Tag Archives: Scott Pruitt

EPA finally bans chlorpyrifos for ag use 19 years after residential use ban

Posted on by

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt with Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos.  

The decision came on the heels of yet another order by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordering the EPA to ban the chemical for agricultural use.

Despite the chemical being banned for residential use in 2002, farm worker and environmental activists had to undergo a 14-year legal and administrative campaign to ban the substance.

I wrote a post about the then 11 year campaign to ban chlorpyrifos back in August 2018. The legal and political analysis still holds up in my view. 

In a victory for farm workers, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  to completely ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos within 60 days.

While most comment on the decision seemed to criticize former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who no doubt deserves the criticsm, the Ninth Circuit probably would not have ruled the way it did if the EPA under the Obama administration had not dithered in addressing the risks of chlorpyrifos.

What is chlorpyrifos and why is it dangerous?

Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that is in the same chemical class as sarin gas. Chlorpyrifos can be toxic or even fatal for farmworkers exposed to it and studies show can contribute to genetic defects to children who are exposed to the chemical.  Unlike the popular chemical Round Up, that a jury recently found to have caused cancer for a California man, chlorpyrifos was banned for residential use by the EPA in 2002. However, the EPA still tolerates the chemical for agricultural use, wherein this court case began in 2007.

Background of the court case

In 2007, advocates for farmworkers and others filed a petition challenging the EPA’s tolerance for the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture. In order to continue tolerating use of the chemical, the EPA would have to show no risk from the use of chemical. A 2008 EPA study showed the EPA couldn’t meet that burden. Another study in 2011 lead to the same conclusion.

Despite the findings of EPA scientists about the risks of chlorpyrifos in agricultural use the EPA took no action. Advocates for banning the chemical filed what amounted to a motion to compel against the EPA in 2014 which finally lead to a proposed rule in late 2015. Advocates filed another motion to implement the ban that the EPA fought in court.

Just when the EPA was ready to implement the rule, the Trump administration came in, under Scott Pruitt and denied the petition to ban chlorpyrifos. Farm worker advocates along with some state attorney generals filed an appeal in court The EPA, making no attempt to argue the merits of the claim, argued that the petitioners hadn’t “exhausted administrative remedies” or followed the proper procedure before litigating the case.

Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff, who was essentially filling in as an appellate judge in the Ninth Circuit, wisely rejected  the EPA’s argument.  He pointed out that allowing the EPA to argue the petitioners had not exhausted administrative agencies would just encourage the EPA to drag out rulings over 10 years and the course of three Presidential administrations.

A dissenting opinion cited to a Second Circuit Court of Appeals that held otherwise, which means the legal issue over how the EPA handles petitions to ban chemicals could be decided by the Supreme Court in the near future.

Political commentary

Reporting by Mike Elk of Payday Report raised concerns during the Obama administration about how the chemical industry was weakening and delaying EPA rule making on chemicals and workplace safety.  The opinion by Judge Rakoff describes how the Obama administration lollygagged in addressing the risks of chlorpyrifos despite two scientific findings by the agency about the danger of the chemical. There is a disturbing irony in the Obama administrations failure to protect farmworkers from chlorpyrifos. Obama’s slogan during his 2008 campaign “Yes We Can” was a translation of the phrase “Si Se Puede” used by farm worker union organizer Cesar Chavez.  Obama said early in his administration that “Elections have consequences.” One consequence of his administration was that a dangerous chemical known to be harmful to farmworkers and their families remained in use through the eight years of his administration.

As mentioned earlier, a state court jury in California found that the herbicide Round Up caused cancer for a California man and entered a $289 million dollar judgment against Round Up manufacturer, Monsanto. In contrast to the plodding, ineffective and lobbyist-driven administrative process that went on for for over a decade without resolution over chlorpyrifos, a citizen was able to get justice against a major corporation from a jury in state court. The contrast between the ongoing  chlorpyrifos debacle and the verdict in the Round Up case should re-enforce the importance of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in administrative law, EPA, hazardous chemicals, pesticides and tagged , , , , , , .

Workers will be hurt by reversal of EPA asbestos ban

Posted on by

Donald Trump-branded asbestos being exported from Russia.

The EPA is now allowing for asbestos to be used in manufacturing  again. In fact, asbestos sold by a Russian company is actually branded with the President’s face.  What does this mean for workers? Potentially this would be bad, real bad, for many workers in manufacturing and frankly anyone who may come in contact with asbestos. 

For decades it has been common knowledge that exposure to asbestos causes Mesothelioma (a fatal cancer of the mesothelial lining in the lungs). In fact, it is estimated that each year 2,000 to 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the United States, with 40,000 annual deaths attributed to exposure to asbestos.

Here is a vivid description of how asbestos effects the body posted by a user on Reddit:

Imagine swallowing a big handful of straight pins. Now instead shrink them down until they’re microscopic. Now multiply the number you had by tens of thousands (if not millions, billions, etc. Difficult to truly get a reasonable scale here). That’s what’s happening to your lungs when you inhale asbestos fibers.

This is what you’re dealing with. You inhale it, it goes through your airways causing microtears which lead to inflammation. That’s not a huge deal until it happens on a large enough scale (such as asbestos exposure). To make things worse, it will stick into the linings of your airways, lungs, etc. It doesn’t go away. Everywhere they stick in is going to be permanently inflamed. Chronic inflammation can damage your DNA and can lead to cancer. A lot more goes into it than that, but you can safely say chronic inflammation is bad news regardless of why it’s happening.

Another way of thinking of it: asbestos is like a splinter that will never go away. Except now you have millions of them and they’re all throughout your airways.

In other words, this is a substance that literally kills people, and has been known to kill people for decades. While exposure to asbestos may provide workers’ compensation benefits and tort recovery for the exposed worker and/or his family, it would be better for all to simply not be exposed to the substance at all.

The EPA’s rule on asbestosis is the just the latest move by the agency that increases the risk of workers’ being exposed to toxic substances on the job.  While former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was forced out over numerous charges of petty corruption and became a laughingstock and lightening rod for critics of the Trump administration, Pruitt’s anti-workplace safety agenda continues under much less controversial successor.

In a bit of positive news for workplace safety, last Thursday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. It will be interesting to see if the ban is challenged and the outcome of a potential Supreme Court case.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Asbestos. EPA, Mesothelioma and tagged , , .

EPA, USDA rule change proposals could impact workplace safety

Posted on by

Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts (left) with former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (center) at a meeting in Lincoln last month

Regular readers of this blog know that workplace safety is regulated by the state and federal governments  But even within the federal government, agencies besides OSHA regulate workplace safety. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have proposed rule and procedure changes that could have an impact on workplace safety.

The USDA has proposed relaxing rules about line speeds in pork plants. Employee advocates have opposed the change because of the well-known link between line speed and musculo-skeletal injuries. In a relatively rare bit of good news, under public pressure the USDA rejected proposed rule changes that would have speed up lines in poultry plants. Public pressure for workers can be effective even in the Trump administration.

The EPA has proposed delaying implementation of two Obama era-rules regarding the prevention of chemical plant explosions  and rules on training workers who are exposed to agricultural chemicals. (5)

The rules concerning exposure to farm chemicals are particularly concerning from a workplace safety perspective. Chemical exposure injuries can take years to manifest and that delayed manifestation can make it more difficult for employees to collect workers’ compensation benefits.

The delays in implementation of the chemical plant and chemical handling training rules have both been subject to court challenges. If the USDA approved an increase in line speed for pork plants, that change would likely be challenged in court as well. Though the Supreme Court is viewed as friendly to business, the court is open to arguments that the actions of administrative agencies can violate the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch.  In other words court challenges to changes in USDA and EPA rules could succeed. 

The chemical safety rules are also an example of how delay of a rule or implementation of a rule can effectively kill a rule.  EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been the target of well-deserved criticism of his administration of the agency. But, as pointed out by Mike Elk of Payday Report, the Obama administration slow-walked some chemical safety rules which them vulnerable to repeal and delay by the Trump administration.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in EPA, Nebraska, OSHA, USDA, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , , .