U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

{{#badges: Tobaccowiki | WaterEnergy | CoalSwarm}}

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed in 1970 under President Richard M. Nixon. It is the agency responsible for national issues of environmental health, a responsiblity shared with the Department of the Interior. Lisa Jackson is the Obama administration's EPA Administrator.

Under Christine Todd Whitman of George W. Bush's administration, the agency became a controversial and politicized, due in part to the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Also, the cover up of asbestos and e-waste dangers in Manhattan after September 11, 2001. This led to widespread criticism of the handling of public health concerns arising from terrorism, as well as the role of the government in general. See also EPA's Revolving Door.

Coal waste regulation

Coal waste dumps contain billions of gallons of fly ash and other coal waste containing toxic heavy metals, which the EPA considers a threat to water supplies and human health. However, they are not subject to federal regulation, and there is little monitoring of their impacts on the local environment.

The EPA reclassified fly ash from waste to a reusable material in the 1980s, and the agency exempted ash from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations for hazardous waste beginning in 1993. Coal ash has been exempt from federal regulation since October 1980, with the inception of the "Bevill Exclusion" to RCRA, section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii). Bevill excludes from RCRA hazardous waste regulations the solid waste that results "from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals." The exclusion held despite pending completion of a study and a Report to Congress, as required by federal law, and pending a determination by the EPA Administrator either to promulgate regulations under Subtitle C or to declare such regulations unwarranted.

In 1993 and 2000, EPA published regulatory determinations stating that coal ash waste does not warrant regulation under RCRA Subtitle C, which pertains to hazardous wastes, and should remain excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. In 2000, EPA determined that instead RCRA subtitle D regulating non-hazardous waste were applicable for coal combustion wastes, specifically those disposed in surface impoundments, landfills, and as fill in surface or underground mines. EPA further determined that beneficial uses of these wastes, other than for minefilling, pose no significant risk and no additional national regulations are needed.

In 2001, the EPA said it wanted to set a national standard for ponds or landfills used for the disposal of coal waste. However, the agency has yet to act, and coal ash ponds are currently subject to less regulation than landfills accepting household trash, despite the tens of thousands of pounds of toxic heavy metals stored in ash ponds across the U.S. State regulations vary, but most ash ponds are unlined and unmonitored. In January 2009, Sue Sturgis of the Institute for Southern Studies looked into political contributions by the electrical utilities industry to the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. According to data Sturgis gathered from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website, members of the Senate committee accepted a total of $1,079,503 from the electric utilities industry in the 2008 elections.

2007 EPA Report

On July 9, 2007, EPA's Office of Solid Waste released a report titled "Coal Combustion Damage Case Assessments" documenting 24 cases of proven environmental damage and 43 cases of potential damage caused by the current coal ash disposal practices nationwide.

Sue Sturgis of the Institute for Southern Studies summed up some of the proven coal-ash damage cases documented in EPA's 2007 assessment:

• In 2002, a sinkhole developed in the coal ash pond at Southern Company's Georgia Power's Bowen Steam Plant near Cartersville, Ga. Eventually spreading four acres wide and 30 feet deep, the sinkhole led to the spill of an estimated 2.25 million gallons of a coal ash and water mixture into the nearby Euharlee Creek.

• Runoff from a fly ash pond at Duke Energy's Belews Creek Steam Station in North Carolina contaminated nearby Belews Lake, which experts have called "one of the most extensive and prolonged cases of selenium poisoning of freshwater fish in the United States."

• At South Carolina Electric & Gas's Canadys Station along the Edisto River south of St. George, S.C., arsenic consistently has been found in monitoring wells at levels about drinking water standards, while nickel has also been detected on occasion above state standards. Both of those metals are known to cause cancer in humans.

• Residential wells near a coal ash disposal site for Virginia Power's Yorktown Power Station, now owned by Dominion, were found to be contaminated with selenium and vanadium, with selenium levels exceeding drinking water standards. Further investigation found heavy metals contamination in nearby Chisman Creek and its tributaries, with elevated levels of known carcinogens including arsenic, beryllium and chromium.

• Selenium poisoning of fish caused by runoff from coal ash ponds was also documented at reservoirs near Southwestern Electric Power's Pirkey Power Plant and its Welsh Power Plant in Texas, as well as near TXU's Martin Lake Steam Station.

EPA considers regulating coal ash

In May 2009, an EPA representative announced at an energy industry conference that the agency is preparing regulations on how to handle ash from coal-fired power plants. Matt Hale, the EPA official, said coal ash may be reclassified as hazardous waste. Although industry officials were vocal with objections, saying such a change would greatly increase disposal costs, Hale indicated that EPA hoped to have a proposal for national regulations by the end of the year. "The catastrophe at TVA changed the discussion and focused the discussion," he said.

Regulations delayed

On December 17, 2009, EPA announced it was postponing its findings on coal ash regulations. A final decision had been expected before the end of the year. EPA attributed the delay to "the complexity of the analysis the agency is currently finishing," but said the delay would only last "a short period." Earlier, in October of 2009 the EPA sent the White House a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Toxic Coal Ash. President Obama's choice as the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Cass Sunstein, oversees such policies but as of March 2010 has refused to act on the EPA's plea. Sunstein has come under scrutiny for allowing his office to meet with coal industry representatives more than 20 times since October 2010. All such meetings took place behind closed doors and were not open to the public. An anti-Sunstein website was launched in response in an attempt to force Sunstein and the White House to act on the EPA's proposed rule.

Office of Inspector General Investigates EPA's 'Partnership' with Coal Industry

On November 2, 2009 the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced in a report that a formal investigation into the EPA's "partnership" with the coal industry to market coal ash reuse in consumer, agricultural and industrial products was underway. The report also criticized the EPA for not releasing a report about cancer risks associated to the exposure of coal ash until March of 2009, a full seven years after the study was completed. The OIG investigation is a result of CBS's "60 Minutes" piece on coal ash in which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted that her agency had not produced any studies indicating that the re-use of coal ash was safe.

Western Governors Say States Should Regulate Coal Ash

On March 8, 2010 governors from the Western Governor's Association made a statement that the Obama administration should leave coal ash regulation to the states and resist the EPA's effort to reclassify coal ash as a hazardous material. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the pro-coal chairman of the governor's group, says the EPA's move to regulate coal ash would undercut what he described as "effective regulation by Western states." The governors state that the EPA's reclassification would prevent coal ash from being used in industrial practices like surface pavement. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert says coal-fired electric generation in the West would also be hurt, which would cost ratepayers more money. Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah states that coal-fired electric generation in his state and others would also be hurt and would cost ratepayers more money.

EPA Proposes Competing Approaches To Regulate Coal-Ash Waste

On May 4, 2010 the U.S. EPA announced two competing proposals to regulate coal-ash waste produced by coal-fired power plants. Both options fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the first proposal, EPA would list coal ash and coal waste residuals as "special wastes," or hazardous wastes, subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) manage hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C, and generally must have a permit in order to operate, with land disposal restrictions. Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash under subtitle D of RCRA, the section for non-hazardous wastes. Under section D, no permit is required, monitoring is done by citizens, not the federal government, and there are no restrictions on land disposal of the waste. Click here for more on the key differences between the proposed rules.

The proposal means the EPA will not necessarily declare coal ash a hazardous waste as desired by environmental groups, and the waste material could continue to be reused in various ways, EPA officials said. The final decision on which proposal the EPA and choose is to happen in July 2010, but has been delayed.

The EPA decided not to choose a single option amid pressure from industry and environmental groups. The federal agency said both proposals for the first time would place "national rules on the disposal and management of the waste material from coal-fired power plants." Yet the EPA's plan leaves open the question of whether to phase out wet storage impoundments in favor of landfills, with the dueling proposals differing on the issue, according to an EPA press briefing.

On May 10, 2010 the Illinois-based Prairie Rivers Network released a press memo criticizing the EPA's decision stating:

The agency presented two options with vastly differing approaches to handling the 4.4 million tons of coal ash that is generated each year in Illinois. Recent USEPA reports indicate that coal waste leaches hazardous pollution in much greater quantities than had been recognized previously, contributing to over 100 documented contamination sites nationwide, several of which are in Illinois.

But another big concern for Illinois is the giant loophole left in the rules that will allow the coal industry to dump toxic coal ash in under-regulated and unprotected mines.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Coal Ash Industry-EPA Interference

On January 27, 2010, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a report that indicated the coal ash industry, with direct access to the EPA, manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste. The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multi-billon dollar coal ash industry to have access to the EPA during the Bush administration years as well as under President Obama. The result has been a watering-down of crucial reports on human and environmental health related to coal waste. Documents obtained by PEER indicate that industry had access to a variety of EPA coal ash reports over the years and were successful in manipulating the information presented to the public about its negative effects.

The #evp parser function was deprecated in EmbedVideo 2.0. Please convert your parser function tag to #ev.

The EPA reports were altered in several ways. References indicating the “high-risk” potential of coal combustion waste were deleted from PowerPoint presentations. Cautionary language about coal waste uses in agricultural practices was altered in order to remove negative connotations about the practice. And in 2007 the coal ash industry inserted language in an EPA report to Congress about how “industry and EPA [need to] work together” in order to block or water-down “state regulations [that] are hindering progress” in the use of coal ash waste.

Greenhouse gas regulation

April 2009: EPA declares greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare

Following from the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling on Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gases if they are a threat to human welfare, EPA conducted a scientific review to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions constitute human endangerment. On April 18, 2009, EPA declared carbon dixodide and five other heat-trapping gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) to be pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. The declaration set into motion a process of regulating carbon dioxide and other gases emitted by coal-fired power plants and synfuels plants.

December 2009: EPA finalizes endangerment finding

On December 7, 2009, EPA finalized its endangerment finding that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a threat to human health and welfare. The announcement was the final step in the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions if they endanger public health and welfare. The EPA's decision paves the way for new regulation of emissions from power plants, factories, and automobiles. Announced on the first day of international climate talks at COP15 in Copenhagen, the move gives President Obama new regulatory powers that could help gain consensus in efforts to curb global warming. Both Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have said they prefer climate change legislation as a means of regulating global warming pollution, but the finding provides an alternative means of establishing emissions limits if the legislation fails.

March 2010: EPA Waits for 2013 to regulate carbon emissions from 50,000 to 75,000 tons a year

On March 3, 2010 EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Appropriations panel reviewing EPA's budget that the agency would focus on large polluters spewing more than 75,000 tons a year. “It will probably be at least two years before we would look at something like, say, a 50,000 threshold,” Jackson said. The initial phase of greenhouse-gas rules will go into effect in 2011 said Jackson.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D) of West Virginia on March 4, 2010 introduced legislation that would delay the EPA's carbon rules. The bill calls for a "two-year suspension" that will give Congress “the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future." Two House Democrats, West Virginia’s Nick Rahall and Virginia’s Rick Boucher, also introduced legislation that would put EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for so-called “stationary sources” on hold for two years. Rep. Rahall was co-author of the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in June 2009 and would replace EPA direct regulation on carbon emissions.

Fossil fuel companies fight public release of facility GHG emissions

In October 2010, oil producers and refiners, energy companies, and product manufacturers announced their opposition to a proposal by the EPA that would make the amount of greenhouse gas emissions companies release — and the underlying data businesses use to calculate the amounts — available online. While gross estimates exist for such emissions from transportation and electricity production and manufacturing as a whole, the EPA proposal would require companies for the first time to submit information for each individual facility. The companies say that disclosing details beyond a facility's total emissions to the public would reveal company secrets by letting competitors know what happens inside their factories. Suppliers of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), which when burned release greenhouse gases, plus manufacturers of engines and vehicles, and facilities that release 25,000 tons or more of any of six heat-trapping greenhouse gases, would all have to comply with the regulation, the first by the government on pollution linked to global warming.

December 2010: EPA issues plan to regulate power plants and petroleum refineries

On December 23, 2010, the EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution standards under the Clean Air Act in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries—two of the largest industrial sources, representing nearly 40 percent of the GHG pollution in the United States. Under the plan, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively. EPA will accept public comment on the plans for 30 days following publication of notice in the Federal Register.

The EPA regulation addresses existing sources, using the statutes of the Clean Air Act's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to impose limits in 2012 on the amount of CO2 the biggest polluters can emit. The EPA said it would cover 40 percent of U.S. emissions..

The EPA has also been developing a permitting program for new (or substantially upgraded) sources. In May 2010, the EPA issued its "Tailoring Rule," determining which sources will need to get permits (very large sources). In November 2010, it issued "PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases," which detailed that the permitting program would be run much like existing permitting programs: through the states.

The regulations will be applied to plants that were "grandfathered" (exempted) under the original Clean Air Act.

Other coal regulations

New EPA regulations for coal plants in 2010 include the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule, the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the proposed Tailoring Rule (covering greenhouse gas emissions), the Ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards), the forthcoming National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and cooling water regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

EPA animal testing requirements

The EPA requires massive amounts of animal testing for the marketing of industrial chemicals, vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Force feeding animals increasing doses of chemicals (until they die) was invented around World War I and is still the most common animal test used today. The EPA requires pesticides be tested on dogs, who are shoved into "inhalation chambers" while deadly poisons that are pumped in.

Thousands of rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, and primates are killed in "pre-clinical" tests for new drugs (including all ingredients and even minor differences in formulas). Following an extensive battery of animal testing, drugs generally undergo three phases of clinical trials. The fact that months or years of human studies are also required suggests health authorities do not trust the results. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, subsequently fail human trials. ,

"Acceptable" toxicity levels

The EPA requires more chemical toxicity animal testing than any other federal agency. According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), rather than working to reduce levels of toxic chemicals and emissions, the EPA has established "acceptable" exposure levels based on animal testing. In spite of hundreds of thousands of animals killed and calls to limit exposures to humans and the environment, the EPA has not banned a toxic chemical in 10 years, using it's authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The chemical industry approves a near-exclusive reliance on animal testing, since results are non-conclusive and easily manipulated.

"Pesticides" may include synthetic chemicals, genetically engineered toxins and even natural substances (such as garlic) as well as insects, bacteria and viruses. The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs' (OPP) authority comes from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The OPP requires an extensive battery of toxicity tests on animals for every pesticide manufactured or sold in the U.S. Approximately 12,000 animals (rats, mice, rabbits, birds, fish and dogs) are killed to satisfy the "data requirements" for a single active ingredient. , See also animal testing, section 3 on product testing.

EPA animal testing

• EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Animals by species, numbers & locations

• EPA National Exposure Research Lab, Cincinatti, Ohio

Facility information, progress reports & USDA-APHIS reports

For links to copies of a facility's USDA reports, indicating species, number of animals used and other information visit Stop Animal Experimentation NOW!: Facility Reports and Information, USDA-Animal Plant Health Inspection reports (APHIS). This site contains listings for all 50 states, links to biomedical research facilities in that state and PDF copies of government documents where facilities must report their animal usage.

Tobacco issues

Secondhand smoke

In December of 1992, the EPA issued a risk assessment entitled The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking that concluded that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen which kills about 3,000 nonsmokers each year and is responsible for up 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children annually. The study stated that secondhand tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 respiratory infections annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to secondhand smoke. EPA also concluded that secondhand smoke was associated middle ear effusions, upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and that it increased severity of asthma symptoms in children. EPA estimated that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to secondhand smoke and that tobacco smoke exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.

Tobacco industry's anti-EPA ad campaign

The risk assessment immediately drew the ire of tobacco companies. The U.S. tobacco industry fought EPA's risk assessment in part by trying to discredit the report. An example of their efforts is one in a series of ads proposed by the ad firm Young & Rubicam for the tobacco industry to help stop people from believing EPA's risk assessment. The ad says the EPA's Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke is as believable as someone saying that Elvis Presley didn't die, but was abducted by space aliens. The ad text reads:

"You've no doubt heard the rumors or read the reports that, somewhere, Elvis Presley is alive and well. But, of course, while these reports are good for a chuckle, you're not going to believe them. Unless you see Elvis with your very own eyes. In person. Or, at the very least, on the Eleven O'clock News. In other words, unless you have information you can rely on. If you apply the same test to the recent EPA report about incidental tobacco smoke, you have to come away with the same conclusion. Because, incredible as it may seem, when the EPA declared that incidental smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, they did so based on research so flawed that one scientist calls it "rotten science." Others call it data manipulation. What they did was gather disparate studies on the subject of incidental smoke. When they found that most of those studies did not support their position, they simply discarded them. (This last section was lined out by hand.)

Then they abandoned regular scientific procedures and blew out of proportion the conclusions of the remaining few studies. (Note: the words "remaining few" are lined out by hand.) And then they said the sky is falling. Unfortunately, there's nothing funny about this. Since over one-quarter of us smoke, and many other may occasionally be exposed to incidental smoke, the American people must have a right to demand that the EPA back up their assertions with research that adheres to accepted scientific methods. In other words, reliable information, not data manipulation. Until then, you can file the EPA report right next to the one that says, "the King was abducted by space aliens and is now rockin' and shakin' for folks in another galaxy."

The phrase "incidental smoke" in the above ad text resulted in part from a much larger presentation which Young & Rubicam (Y&R) prepared for the industry in 1993 entitled ETS Issue Language Exploratory. The ad attempted to fabricate language minimalizing the issue of secondhand smoke for use in public messaging.

Another draft ad entitled "All the Air We Breathe is Secondhand" , used Y & R concocted phrases like "EPA's scare du jour," "incidental smoke" and "rotten science".

In 1994, Philip Morris ran a series of ads in newspapers (including the Wall Street Journal) titled, "Were You Misled?" with the intent of publicizing the alleged flaws in EPA's risk assessment. , ,

Additional tobacco industry attacks

In a 1993 memorandum titled "ETS" (for "environmental tobacco smoke), Thomas Humber of Philip Morris' giant PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M) writes to Ellen Merlo of Philip Morris Corporate Affairs (PM) to signal the start of PM's war against the EPA after EPA pronounced secondhand smoke a group A carcinogen. In the memo, Humber emphasized how PM needed to discredit the EPA, portray the agency as corrupt, encourage other businesses to oppose EPA, and cast EPA as an agency under siege. Humber tells Merlo PM needs to sue EPA ("Sue the bastards!") as a way to help the industry regain credibility, encourage other companies to fight EPA, and "delay or cloud" other legal actions against the company.

In an ironic twist, while Humber says Philip Morris needs to keep major employers from voluntarily stampeding towards smoke-free workplace policies, he at the same time says the company needs to position itself as a defender of democratic principles and protector of "rights for all." Humber boasts how, using the front groups "Citizens for a Sound Economy" and the "Institute for Regulatory Policy," B-M arranged a symposium where the keynote speaker was the vice-president of the U.S., then assured that the media coverage generated by the event was dominated by the corporate message of "overregulation." Humber also pointed out that PM could find allies in ventilation businesses, since they stand to profit from PM's stance that ventilation is the solution to problems caused by secondhand smoke (not smoking bans).

Environmental toxins & pollution

Industry funded chemical study

In 2004, the Washington Post reported that the EPA had accepted two million dollars from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), to "fund a study exploring the impact of pesticides and household chemicals on young children." Not too surprisingly, the inappropriateness of accepting funding from chemical interests and obvious conflict of interests issues, prompted an "outcry from environmentalists". The "Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study" (CHEERS), does not mark the first time the EPA has accepted chemical industry funding to conduct "research". The Clinton administration signed similar agreements. However, it does represent the largest amount for a chemical trade group. The ACC represents about 135 manufacturers and spends $20 million a year on research.

EPA proposal for less reporting of chemical toxins

Under a 2005 EPA proposal, industrial companies would be freed from reporting most chemical releases of less than 5,000 pounds, up from 500 pounds under current law. Factories, power plants, refineries and other sources of pollution would also report their releases every other year, as opposed to the previous yearly reporting requirements.

Industry friendly laws

According to a draft plan, finalized in 2006, Bush administration political appointees would evaluate industry-funded human tests on a case-by-case basis:

"In setting limits on chemicals in food and water, the Environmental Protection Agency may rely on industry tests that expose people to poisons and raise ethical questions."

EPA & agribusiness: The CAFO Papers

In 2004, the government released hundreds of pages of documentation exposing Bush administration granting the meat & dairy industry control over a proposal to let Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)s or factory farms, off the hook for pollution violations. The documents revealed the extent of industry influence, with monthly closed door meetings between the administration and industry lobbyists. In May of 2002, lobbyists proposed a deal to let industry off the hook for violations of the basic environmental protections such as the Clean Air Act and toxics laws. The EPA's proposed agreement closely mirror's the industry's wish list. Other documents revealed the extent of access granted to industry polluters. Lobbyist even wrote a power-point presentation for the EPA, literally putting words in their mouths.

911 pollution cover up

Federal and state officials were accused of " grossly underestimating" the numbers of people at risk for llethal asbestos-related diseases, in lower Manhattan, after the collapse of the World Trade Center. Evaluations by teams of leading asbestos researchers showed an increased risk to those who live, work or study in areas which were not "properly decontaminated", to be as high as one additional cancer death for every 10 people exposed. The figures were revealed as leading government officials continued to insist there were "no long-term health risks" to those living and working near ground zero and exposed to dust from hundreds of thousands of tons of asbestos containing products used in the floors, walls, ceilings and the twin towers' steel frame.

Public relations tactics

In July 2005 the New York Times reported that the EPA's Office of Research and Development was seeking outside public relations consultants, to be paid up to $5 million over five years to polish its web site, organize focus groups on how to buff the office's image and ghostwrite articles "for publication in scholarly journals and magazines".

The non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) asked the agency's Inspector General to investigate the request for proposals. PEER questioned the "appropriateness of using funds for image enhancement that would otherwise be available for public health and environmental research." They cited laws prohibiting the use of tax dollars "for publicity or propaganda purposes." The EPA was recently awarded two PR contracts totaling $150,000; for the writing and placement of "good stories" about EPA's research office in consumer and trade publications.

PR contractors

In February 2007, O'Dwyer's PR Daily reported that the "Environmental Protection Agency's radiation unit has moved to award a crisis PR contract to Widmeyer Communications without a competitive review. ... The firm has previously conducted focus groups with EPA emergency responders and communicators to develop responses in the event of such a disaster."

Leadership

President Bush's nominee to run the EPA, Mike Leavitt, finally won committee approval this week. However, a half-dozen senators have openly expressed exasperation at his habit of retreating behind ecofriendly phrases when asked about his record as Utah's governor. "Which means, of course, that Mr. Leavitt will fit right in." President Bush being the:

"master of the ostensibly ecofriendly sound bite, offering oversimplified solutions to complex environmental problems and wrapping them in tempting slogans that hide their generally pro-business tilt."

Key personnel

• Charles E. Johnson - COO
• Ann R. Klee - General Counsel

Previous administrators

• Stephen L. Johnson - 05/02/05 present
• Stephen L. Johnson (Acting) 01/26/05 to 05/01/05
• Michael O. Leavitt - 11/06/03 to 01/25/05
• Marianne L. Horinko (Acting) 07/12/03 to 11/05/03
• Linda J. Fisher (Acting) 06/28/03 to 07/11/03
• Christine Todd Whitman - 01/31/01 to 06/27/03
• W. Michael McCabe (Acting) 01/20/01 to 01/30/01
• Carol M. Browner - 01/22/93 to 01/19/01
• William K. Reilly - 02/06/89 to 01/20/93
• John Moore (Acting) 01/21/89 to 02/05/89
• Lee M. Thomas - 02/08/85 to 01/20/89
• Lee M. Thomas (Acting) 01/04/85 to 02/07/85
• William D. Ruckelshaus - 05/18/83 to 01/04/85
• Lee Verstandig (Acting) 03/10/83 to 05/17/83
• Anne M. Gorsuch - 9 05/20/81 to 03/09/83
• Walter Barber, Jr. (Acting) 01/26/81 to 05/19/81
• Steve Jellinek (Acting) 01/21/81 to 01/25/81
• Douglas M. Costle - 03/07/77 to 01/20/81
• John Quarles, Jr. - (Acting) 01/21/77 to 03/06/77
• Russell E. Train - 09/13/73 to 01/20/77
• Robert Fri (Acting) 04/30/73 to 09/12/73
• William D. Ruckelshaus - 12/04/70 to 04/30/73

Articles & resources

SourceWatch articles

• Animal testing
• Bush administration
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• ENERGY STAR / ENERGY STAR Challenge
• Environmentalism
• Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005
• Lisa Jackson
• Meat & Dairy industry
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Operation Offset
• Pharmaceutical industry
• Rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina: domestic policy initiatives
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Susan P. Bodine
• Toxics Release Inventory
• Smithfield Foods
• U.S. Government's War on Animals

External articles

• Lisa Jackson, Letter to Joe Barton regarding the EPA and the Clean Air Act, Nov. 8, 2010
• Steve Lipsher, "EPA portrayed as energy ally: Environmentalist slams view of agency as development "catalyst"", Denver Post, June 14, 2005.
• Bob Dart "Weather Channel-EPA deal starts mini-storm: Agency paid for segments on climate change", Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 19, 2005.
• "Weather for a price: The EPA pays a popular cable channel to broadcast reports on climate change", Times-Union.com, July 24, 2005.
• "EPA Surveys News Editors to Assess Its Image: Tax Dollars Used to Bolster Agency’s Tattered Reputation", Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Media Release, January 5, 2006.
• John Heilprin, "EPA Budget Cuts Trouble Environment Groups,", Associated Press February 10, 2006.
• Brian Tokar, et al., BRIEFING REPORT: Deficiencies in Federal Regulatory Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops, Institute for Social Ecology, June 2006.
• "EPA lets companies withhold info on toxic releases," Facing South/Institute for Southern Studies, December 19, 2006.
• Christopher Brauchli, "What They Don't Want You to Read Could Save Your Life: Burning EPA's Books", Counterpunch, December 27, 2006.
• "EPA Eyes Widmeyer For Crisis Pact," O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), February 28, 2007.
• Sue Goetinck Ambrose, "Scientists criticize EPA chemical screening program: Experts worry agency's program will miss harmful effects on hormones; agency counters program developed in an open manner, Dallas Morning News, May 27, 2007.
• Robert McClure, "EPA whistleblower trial delves into 9/11 pollution cover up, toxic waste in fertilizer and more," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 16, 2008
• Ken Ward Jr., "3M’s man at the EPA?," Charleston Gazette, March 15, 2009.
• Nick Snow, "EPA issues proposed endangerment finding on GHGs," Oil & Gas Journal, April 20, 2009.
• Matthew Daly, "EPA declares health e mergency in Montana town," Associated Press, June 18, 2009.
• Joshua Frank, "The EPA's Coal Ash Whitewash: Agency Grossly Understates Coal Ash Dangers", Counterpunch, March 3, 2010.

External resources

• Inside EPA, insideepa.com, accessed March 2010