her son, Jimmy, died and it was avoidable. You know Woburn and 

you know New England, so you know how important this issue is. 

Ms. DUNN. Yes, I do. 

Senator MARKEY. How we have to resolve it. 

I am going to throw in methylene chloride and NMethylpyrrolidine so that you also know that is on my list because 

they have to be banned. They have no place in our society. 

I appreciate your work up in New England but the question is 

you might take over the Toxic Office or you could be taken over by 

the Toxic Office. That is going to be the challenge. Thus far, I am 

completely unsatisfied with what has happened. 

A lot of work has gone into putting together a very good bill on 

a bipartisan basis with a consensus that we had to deal with these 

chemicals. You are the one person who can finally step up and tell 

the politicians in that agency to get out of the way and let science 

rule, let safety rule, let children be protected and firefighters be 

protected. 

I thank you, Ms. Dunn, and thank you for your work with me 

over the years. 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Markey. 

I would note that the Center for Biological Diversity supports 

Ms. Dunn’s nomination. The director of the organization’s Environmental Health Program writes ‘‘Ms. Dunn is a consummate professional and, at EPA Region 1, has taken her oath of office to uphold 

the laws and protect the environment seriously.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. 

Without objection, it is entered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

155 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Dunn, thank you so much for not only being here and stepping forward to serve in this position, but for your lifetime of service. It is so great to see a powerfully prodigious posse of people 

with you today. 

I want to especially say I am grateful to see your husband here, 

who has one of the best haircuts in the room. It is nice to see people who give bald guys a chance. The Chairman has an offensive 

amount of hair for his age. 

I would love to jump in and talk a bit about the Worker Protection Standard, Ms. Dunn. I know you are familiar with the Worker 

Protection Standard. It is the primary set of Federal standards 

that protects over 2 million farm workers, including half a million 

children, from the hazards of working with pesticides. I met with 

farm workers in my State and I know this is at the top of their 

concerns. 

The EPA is now considering changes to the Worker Protection 

Standard, including lowering the minimum age requirement that 

prohibits children from handling dangerous pesticides if they are 

under 18 years old. This protection was put in place because pesticides can increase the risk of cancer and can impact very seriously the development of children. 

Ms. Dunn, if you are confirmed will you commit to protecting the 

Worker Protection Standard and to withdraw any proposals to roll 

it back? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator Booker, thank you so much for bringing up 

that question. In preparation for today, I talked with several organizations that are advocates for worker protection groups. 

I think we can all agree that workers should be safe in their 

places of work. They should know that the chemicals they are applying will not adversely impact their health. 

Senator, I can commit to you, if confirmed to this position, I will 

immediately find out the status of the rulemakings, the work we 

are doing, and get back to you on this. I think it is a very important issue. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. It is very important and 

very much on the minds of folks who are concerned about their 

children. I appreciate that commitment at the very least. 

PCBs in schools is another issue. If you are confirmed, will you 

commit to finalizing the rule requiring the replacement of light fixtures in schools and day care centers that contain PCBs? 

Ms. DUNN. Yes, Senator, it is like worker safety. Where our children go to school should be a safe place. My understanding is that 

the issue of PCBs, light fixtures and ballasts is something, as a 

country, we should have taken care of some time ago. The dust can 

adversely affect our children. They are most sensitive populations. 

I can commit to you, if confirmed to this position, immediately 

finding out where we are in the status of the PCBs and light fixtures in schools and working with your office to see if we can accelerate that process so that our children can be safe in school. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you so much. 

We obviously heard a lot about the TSCA law today. Frank Lautenberg was my predecessor in this position, a lion as you know, 

156 

before me. I am concerned again with implementation, as others 

have already expressed in this hearing. 

One area is the failure to consider all the sources of exposure 

that people might have to toxic chemicals. In our amended TSCA 

law, EPA was explicitly told by Congress to examine the safety of 

all known uses of chemicals and the combined impact of all exposures to a chemical when making a determination about whether 

a chemical presents unreasonable risk of harm. 

The EPA’s problem formulations have dramatically narrowed the 

exposures the agency will consider when evaluating the safety of 

the first ten TSCA chemicals. EPA is now saying it will ignore 

known exposures that come from land, air and water in deciding 

whether or not those first ten chemicals are safe. 

Ms. Dunn, I know some of your past work has focused on environmental justice. Living in Newark, New Jersey, I see the awful, 

awful effects it has had on our children and others. I just believe 

this is an environmental justice issue often disproportionately impacting marginalized Americans, the poor, Native Americans, and 

people of color. 

Communities around our country that are disproportionately 

harmed often see the brunt of the impact of our failure to act. 

Often those are not the people who have lobbyists here or the people who have high powered advocates. I am really concerned that 

the EPA’s decision to ignore known exposures from land, air and 

water would really hurt communities like mine, where I live, and 

affect them in a more harmful way. 

I know your heart, and having Senator Whitehouse speak so 

kindly of you encourages me a lot, but if confirmed, will you commit to me that the EPA will follow the clear statutory language of 

TSCA and comprehensively review the risk of chemicals by including known releases of the chemicals into our air, water and land 

that disproportionately affect those marginalized communities I 

mentioned? 

Ms. DUNN. Senator, I, with you, having taught environmental 

justice at three law schools and published on it, I share your passion. 

Senator BOOKER. You did not teach at Rutgers Law School. 

Ms. DUNN. I did not teach at Rutgers. I can only aspire to teach 

at Rutgers Law School. 

Senator BARRASSO. You will be happy to be a visiting professor. 

Ms. DUNN. I absolutely hear what you are asking. In many meetings I had with environmental organizations leading up to today, 

I heard the concern about EPA’s current approach to looking at exposures. 

What I can commit to you today is making that a top priority. 

It is clearly an issue there is a lot of concern around. I would like 

to get fully briefed by our team, if confirmed, and then come back 

and work with your office, your staff and others who have these 

concerns, and see if we can reach resolution on this matter about 

which people feel very strongly. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper, any final remarks? 

157 

Senator CARPER. We will probably have some questions for you 

for the record. I would appreciate your prompt response. 

The point raised by Senator Whitehouse, the responsiveness of 

EPA to our inquiries or oversight letters has been better than it 

was but not good. Maybe you can set a good example for your colleagues there. 

I also have some questions for the record for your mother. It is 

not what we normally do but since she has been a part of this 

hearing, I just want to give her a heads up. We will not put her 

under oath for any part of those responses. 

Senator BARRASSO. We will also allow her to submit questions. 

Ms. DUNN. She may have some for me and I am under oath, 

right? 

Senator CARPER. On a more serious note, Mr. Chairman, I want 

to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record several reports 

discussing the Trump Administration’s continued failure to properly implement the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act and 

failure to follow through on its duties to regulate pesticides. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I have a slew of letters of support for Ms. Dunn. You have received many numbers of letters from enthusiastic supporters, individuals and organizations from all across the political spectrum. 

The Ranking Member and I would like to include these letters in 

the record. 

Without objection, they will be included. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, late breaking news. Just 

today, I received notice that EPA Region 1 has recognized four 

projects for innovation in the region, one of them being the Wellington Avenue, Newport, Rhode Island Combined Sewer Overflow 

Innovation. 

Thank you, Ms. Dunn, for that recognition. I guess that just happened in the last 24 hours and was just brought to my attention 

now. Congratulations, Newport, and thank you, Ms. Dunn. 

Ms. DUNN. You are very welcome, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. That causes me to share with all of you that I 

have served the people of Delaware as their Treasurer, Congressman and Senator. In all my years of service, 40 years of service almost, I have one thing named after me. It is a combined watersewer overflow under the city of Wilmington. 

Ms. DUNN. It does not get better than that, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. If there are no more questions for today, 

members are going to be able to submit follow-up written questions 

for the record by 5 p.m. today, if your mom is going to do that. The 

nominee should respond to the questions by noon on Monday, December 3rd. 

I want to thank you for your time and testimony, for bringing 

your friends and family, dog walker, friend from high school, soccer 

158 

mom, and the best hockey goalie in the eastern United States. Everyone, we are so grateful. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

159 


35667.001

THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

COUNCIL OF 

STATES 

D.C. 20001 

Email 

www.ccos.org 

Todd Parfitt 

John Line Stine 

CommJSSIOll.er, lVitrmes,ota 

Dunn 

II, 2017 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OPI'T-2016-0597 

Subject: ECOS Comments on 

after date of enactment, the 

resulting from such 

rulemaklng. 

This Rulemaking not successful. and the of 
160 


35667.002

this Congressional directive arc also within the scope of Congress's overall mandate to U.S. EPA to reevaluate all aspects of TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Requirements under the Lautenberg Act 

Revisions. Therefore, ECOS strongly recommends that no action be taken as a result of this process, and 

that all potential revisions to CDR inorganic byproduct reporting be addressed under U.S. EPA's overall 

TSCA/Lautenberg Act revision efforts. Further, on the basis of ECOS representatives' participation in 

this process, ECOS strongly believes that actions to maintain the current CDR byproduct or noncommercial use reporting exemptions. expand them. or establish new reporting exemptions or other 

revisions that would reduce data needed for U.S. EPA to effectively implement the Lautenberg Act, are 

not consistent with the spirit or letter of the law under the Lauten berg Act, which requires U.S. EPA to 

evaluate all conditions of use including all forms and pathways of use, disposal, combustion, reuse. 

recycling and reprocessing. All existing reporting exemptions should also be very closely scrutinized in 

the overall CDR evaluation that U.S. EPA will be undertaking. State representatives noted on more than 

one occasion that they are deeply concerned about and oppose revisions to CDR that limit the collection 

and availability of data that U.S. EPA uses to assess taxies and that the state representatives consider to be 

critical to effective implementation of the Lauten berg Act. 

U.S. EPA has indicated that it relies on the data collected on inorganic byproducts to inform Agency 

decisions. U.S. EPA conducted a crosswalk of byproducts reported under TRI and CDR in order to gauge 

production volume of byproducts within various metal compound categories. The results showed 

significant non-overlap between TRI and CDR, indicating that considerable data could be lost if 

manufacturers do not report on inorganic byproducts through CDR, and that TRI is not capturing 

activities that are or could be subject to CDR. Due to the state preemption provisions adopted under the 

Lautenberg Act, a Cooperative Federalism relationship is mandated where states rely on U.S. EPA to 

collect and assess data on toxic chemicals. States have a deep interest in making sure that U.S. EPA 

obtains the data it needs to make effective decisions under the Act to protect public health and the 

environment tram toxic chemicals. 

In addition to these overall comments, under separate cover. ECOS will be sending to the Designated 

Federal Official for the Committee a summary of. and state representatives' comments on, the options 

that were discussed by the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. ECOS looks forward to continuing to work with U.S. EPA on 

the implementation ofTSCA including the amendments adopted under the Lauten berg Act. 

Sincerely, 

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

ECOS Executive Director 

cc: Dr. Michael Dourson, Adviser to the Administrator 
161 


35667.003

November 28, 2018 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Agriculture CEO Council, which is comprised of leaders from national farm and agribusiness 

organizations, wishes to express its full support for President Donald Trump's nominations of 

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn as the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). 

Ms. Dunn's accomplished environmental law and policy career spans nearly twenty-five years 

and she currently serves as Regional Administrator for EPA's Region 1. During her tenure at 

Region 1, Ms. Dunn has led the Region to achieving Superfund clean-up milestones, implemented 

flexible and common sense approaches to further water and air quality improvement goals, and 

promoted community revitalization, all while working cooperatively with states, environmental 

groups, industry, and academia. Ms. Dunn's collaborative and outcomes-and solutions-oriented 

approach has earned her widespread praise across environmental stakeholder groups and from 

the EPA career staff she leads in Region 1. 

Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Dunn served as executive director and general counsel of the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization 

representing the major environmental regulatory agencies in all fifty U.S. states, territories, and 

the District of Columbia. Ms. Dunn's experience working with state environmental regulators 

across America has given her a deep understanding of the environmental challenges facing each 

region and industry sector, and communities from urban to rural America. Dunn has fostered 

collaboration across stakeholder groups to achieve regulatory and policy solutions that achieve 

sound environmental protection outcomes while preserving economic growth. 

Ms. Dunn's many accomplishments include publications in the areas of environmental justice, 

urban sustainability, and cooperative federalism. She has taught environmental law courses at 

the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America; the Washington College of Law at 

American University; and the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, where she served 

as dean of Environmental Law Programs. Dunn was elected to the American College of 

Environmental Lawyers in 2015, and has served as Chair of the American Bar Association's 

Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. 
162 


35667.004

As the leaders in our nation's agriculture and food sectors, the CEO supports the demonstrated 

leadership and experience Ms. Dunn would bring to OCSPP. We applaud the Committee for 

moving forward with scheduling her confirmation hearing later this month so that this critical 

post at EPA may be filled in the near future. 

Sincerely, 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Soybean Association 

Crop life America 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Association of Wheat Growers 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

The Fertilizer Institute 
163 


35667.005

JEANNE SHAHEEN 

United States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20.o10 

November 29, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I write in support of the nomination of Alexandra Dunn to the position of Assistant Administrator 

for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Given the importance of the position, it is critical that the next assistant 

administrator understand the complexity of the role and how their decisions can impact the 

environment as well as health and safety of all Americans. Through her work as an environmental 

lawyer, Executive Director of the Environmental Council of States and as Regional Administrator 

for EPA Region 1, it is clear that Administrator Dunn is up to the task. I believe her diverse 

experience and nonpolitical approach make her an ideal candidate for this position. 

In the past year of working with Administrator Dunn, it has become evident that she understands 

not only the scientific aspects of her work, but also the importance of community engagement. I 

can think of no better example than Administrator Dunn's efforts to address growing public health 

concerns related to per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS) which have emerged as a 

widespread contaminant to ground and drinking water sources in several southern New Hampshire 

towns, and were responsible for the closing of a major water supply well located at the former 

Pease Air National Guard Base. Understandably, this contamination has raised concerns for many 

community members about the health and well-being of their children and families. 

During her time at EPA Region I, Administrator Dunn has not shied away from these concerns 

but rather has moved to address contamination issues head-on. She worked to bring the first PFAS 

Community Engagement Summit to Exeter, NH, this past summer, setting an example of how to 

appropriately engage with community members and ensure that they could contribute to the 

agency-wide PFAS effort. She has worked with advocacy groups in New Hampshire, such as 

Testing for Pease, to ensure the timely and appropriate exchange of information, holding several 

small group meetings throughout New Hampshire. Her accessibility has helped her to gain the 

trust of community members and her bipartisan manner has been an asset to the people of Region 

l. 

Regional Administrator Alexandra Dunn has been a dependable resource and advocate for the 

people of New Hampshire and EPA Region l. Given her scientific background, environmental 
164 


35667.006

justice expertise and apolitical approach, l believe she is well suited to lead the EPA's Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and to protect our citizens' health and environment from 

toxic chemicals and pollution. 

Sincerely 

~H~ United States Senator 
165 


35667.007

National Wildlife Federation 

1200 G Street NW, Suite 900 

W<I!SI!irllttll111.0( 20005 

Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and 

On behalf of the National Wildlife H>rl~>r;~nrm 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Member 

on Environment and 

Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

DC 20510 

six million members and 

we write to express our 

Administrator for the Office 

Environmental Protection Agency 

the confirmation of Alexandra Dunn as 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the 

We have worked with and can 

attest that her style collaborative and work is in sound 

science and the law. When I served as Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control for the State of Delaware, Dunn served as the Executive Director for the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS is an of the chief 

executives of the states' environmental We worked together to find innovative 

solutions to environmental cross-state air 

chemicals. 

Ms. Dunn's needed at EPA's Office of Chemical and 

Pollution Prevention 

Federation's profound 

now. Words are insufficient to describe the National Wildlife 

the Frank R. 

"~'·""''-""Control Act 

and with EPA's abysmal record 

the 21st Century Act (amended 
166 


35667.008

The Federation was proud to help forge and support the bipartisan compromise that 

brought much needed reforms the antiquated statute to more effectively protect public 

health. Unfortunately, the current Administration has virtually nullified this Act through 

its ongoing unwillingness to implement the law, as enacted. This inaction should be 

particularly distressing to the members of this Committee, which worked so hard across 

the aisle to improve public health outcomes across our nation by securing one of the 

most significant bipartisan victories of the last Congress. 

We firmly believe that Ms. Dunn's most important responsibility will be getting the 

implementation ofTSCA on track through steady leadership and transparent, sciencebased decision-making. We also expect her focused attention on 

several additional critical responsibilities including administering the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Pollution Prevention Act, and the Federal 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as well as ensuring that communities understand various 

risks and advancing sustainable chemistry. We believe Ms. Dunn has the ability and 

experience to advance this important work, but EPA leadership must provide her with the 

authority, resources, and support to do the job well. 

Ms. Dunn's experiences at EPA Region 1, the Environmental Council of the States, and the 

Association of Clean Water Administrators, combined with her years of leadership as a 

top environmental lawyer, have prepared her to serve as an effective Assistant 

Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. We urge the Committee to 

support her nomination and ensure that she receives the support that she needs both 

from the Administration and the Congress to be successful. 

Thank you for the ongoing work of this Committee to advance the cause of conservation. 

Sincerely, 

//;7 ~ 

(&:f~:J 

Collin O'Mara 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

The National Wildlife Federation 

cc: The Honorable Andrew Wheeler, EPA Administrator 
167 


35667.010

December 3, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The undersigned associations representing a diverse group of industries across the 

country write to express our support for the nomination of Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant 

Administrator (AA) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). 

Ms. Dunn has a distinguished career as a public servant and is an expert on 

environmental policy and regulation. Ms. Dunn currently serves as regional administrator for 

EPA's Region I office in Boston, Massachusetts, and has worked closely with stakeholders to 

ensure the appropriate protection of public health and the environment. 

Ms. Dunn previously served as executive director and general counsel for the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). While at ECOS, Ms. Dunn worked on numerous 

environmental protection issues and was actively involved in national discourse regarding 

reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

The Senate has yet to confirm a candidate for this position since this Administration 

began, nearly two years ago. Ms. Dunn's confirmation would provide OCSPP with the key 

leadership and experience needed to implement the recently amended TSCA. As such, we urge 

you to swiftly act on Ms. Dunn's nomination. 

American Chemistry Council 

American Cleaning Institute 

American Coke and Coal Chemicals 

Institute 

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers 

American Petroleum Institute 

American Wood Council 

Color Pigments Manufacturers Association 

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners 

EPS Industry Alliance 

The Fashion Jewelry & Accessories Trade 

Association 

Sincerely. 

Global Cold Chain Alliance 

Household & Commercial Products 

Association 

Industrial Minerals Association- North 

America 

Institute of Makers of Explosives 

National Association of Chemical 

Distributors 

National Association of Printing Ink 

Manufacturers 

National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association 

National Sand, Stone, and Gravel 

Association 
168 


35667.011

Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS) 

Retail Industry Leaders Association 

Single Ply Roofing Industry 

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & 

Affiliates 

Styrene lnfom1ation & Research Center 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

The Vinyl Institute 
169 


35667.012

CAt DooLEY 

!'Rf.S!DENT ANDCEO 

September 28, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chainnan 

Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: Nomination of Ms. Alexandra Dunn to he Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safely and 

Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to express the strong support of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) for the nomination of 

Ms. Alexandra Dunn to he the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Assistant Administrator with 

responsibility for chemical and pesticide regulation. We urge you to schedule a hearing on Ms. Dunn's 

nomination as soon as possible prior to the Senate's mid-October recess. 

As you know, EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is responsible for 

administering two of the Nation's most important chemical regulatory regimes: The Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Both regulatory 

programs are at an important implementation stage, and both require strong leadership in order to ensure that 

Congress' intent- expressed in the underlying legislation- is achieved. 

We believe that Ms. Dunn brings experience and expertise that will make her a very effective Assistant Administrator. As EPA's Region l Administrator) she has worked effectively with a broad range of 

stakeholders. In her role as Executive Director of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), Ms. 

Dunn worked with State environmental agencies and gained a valuable perspective on chemical management 

issues. In both roles she demonstrated the type of leadership we believe is necessary to ensure that OCSPP 

fully implements the law, including the 2016 amendments to TSCA. 

A hearlng and quick action on Ms. Dunn's nomination will ensure that EPA continues to meet the rigorous 

deadlines and expectations that Congress set in amending TSCA. She is the right person for the job. We 

strongly endorse her nomination, and hope that you will schedule a hearing on her nomination in the weeks 

ahead. 

Si7t /)ra ~]1 ~ 
170 


35667.013

September 6, 2018 

Senator ,John Barrasso 

Chairman 

1816 Jefferson P!ac~ NW 

WMhin-gton 20036 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Recommendation and Support for Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am wTiting to recommend and express my support for Alexandra Dunn to be tbe Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Ms. Dunn and I have 

koown one another for almost 20 years, have worked together at the National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) for several years, and have remained colleagues and friends 

throughout our respective careers. 

As NACWA's current Chief Executive Officer, I have continued to work with Ms. Dunn in her 

four (4) year tenure as Executive Director and General Counsel for the Environmental Council of 

States (ECOS) and through her current role as Region 1 Administrator for EPA. 

Alex will be an asset heading up the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. She is a 

natural leader, her integrity and reliability are unparalleled, and her energy and sense of service 

and mission are unwavering. 

Please feel free to reach out to me if you should have any questions and it is a pleasure to 

recommend and support Alex Dunn for this important post. 

Best, 

Adam 

Adam Krantz 

Chief Executive Officer 
171 


35667.014

November 28, 2018 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Agriculture CEO Council, which is comprised of leaders from national farm and agribusiness 

organizations, wishes to express its full support for President Donald Trump's nominations of 

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn as the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). 

Ms. Dunn's accomplished environmental law and policy career spans nearly twenty-five years 

and she currently serves as Regional Administrator for EPA's Region 1. During her tenure at 

Region 1, Ms. Dunn has led the Region to achieving Superfund clean-up milestones, implemented 

flexible and common sense approaches to further water and air quality improvement goals, and 

promoted community revitalization, all while working cooperatively with states, environmental 

groups, industry, and academia. Ms. Dunn's collaborative and outcomes-and solutions-oriented 

approach has earned her widespread praise across environmental stakeholder groups and from 

the EPA career staff she leads in Region 1. 

Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Dunn served as executive director and general counsel of the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization 

representing the major environmental regulatory agencies in all fifty U.S. states, territories, and 

the District of Columbia. Ms. Dunn's experience working with state environmental regulators 

across America has given her a deep understanding of the environmental challenges facing each 

region and industry sector, and communities from urban to rural America. Dunn has fostered 

collaboration across stakeholder groups to achieve regulatory and policy solutions that achieve 

sound environmental protection outcomes while preserving economic growth. 

Ms. Dunn's many accomplishments include publications in the areas of environmental justice, 

urban sustainability, and cooperative federalism. She has taught environmental law courses at 

the Columbus School of law at Catholic University of America; the Washington College of law at 

American University; and the Elisabeth Haub School of law at Pace University, where she served 

as dean of Environmental law Programs. Dunn was elected to the American College of 

Environmental lawyers in 2015, and has served as Chair of the American Bar Association's 

Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. 
172 


35667.015

As the leaders in our nation's agriculture and food sectors, the CEO supports the demonstrated 

leadership and experience Ms. Dunn would bring to OCSPP. We applaud the Committee for 

moving forward with scheduling her confirmation hearing later this month so that this critical 

post at EPA may be filled in the near future. 

Sincerely, 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Soybean Association 

Crop life America 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Association of Wheat Growers 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

The Fertilizer Institute 
173 


35667.016

Holland & Knight 800 17th Street, Suite 1100 I Washington. DC 20006 I T 202.955.3000 I F 202.955.5564 

Holland & Knight LLP I www.hklaw.corn 

Amy L Edwards 

(202) 457-5917 

amy.edwards@hklaw.com 

August 2!, 20!8 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

I am writing to support the nomination of Alexandra (Alex) Dapolito Dunn to become the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

Alex currently serves as tbe Regional Administrator of EPA Region I. During her more than two decade 

career, she has had in-depth experience with a broad range of issues involving air, water, waste, energy 

and environmental justice. She has represented a number of different constituencies, including as 

Executive Director and General Counsel of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS); as 

Executive Director and General Counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACW A); as 

General Counsel for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA); as counsel at the 

American Chemistry 'council (ACC); and now as Regional Administrator at the EPA. She also was the 

Dean of Environmental Law Programs and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of 

Law at Pace University for several years. Alex is well regarded for her substantive expertise, her vision, 

and her excellent management skills. 

In addition, Alex has served as a past chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, 

Energy and Resources (SEER) and as a member of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) Board of 

Directors. She is regularly invited to speak at ABA SEER and ELI conferences and programs. She has 

been a lecturer at the Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, and an Adjunct 

Associate Professor of Law at tbe American University Washington College of Law. 

I trust that this information is helpful to you as you review Alex's nomination. Please feel free to follow 

up with me if you have any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Amy L. Edwards 

Anchorage I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Charlotte I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Fort Lauderdale I Houston I Jacksonville 

Lakeland I Los Angeles I Miami I New York I Orlando I Philadelphia I Portland I San Francisco I Stamford I Tallahassee I Tampa 

Tysons I Washington, D.C. I West Palm Beach I Bogota I London I Mexico City 

#59719946_vl 
174 


35667.017

September 7, 2018 

CAROL E. DINKINS 

2300 FIRsT GrTY TowER 

H017STON, TEXAS 77002 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member: 

Your committee has before it the nomination of Alexandra 

Dapolito Dunn to serve as Assistant Administrator in the EPA Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Please accept this, my 

wholehearted and unreserved endorsement of her confirmation to serve 

in this important office. 

As a former chair of the American Bar Association Section on 

Environmental, Energy, and Resources Law and former President of 

the American College of Environmental Lawyers, it has been my 

privilege to have known well and worked with Ms. Dunn for many 

years. She has an impeccable record in her career, is a consummate 

professional, possesses outstanding leadership and organizational 

skills, and is highly knowledgeable in the field of environmental law. 

Ms. Dunn will serve the people of the United States with great skill 

and a collegial, collaborative spirit. It having been my privilege to 

have served as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 

Environment and Natural Resourced Division in the U.S. Department 

of Justice from 1981-1983, I know first-hand the importance of Ms. 
175 


35667.018

Dunn's exemplary credentials to serve as an Assistant EPA 

Administrator, as EPA was among the Division's most significant 

clients. 

Thank you for your consideration of my endorsement. 

Yours very truly, 

Carol E. Dinkins 

Former Deputy Attorney General of the 

United States 1984-85 
176 


35667.019

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

November 26, 2018 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Nomination of Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in support of the nomination of 

Alexandra Dunn for Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. Ms. Dunn's past work at EPA Region I and her demonstrated ability to work 

professionally with stakeholders to achieve environmental protection demonstrate that she would 

be capable and effective as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention. 

The appointment of such a knowledgeable and respected professional for a position within the 

EPA is a breath of fresh air and a marked improvement from other nominations to the EPA by 

President Trump. His administration's nominations to Senate-confirmed positions as well as 

appointments to non-confirmed positions have been rife with ethical conflicts of interest. 

Virtually every person appointed by the President to the EPA has consistently and repeatedly put 

the interests of their former employers, polluters and industry special interests ahead of the 

public good. They have worsened pollution, made our children sicker, and despoiled the 

environment for decades to come. 

In contrast, Ms. Dunn is a consummate professional, and at EPA Region I has taken her oath of 

office to uphold the laws and protect the environment seriously. We look forward to the 

integrity that Ms. Dunn will bring to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and 

look forward to working with her in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Lori Ann Burd 

Director 

Environmental Health Program 

Alaska. Arizona. . Vermont. 
177 


35667.020

Association 

October 4, 2018 

The Honorable john A. Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Support for the Nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Color Pigments Manufacturers Association is proud to offer its unqualified support for 

the nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office 

of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and urges the Committee to hold a 

hearing on her nomination before the upcoming recess. 

The CPMA is an industry trade association representing small, medium and large color 

pigments manufacturing companies. ln addition, the association represents color pigments 

manufacturers that sell pigments and certain colored products and suppliers of 

intermediates and other chemicals products that serve color pigments manufacturers. The 

association provides advocacy programs in support of the color pigments industry on 

matters pertaining to the environment, health, safety issues and trade. Color pigments are 

widely used in product compositions of all kinds, including paints, inks, plastics, glass, 

synthetic fibers, ceramics, color cement products, textiles, cosmetics and artists' colors. 

Few if any nominees for a Senate-confirmed position at EPA have ever possessed Ms. 

Dunn's extraordinary breadth of work experience: 

In her brief tenure as Regional Administrator for Region I, she has already been 

widely-praised from all perspectives, but particularly by environmental groups and 

her predecessor from the previous administration.l 

• As Executive Director and General Counsel of the Environmental Council of the 

States, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Association of Clean Water 

Administrators, and General Counsel of the National Association of Clean Water 

1 "In the deep blue of New England, a Trump appointee gains respect for protecting the 

environment," Boston Globe (Aug. 30, 2018), available at 

appointee-gains-respect-for-protectingenvironment /sa5z4g9a9WBA V8nGUv2 FQl/sto ry.html. 

1400 Drive, Suite 630 • Arlington, VA 22202 • USA 

(571) 348·5130 • www.pigments.org 
178 


35667.021

Agencies, she has spent more than fourteen years representing state environmental 

agencies, and thus has a deep appreciation for the importance of coordinating EPA's 

and states' efforts to protect the environment while maintaining economic growth. 

• As Assistant Dean of Environmental Law Programs and Adjunct Professor of Law at 

Pace University School of Law and Associate Adjunct Professor of Law at American 

University's Washington College of Law, she developed a commanding grasp of the 

broad range of environmental law and policy subject matters and the complex 

history of the field. 

• As the former chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, 

Energy & Resources, Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, and 

member of the Board of Directors of the Environmental Law Institute, she has 

become personally acquainted with virtually every significant practitioner in the 

field, representing every perspective, and understands the value of creative 

problem-solving. 

• As a lawyer at Winston & Strawn and the American Chemistry Council, she 

understood the impact that EPA and state actions can have on regulated industry, 

the importance of ongoing, transparent communication between regulator and the 

regulated, and the key role that trade associations play in that process. 

In all ofthese capacities, Ms. Dunn has demonstrated a pragmatic, problem-solving 

orientation, concern for affected stakeholders, and unflagging good humor. 

OCSPP is currently managing a staggering docket as it implements the 2016 amendments 

to the Toxic Substances Control Act. That work and the office's pesticide programs are 

crucial to this nation's economy and highly controversial. OCSPP has suffered from its lack 

of a Senate-confirmed leader. Ms. Dunn is highly qualified for the job and should be 

confirmed as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

David Wawer 

Executive Director 
179 


35667.022

7l>e 

UNIVERSITY 

of VERMONT 

RUBENSTEIN SCHOOL OF 

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Deb Markowitz, 

Visiting Professor of Environmental Policy and Leadership 

University ofVennont 

312 Aiken Building 

Burlington, Vermont 05405 

August 13,2018 

Senator John Barrasso, Chair 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Barrasso, 

This letter is in support of the nomination of Alexandra Dunn for EPA's Assistant Administrator 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

I served from 2010- 2017 as the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources for Vermont. In 

that capacity I worked closely with Ms. Dunn in her prior role as the Executive Director of the 

Environmental Council of States (ECOS). I saw first-hand Ms. Dunn's significant strengths as a 

manager and as a leader. More specifically, Alexandra Dunn is an excellent choice to oversee 

implementation of the nation's chemical regulatory programs, especially the Frank 

R. Lauten berg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amended the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Ms. Dunn and I worked together, in our prior professional roles, as this lav\ 

was negotiated, to ensure that states would maintain meaningful chemical regulatory authorities. 

Her deep knowledge of key issues and passion for the portfolio of work in this EPA office will 

ensure her success. 

Feel free to call upon me if you have any questions, or would like additional information about 

Ms. Dunn's qualifications to serve. 

Sincerely, 

Deb Markowitz 
180 


35667.023

Deb Markowitz, 

RUBENSTEIN SCHOOL OF 

EJ\'V!ROJ\i'MENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Visiting Professor of Environmental Policy and Leadership 

University of Vermont 

312 Aiken Building 

Burlington, Vermont 05405 

August 13, 2018 

Senator Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Carper, 

This letter is in support of the nomination of Alexandra Dunn for EPA's Assistant Administrator 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

l served from 2010 2017 as the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources for Vermont. In 

that capacity I worked closely with Ms. Dunn in her prior role as the Executive Director of the 

Environmental Council of States (ECOS). I saw first-hand Ms. Dunn's significant strengths as a 

manager and as a leader. More specifically, Alexandra Dunn is an excellent choice to oversee 

implementation of the nation's chemical regulatory programs, especially the Frank 

R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21" Century Act which amended the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). Ms. Dunn and I worked together, in our prior professional roles, as this law 

was negotiated, to ensure that states would maintain meaningful chemical regulatory authorities. 

Her deep knowledge of key issues and passion for the portfolio of work in this EPA office will 

ensure her success. 

Feel free to call upon me if you have any questions, or would like additional information about 

Ms. Dunn's qualifications to serve. 

Sincerely, 

Deb Markowitz 
181 


35667.024

The Honorable John Barasso, f'v1.D. 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 2051 0 

Dear Senator Barasso and Senator Carper: 

September 13, 2018 

We, the undersigned, write as a group of experienced lawyers with many years of 

collective experience and expertise in the fields of environmental, energy, and resources law to 

express our support for Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination as Assistant Administrator of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (CPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP). We are also former Chairs of the American Bar Association's (ABA) 

Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER). The views expressed in this letter are 

our personal views only and should not be construed as presenting the policy of the ABA, SEER, 

our employers, or our clients. Each of us has known Alex for years and worked with Alex in her 

capacity as a former Chair of SEER and as Executive Director and General Counsel of the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). We strongly support Alex's nomination, and 

believe that Alex will serve the Agency with honor and distinction. 

{00505 027 / J ll /00250847 DOCX 7 ~ 
182 


35667.025

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

September 13, 2018 

Page 2 

Alex's leadership skills, expansive understanding of environmental law, 

regulation, and policy, impeccable character, and personal integrity will ensure Alex's success as 

Assistant Administrator of OCSPP; and make her nomination an inspired selection to lead this 

critically important EPA program office. Alex's varied and distinguished career, and her wellrecognized intellectual rigor and forthrightness exemplify the highest standards of the legal 

profession. We enthusiastically and without reservation support Alex's nomination as Assistant 

Administrator for OCSPP, and believe Alex will serve the office with distinction and honor. 

(00505 027 I Ill I 00250847.DOCX 7} 

Sincerely, 

Pamela E. Barker 

Lynn L. Bergeson 

Lauren J. Caster 

John C. Cruden 

Seth A. Davis 

Lee A. DeHihns, Ill 

Carol E. Dinkins 

Andrea Bear Field 

Theodore L. Garrett 

Michael B. Gerrard 

R. Kinnan Golemon 

Sheila Slocum Hollis 

Steven G. McKinney 

Steven T. Miano 

John E. Milner 

William L. Penny 

Claudia Rast 

Irma S. Russell 

Eugene E. Smary 

Richard G. Stoll 

Kenneth J. Warren 
183 


35667.026

iM 

iMORENO GROUP 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

September 17, 2018 

United States Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Letter in Support of the Senate Confirmation of Alexandra Dunn To 

Serve As Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator 

Dear Senators Barrasso and Carper: 

I write to support the confirmation of Alexandra Dunn to serve as Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Simply stated, if confirmed, Ms. Dunn would 

make an outstanding Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. I recommend her to you highly and without reservation. 

By way of background, I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to 

serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division 

of the United States Department of Justice and served from 2009 to 2013 during President 

Obama's first term. I also served in the Department of Justice from 1994 to 2001 as a 

political appointee in the Clinton Administration. In these positions, 1 have worked closely 

with both high-level political appointees and senior career officials and staff at EPA. In my 

view, Ms. Dunn has the requisite substantive and managerial experience, skills, and 

personal attributes to successfully lead the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention as Assistant Administrator. 

Ms. Dunn has over two decades of environmental policy and legal experience, 

including in academia, national non-partisan non-profits, and EPA. She has a 

demonstrated record of achievement in environmental protection in her current role as 

EPA Region 1 Administrator, and is held in high esteem nationwide by environmental 

practitioners and stakeholders alike. Ms. Dunn is committed to implementing the laws 

enacted by Congress to protect human health and the environment and understands and 

respects the role and importance of science in regulatory decision-making. She is an 

inclusive, thoughtful, and decisive leader who solicits the views of all affected 

stakeholders, including affected communities, and meaningfully considers all views in her 

decision-making. Ms. Dunn is indefatigable and solutions-oriented. She is fair, has the 

utmost integrity, and adheres to the rule of law. For these reasons, Ms. Dunn is especially 

qualified to serve as Assistant Administrator at EPA. 

The !Moreno Group, PLC • www.lmorenogroup.com 
184 


35667.027

September 17, 2018 

Page 2 

I hope that you agree that Alexandra Dunn merits confirmation as Assistant 

Administrator of !he Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Please let me know if you would like any 

additional information. I may be reached at or 

(703) 4424730. 

The iMoreno Group, PLC • www.imorenogroup.com 
185 


35667.028

The Honorable john A. Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg, 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

October 24,2018 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg, 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Support for the Nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA] is proud to offer its 

unqualified support for the nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be Assistant 

Administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), 

and urges the Committee to hold a hearing and a committee vote during the 

upcoming lame duck, in sufficient time for a floor vote in this session of Congress. 

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) is the only U.S,·based 

trade association solely dedicated to the specialty and tine chemical industry. 

SOCMA members play an indispensable role in the global chemical supply chain, 

providing specialty chemicals to companies in markets ranging from aerospace and 

electronics to pharmaceuticals and agriculture. 

Few if any nominees for a Senate-confirmed position at EPA have ever possessed Ms. 

Dunn's extraordinary breadth of work experience: 

In her brief tenure as Regional Administrator for Region I, she has already 

been widely-praised from all perspectives, but particularly by environmental 

groups and her predecessor from the previous administration.! 

As Executive Director and General Counsel of the Environmental Council of 

the States, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Association of Clean 
186 


35667.029

Water Administrators, and General Counsel of the National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies, she has spent more than fourteen years 

state environmental agencies, and thus has a deep appreciation 

importance EPA's and states' efforts to protect the 

environment while economic growth, 

• As Assistant Dean of Environmc'ntal Law Programs and Adjunct Professor of 

Law at Pace School of Law and Associate Adjunct Professor of Law 

at American Washington College of Law, she 

broad range of environmental law 

subject matters the complex history of the field. 

• As the former chair of the American Bar Association's Section of 

Environment, Energy & Resources, Fellow of the American 

Environmental Lawyers, and member of the Board of Directors 

Environmental Law Institute, she has become acquainted with 

virtually every signiflcant practitioner in the 

perspective, and understands the value of creative 

As a lawyer at Winston & Strawn and the American Chemistry Council, she 

understood the impact that EPA and state actions can have on 

industry, the ;"""'""conro 

and 

In all of these capacities, Ms. Dunn has demonstrated a pragmatic, nrc,hl,nm-<r•'" 

orientation, concern fot· affected stakeholders, and unflagging 

OCSPP is managing a staggering docket it implements tbe 2016 

amendments to Toxic Substances Control Act That work and the office's 

pesticide programs are crucial to this nation's economy and highly controversial. 

OCSPP has suffered from its lack of a Senate·contlrmed leader, Ms, Dunn is highly 

qualified for the job and should be confirmed as soon as possible. 
187 


35667.030

September 20, 2018 

Senator John Ba1Tasso 

Chainnan 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

O'Leary Library, 540 Joel Ticknor, Sc.D. 

61 Wilder St Pmfor.mt 

Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 Department of Public Heatth 

tel: 978.934.2981 

fax. 978.934.3012 

e-mail: Joel_ Tickner@um!.edu 

College of Health Sciences 

Re: Recommendation and Support for Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant Administrator of U.S. EPA's 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chainnan Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

It is my privilege to support and recommend Alexandra Dunn to be the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As 

a lawyer and legal scholar, executive director of two organizations with extensive experience in working 

with diverse state and federal agencies and stakeholders, and now Regional EPA Administrator, Ms. 

Dunn has the background, experience, and temperament to effectively lead the implementation of 

EPA's chemical safety programs. Ms. Dunn is a seasoned leader, who is effectively able to motivate a 

large staff while thoughtfully engaging external stakeholders towards solutions that benefit health, 

environment, and business. 

I am a Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and chemicals 

management and policy scholar as well as Executive Director of the Green Chemistry and Commerce 

Council, a network of more than I 00 companies, ranging from major retailers to brands and chemical 

manufacturers, focused on advancing the development and commercialization of sustainable chemistry 

solutions. I have worked with Ms. Dunn for the past four years on a number of pollution prevention, 

toxic substances management, and sustainable chemistry efforts. 

As Executive Director and General Council for the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), l was 

impressed with Ms. Dunn's ability to engage the diverse leadership of state environmental agencies and 

channel initiatives towards positive, win-win outcomes. This is no easy task, particularly when states 

have varied interests and needs. During her time at ECOS, Ms. Dunn was also able to build strong 

relationships between state and federal agencies, including EPA, which often do not effectively 

collaborate. Ms. Dunn has also shown a keen ability to work across stakeholder groups, garnering trust 

and building strong relationships. 
188 


35667.031

Recommendation for Alexandra 

In particular. 

the complexities involved in 

state and international level, and 

well 

those goals. 

Sincerely, 

Joel A. Tickner. SeD 

Dunn, as Executive Director of 

Chemical Safety for the 

to the 

developments at the 

for sustainable chemistry. I believe Ms. Dunn 

of Chemical Pollution Prevention in 
189 


35667.032

BEVERIDGE 

&DIAMOND 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

August 28, 2018 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

John C. Cruden 

1350 I Street. N.W, 

Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20005-3311 

Direct: (202) 789-6018 

Fax: (202) 789-6190 

Jcruden@bdlaw.com 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to highly recommend Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be the Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection 

Agency. Ms. Dunn was just nominated for this important positon by the President 

Alexandra is currently serving as the Regional Administrator, Region 1, Environmental 

Protection Agency and has done a superb job working with the northeast states of that Region, 

advancing environmental actions. She will bring great management skills, a passion for the 

environment, and the ability to work cooperatively with states, environmental groups, industry, 

and academia to this new position, 

As the most recent Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of EPA 

Assistant Administrators as I served in both Republican and Democratic Administrations. I can 

say, without any hesitation, that Alexandra Dunn is supremely well qualified, will be a great and 

good force for positive environmental action, and will be someone who carefully reviews, abides 

by, and implements the law. 

Alexandra has a broad base of environmental expertise, having served as the executive 

director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of States and as executive director 

and general counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators. In addition, she is a 

well-known professor of the law, having served as Dean of Environmental Law Programs at the 

Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in New York, and as a faculty member of the 

Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America. 

Austin, TX 

New York, NY 

Baltimore, MD Boston, MA Englewood, NJ 

San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA Washinqton, DC 
190 


35667.033

BEVERIDGE&DIAMONDrc 

Senator John Barrasso 

Senator Tom Carper 

August 28, 2018 

Page 2 

I have had the privilege of working with Alexandra in the American Bar Association, 

where she followed me by several years as Chair of the Section on Environment, Energy, and 

Resources. Similarly, I have worked with her when I was President of the Environmental Law 

Institute and she was a distinguished member of the Board of Directors, and in my current 

position as President, American College of Environmental Lawyers, she was a leader in that elite 

organization. 

In short, Alexandra Dunn would be a superb Assistant Administrator, is extremely well 

qualified, and I highly recommend her to you. 
191 


35667.034

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Via E-mail 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman 

,JOHN E. MILNER 

September 6, 2018 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate 0 ffice Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Dr. Barasso and Mr. Carper: 

100 

Facsimile: 601.960.6902 

I write as Senior Partner ofBrunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes PLLC and friend, 

professional colleague, and fellow Past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of 

Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER) to support Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination 

as Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). I have known Alex for many years, worked 

with Alex in her capacity as a former Chair of SEER, and in Alex's capacity as Executive 

Director and General Counsel of the Environmental Counsel of the States (ECOS). Since her 

induction in the American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL) four years ago, Alex 

and I are also ACOEL colleagues. 

Alex's leadership skills, expansive understanding of environmental Jaw, regulation, and 

policy, impeccable character, collegiality and personal integrity will ensure Alex's success as 

Assistant Administrator of OCSPP and make her nomination an inspired selection to lead this 

critically important EPA program office. Alex's varied and distinguished career, and her well· 

recognized personal integrity, intellectual rigor, and forthrightness exemplify the highest 

standards of the legal profession. l enthusiastically and without reservation support Alex's 

nomination as Assistant Administrator for OCSPP, and believe Alex will serve the office with 

distinction and honor. 

03060995 
192 


35667.035

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

September 6, 2018 

Page 2 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

BRUNTN!, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, !'LLC 

John E. Milner 

JEM/pa 

03060995 
193 


35667.036

Kenneth J. Warren 

Direct Dial: 484-383-4830 

Email: kwarren@warrenenvcounscl.com 

September 6, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As the managing member of a law firm in Pennsylvania concentrating its practice in 

environmental law, I am writing to strongly support the nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn 

to be the Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Her experience, knowledge of environmental law 

and high character will make her an excellent Assistant Administrator. 

l have known Alex for many years. She served with distinction as Chair of the American 

Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy and Resources several years after I held that 

position. She has consistently been a strong advocate of collegiality, advancement of 

environmental protection, and adherence to the rule oflaw. 

In her roles as executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of 

the States, and as Regional Administrator of EPA Region l, Alex has routinely taken effective 

steps to solicit the views of multiple stakeholders. Through her inclusive approach, she has 

developed a reputation for fairness and gained the respect of citizens and companies with a broad 

range of interests. These qualities and talent will serve her well in the role of Assistant 

Administrator. 

Alex's exemplary character includes her generosity with her volunteer time. When I 

organized a conference for one of the interstate agencies I represent, Alex willingly attended and 

gave an insightful presentation to state and federal officials that helped guide future actions of 

the agency. Her devotion of time to environmental education at law schools and participation in 

the American College of Environmental Lawyers further illustrate her commitment to the 

environment and the highest professional standards. I enthusiastically support Alex's 

nomination as Assistant Administrator for Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Kenneth J. Warren 

KJW/sal 

WarrenEnvCounsel.eom I f 484-383-4834 F. 484-302-43701975 Mill Road, Millridgo Manor Hoo•• Suite A, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 
194 


35667.037

Senator John Barasso 

Chairman 

August28, 2018 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20501 

Dear Senators Barasso and Carper, 

This is to support the nomination and confirmation of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to serve as Assiatant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. I recommend her without reservation. 

Alex's extensive professional experience working in the environmental field over the past 25 ye!ll'S 

positions her perfectly to provide the leadership and perspective needed to succeed as EPA's Assistant 

Administrator. fn addition to her recent experience as EPA's Regional Administrator, she has worked 

with State environmental agency leaders, municipal agencies, industry and academics. Alex has relied on 

her legal background to guide organizations, clients and students concerning a full range of environmental 

issues. She has been involved in all aspects ofenvironmentallaw, legislation, regulation, policy and 

litigation, both as a leader of large organizations and as an attorney. Alex appreciates and has cultivated 

collaboration instead of conflict when possible, reaching out to a broad range of stakeholders. This has 

enabled her to achieve reasonable, fiUr and creative approaches to address today' s complex environmental 

challenges. 

fn addition to her experience, Alex's brings integrity, intelligence, a strong work ethic, excellent 

communication skills and a can-do attitude to the job. These qualities, together with her background, will 

enable her to accomplish the important tasks of the office. 

I have had the pleasure of knowing Alex since the summer of 1993, when she began work as a summer 

Jaw clerk before becoming an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of a large, international law finn 

where I was a partner. I have remained in close contact with Alex since that time, and have followed her 

stellar professional trajectory closely. Relying on my knowledge of Alex, my experience as a former 

Assistant Administrator at EPA, as a Kentucky Cabinet Secretary and as an attorney representing private 

sector clients in environmental matters for many years, I am confident saying there could be no better 

person for the job than Alex Dunn. 

Sincerely, 

~ Ou.lM~£L 5 tJj('_H.t~ LaJ~a S. Wilcher 

1100 College Street 

Bowling Green, KY 42101 
195 


35667.038

ll R ON CAMPll LL PC 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Dr. Barasso and Mr. Carper: 

September 6, 2018 

l write as Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. and friend, professional 

colleague, and fellow Past the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Environment. 

Energy, and Resources (SEER) to support Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination as Assistant 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). I have known Alex for many worked with Alex in her capacity 

as a former Chair of SEER, and in Alex's capacity as Director and General Counsel of the 

Environmental Counsel of the States (ECOS). Since her induction in the American College of 

Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL) four years ago, Alex and I are also ACOEL colleagues. 

Alex's leadership skills, expansive understanding of environmental law, regulation, and 

policy, impeccable character, and integrity will ensure Alex's success as Assistant 

Administrator of OCSPP and make nomination an inspired selection to lead this critically 

important EPA program office. Alex's varied and distinguished career, and her well-recognized 

personal integrity, intellectual rigor, and forthrightness exemplify the highest standards of the legal 

profession. I enthusiastically and without reservation support Alex's nomination as Assistant 

Administrator for OCSPP, and believe Alex will serve the office with distinction and honor. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Lynn L. Bergeson 

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 1\t'\V, Suite wo\V phoncz 202.557·3800 

\VW\\!'Jnwbc.com 

DOCX4) 
196 


35667.039

November 19, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Martha E. Marrapese 

202.719.7156 

mmarrapese@wileyrein.com 

Re: Recommendation and Support for Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to recommend and express support for Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be the 

Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

My perspective is that of a recognized authority on chemical regulation under the 

evolving Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). During her tenure as Executive Director and 

General Counsel for ECOS, Ms. Dunn demonstrated effective leadership and decision-making 

skills while raising the visibility and advancing the interests of states in national discussions 

related to TSCA reform. Today, EPA continues to take administrative steps to improve the pace 

of new chemical reviews under TSCA, and the agency is about to embark upon the landmark, 

existing chemical prioritization process that Congress envisioned as the key cornerstone of the 

overhauled TSCA law. I have no doubt that TSCA implementation will be strengthened by her 

presence. 

More broadly, Ms. Dunn is respected for her contribution to shaping the field of 

environmental law and advancing green chemistry. She has served as Dean of Environmental 

Law Programs and Adjunct Professor of Law at Pace Law School and is currently a Lecturer in 

Law at our alma mater, the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University of America, as well 

as an Associate Professor of Law at American University's Washington College of Law. 

Finally, I have witnessed Ms. Dunn's effective outreach, communication and 

management skills first hand while we served together on the Environmental Law Institute (ELl) 

Board of Directors until her appointment as EPA Region l Administrator, and in our respective 

1776 K Street NW I Washington, DC 20006 I 202.719.7000 wileyrein.com 
197 


35667.040

November 19,2018 

Page 2 

leadership roles within the American Bar Association's Section on Environment, Energy and 

Resources (SEER). 

Ms. Dunn's nomination to lead the implementation of the new TSCA law is an important 

milestone in the advancement of women leadership in environmental law and l urge that she be 

confirmed as soon as possible. 

Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Martha E. Marrapese 

Partner 

1776 K Street NW I Washington, DC 20006 I 202.719.7000 wileyrein.com 
198 


35667.041

PmlillliiCe_A<o_llon 

llSO(onner!\cutAvenueNW, )wte soo 

www.cement.org 

November 28,2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

I am writing on behalf of the Portland Cement Association to express our support for the 

nomination of Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant Administrator (AA) for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). We 

believe that her knowledge of environmental policy and regulations, combined with experience 

in the public sector make her well suited for the position. 

PCA, founded in 1916, is the premier policy, research, education, and market intelligence 

organization serving America's cement manufacturers. PCA members represent 93 percent of the 

United States' cement production capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. Cement and 

concrete product manufacturing, directly and indirectly, employs approximately 600,000 people 

in our country, and our collective industries contribute over $100 billion to our economy. 

Portland cement is the fundamental ingredient in concrete. The Association promotes safety, 

sustainability, and innovation in all aspects of construction, fosters continuous improvement in 

cement manufacturing and distribution, and promotes economic growth and sound infrastructure 

investment. 

Ms. Dunn, in her role as Administrator of the EPA's Region 1 Office in Boston, Massachusetts 

has proven she can manage a federal agency responsible for protecting public health and the 

environment and collaborate with diverse stakeholders. Further, in her role as Executive Director 

and General Counsel at the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 

organization, she worked on a vast number of environmental issues. In particular, she worked to 

advance modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which falls under the 

purview of this EPA Office. Through these positions, and as a former chair and active 

participant in the American Bar Association's Section on Environment Energy, and Resources, 

she earned the trust of the environmental bar as a pragmatic thought-leader and problem solver. 
199 


35667.042

This AA position within EPA has been unfilled since the start of Administration, nearly two 

years ago, which has hampered full implementation of Congress' reforms to TSCA. To that end, 

we encourage swift consideration of Ms. Dunn's nomination, 

Sincerely, 

Rachel Derby 

Vice-President, Government Affairs 

Portland Cement Association 
200 


35667.043

August 13, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

700 

Committee on Environment Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Letter of Support for Alexandra Dunn, Nominee for 

Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office of Chemical 

and Pollution Prevention 

this letter, I am registering strong 

position of Assistant Administrator, Office Safety and Pollution 

Prevention COCSPP). I have Ms. Dunn in various professional capacities for 

the 25 years, and believe that she is an excellent choice for this position. She 

a deeply experienced environmental leader and attorney who understands the 

complexity of regulatory and policy decisions, including those of the office she has 

been lead. Ms. Dunn is the environmental communityby businesses; federal, state and local officials; and non-governmental 

organizations. I confident she would serve the American people with integrity, 

intelligence, and distinction if confirmed as Assistant Administrator of OCSPP. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

r--·.' I :::::(;\ \;-· ..... J·• ' 

Scott Fulton , ... 

President, Environmental Law Institute (ELI) 

and former General Counsel, U.S. EPA 
201 


35667.044

1730 M STREET, NW, SUITE 700 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

PilQNf (202) 939-3800 

CAX. (202) 939-3868 

EMAIL /aw@e1Lotg 

~~~~?~iirrJ~~· WEB wwwe!LOI)( 

August 13, 2018 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

156 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Letter of Support for Alexandra Dunn, Nominee for 

Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Senator Carper: 

By this letter, I am registering my strong support lor Alexandra Dunn forth(" 

position of Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP). I have known Ms. Dunn in various professional capacities for 

the last 25 years, and believe that she is an excollont choice for this position. She is 

a deeply experienced environmental leader and attorney who understands the 

complexity of regulatory and policy decisions, including those of the office she has 

been asked to lead. Ms. Dunn is respected across the environmental communityby businesses; federal, state and local officials; and non-governmental 

organizations. I am confident she would serve the American people with integrity, 

intelligence, and distinction if confirmed as Assistant Administrator of OCSPP. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

) 

Scott Fulton 

President, gnvironmental Law Institute (ELI) 

and former General Counsel, U.S. EPA 

® PAINTED ON 100% POST CONSUMER RECYClf.P SfOCK WITH SOY \iASED INK 
202 


35667.045

ias 

September 6, 2018 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman 

Attorneys at Law 

411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 102, Rye, NY 10580 

t: 914.925.0000 f: 914.925.9344 www.eliasgroup.com 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Barasso and Carper: 

I write in support of the nomination of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to be Assistant Administrator of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. I have known Alex for more than fifteen years, mainly througb service with the 

American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, which both of us 

were honored to serve as Chair. In addition, I worked closely with her when she was Director of 

Environmental Programs at Pace Law School, where I teach as an adjunct professor. During that 

period she lived in my community, and we got to be close personal friends 

There is absolutely nobody I would rather see in this position than Alex. And I say this as a lifelong 

Democrat and environmentalist While our other political views may differ, we agree on the two 

most important concepts bearing upon environmental regulation--that regulation must be based 

upon sol1!1d science, and that the rule of law must be paramount. The enthusiastic reception Alex 

has received as EPA Regional Administrator in New England is an indication of the type of job she 

will do in the important areas of chemical safety and pollution prevention. Development of sound 

new regulations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act is vital to public safety and of 

great concern to both environmentalists and the regulated community. Alex Dtmn is the perfect 

person to head that effort. She is incredibly knowledgeable, amazingly hard working, and 

Legal, Financial and Business Advisory Services to Industry & Government 
203 


35667.046

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

The Honorable Thomas R Carper 

September 6, 2018 

Page 2 

particularly gifted in communicating with all types of people--both in government and in the 

communities government serves. I urge you to confirm her quickly. 

Please let me know if I can provide any further information. 

Sincerely, 

Seth A. Davis 

{OOSOS.027/111100250320.DOCX4} 
204 


35667.047

Steven T. Miano 

Direct Dial: 215-496-7025 E~mall; smiano@hangley.com 

One Logan Square 

27th floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

215.568.0JOO/facsimUe 

September6, 2018 

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office BuHding 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Dr. Barasso and Mr. Carper: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

I write to enthusiastically support Alexandra Dapolito Dunn's nomination as 

Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention ("OCSPP"). I am a Partner in and Chair of the 

environmental practice group at my law firm and a Past Chair of the American Bar 

Association ("ABA") Section of Environment, Energy and Resources ("SEER"), I have known 

Alex for many years. We worked together extensively at SEER. I have also seen her 

exemplary work as Executive Director and General Counsel of the Environmental Counsel of 

the States ("ECOS"), as a Dean of a top environmental law program at Pace University and 

as Executive Director of two environmental non-governmental organizations. 

Alex has extraordinary leadership skills, a keen intellect, and a breadth of knowledge 

of environmental law, regulation and policy. She also has impeccable character and 

personal integrity. Based on my experience with Alex over many years, I am confident that 

she will do a superb job as Assistant Administrator of OCSPP and will serve the EPA with 
205 


35667.048

The Honorable John Barasso, M.D. 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

September 6, 2018 

Page 2 

distinction and honor. I enthusiastically and without reservation support Alex's nomination 

as Assistant Administrator for OCSPP. 

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. 

STM/cas 

Enclosure 

Sincerely yours, 
206 


35667.049

Terri L Goldberg 

Etecutive Director 

89 South Street 

Suite 600 

Boston, MA 021 I I 

Tel617 367-8558 

TDDffTY R57 265-3934 

www .newmoa.org 

NOR! HFAS r WA3H MANAGEMENT OHIC!AI S' ASSOCJAT!ON 

September 28, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member · 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Recommendation and Support for Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chairman Ban·asso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the Board members of the Northeast Waste Management Officials' 

Association (NEWMOA) from the New England States, I am writing to 

recommend and express support for Alexandra Dunn to be the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP). Based on my experience and that of many ofNEWMOA's members who 

worked with Ms. Dunn while she was the Executive Director and General Counsel 

for the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the EPA Region 1 

Regional Administrator, we are confident that Ms. Dunn possesses the necessary 

traits to successfully implement EPA's chemical safety and pollution prevention 

programs. She has a diverse and impressive background and the necessary 

expertise to successfully lead that important Office at EPA. 

The members of the NEWMOA Board, who direct the New England states' waste 

and pollution prevention programs have had the privilege of working closely \Vith 

Ms. Dunn on environmental protection issues during her tenure at EPA Region l. 

For example. Alex worked closely and effectively with us to address issues 

concerning Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the Region. She has 

demonstrated strong leadership and decision-making skills while balancing various 

stakeholder interests. 

Connecticut • Maine • Massachusetts • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • Rhode Island • Vermont 

Equal opportunity employer and provider 
207 


35667.050

to 
208 

Æ 


35667.051

August 29, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

To protect, consetve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Todd Parfitt, Director 

RE: Recommendation and Support for Alexandra Dunn to be Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing to recommend and express my support for Alexandra Dunn to be the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Based on my experience 

working with Ms. Dunn, coupled with her diverse background and experience in environmental 

protection, I am confident that Ms. Dunn possesses the necessary traits to successfully implement EPA's 

chemical safety and pollution prevention programs. 

As an officer for the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), I had the privilege of working closely with 

Ms. Dunn on numerous environmental protection issues during her four (4) year tenure as Executive 

Director and General Counsel for ECOS. During that time, she demonstrated strong leadership and 

decision making skills while balancing the interests and needs of all49 member states, including her 

involvement in national discussions related to TSCA reform legislation. 

Alex is highly regarded by ECOS members and staff and is well suited to take on the important role of 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Please feel free to reach out to me if you should have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Parfitt 

Director 

200 West 17th Street , Cheyenne, WY 82002 http://deq,wyoming.gov · Fax (307)635--1784 

ADMIN/OUTREACH ABANDONED MINES AIR QUALITY INDUSTRIAL SlTlNG LAND QUALITY SOLID & HAZ. WASTE WATER QUALITY 

(307)777-7937 (307)777-6145 (307)777-7391 (307)777-7369 (307)777·7756 (307}777-7752 {307)777-7781