There is Improper Collusion Between Environmental Pressure Groups and the Environmental Protection Agency

This report examines lessons learned from documents produced pursuant to several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal, or EELI) — pieced together with others obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). EE-Legal-FOIA-Collusion-Report-9-15-2014

It focuses on the relationship between the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various special interest groups.

The Obama EPA claims to be pursuing a common-sense agenda, but its own emails reveal a clear understanding, internally and with its allies, that its agenda is ideological and that it is in fact pursuing candidate Obama’s vow to “bankrupt” coal.

Emails prove this agenda is assisted both in its big picture and in detail by pressure groups from which EPA obtained many senior staff.

The public shift to more moderate positions was purely rhetorical, in response to political pressures.

The truth of how EPA operates also is starkly contrary to Mr. Obama’s promises of limiting the influence of special interests, the revolving door, and transparency. Contrary to candidate Obama’s promise to run the “most transparent administration in history,” free of conflicts of interest, documents reveal that various environmentalist pressure groups with extreme agendas have unprecedented access to and influence upon their former colleagues and other ideological allies who are now EPA officials.

EPA serves as an extension of these groups and neither EPA nor the groups recognize any distinction between them.

Further, certain officials have glaring appearances of conflicts yet were rushed into place to impose an agenda they had long advocated as outside activists, precisely opposite of the behavior called for by conflicts policy, contrary to Executive Order 12674.

The hypocrisy, while only a compounding factor, is startling. The campaign-style rhetoric continued even as the coordination became unprecedented. President Obama boasted, for example, “On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers.”

The truth, as this report documents, is quite different.

See Report here: EE-Legal-FOIA-Collusion-Report-9-15-2014

See also:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a Scathing Writ of Mandamus Against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Pesticide Inaction

The EPA is Rolling Back PCB Safeguards and Has Significantly Raised the Toxic Exposure levels for Our Nation’s Children

See attached pdf copy:


See link to the comparison between the new EPA and old EPA guidance:

See link to News Article Concerning the EPA’s Stealth Rollback of School PCB Safeguards:

PCBs Affect a Whole Building, Not Just a Single Window

If PCB-laden caulking over 50ppm has been found in one classroom, then it is probable that PCB-laden caulk is in all classrooms in that building. It would be absurd to propose removal of only the tested window (which is what the district has proposed) when adjacent windows used the same caulking that contain high levels of PCBs.




See link to America Unites for Kids & PEER’s Complaint against the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

See The Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent policy on testing for PCBs:

Building Characterization and Sampling Plan

A sampling plan should be developed to characterize the caulk and other potential building materials that might either contain PCBs or be contaminated through contact with PCB-containing caulk such as wood, masonry, or brick. The sampling plan should consider the following steps:

    1. Test indoor air to determine if PCBs are present in building indoor air. If your building is a school you can compare the test results to the the Exposure Levels for Evaluating PCBs in Indoor School Air.

If PCBs in indoor school air are above the exposure levels determine the extent of the problem by:

  1. Testing suspect building material to determine PCB sources. Building material that is removed and contains 50 ppm PCBs or greater is regulated for disposal (see Abatement Step 3)
  2. Evaluate building material sample results and determine if surrounding materials warrant testing.
  3. Outline areas requiring corrective action and prioritize contaminated building materials for removal based on their PCB-concentration levels, potential accessibility, and building occupancy (see Abatement Step 1 for more details).

Sample Collection Procedures

The sampling plans may require the collection of any of the following sample types:

See the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Most Recent List of Expenditures relating to the Toxic Substances Control Act Violation Lawsuit (TSCA):

Over $6,500,000 spent so far and still rising!


See America Unites for Kids Petition:

Petitioning EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

Protect Children, Enforce the Law, and Remove Toxic Chemicals from our Nation’s Schools.


One thought on “There is Improper Collusion Between Environmental Pressure Groups and the Environmental Protection Agency

Comments are closed.