In the months before the Jan. 9 spill of a coal-washing agent into West Virginia’s Elk River, an effort to ensure more oversight of commercial chemicals was supplanted by a heavily lobbied, industry-friendly measure that in many ways would have defanged existing Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The spill has brought new attention to a yellowing statute that is supposed to keep chemical dangers in check.

When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) went on the books in 1976, most of its requirements applied only to new chemicals; those that existed at the time were effectively accepted as safe. The licorice-scented fluid that turned up in the faucets of thousands of West Virginia homes last month, 4-MCHM, was one of those 62,000 chemicals grandfathered in.

In Congress last year, advocates for a tougher law watched as the American Chemistry Council — a powerhouse trade association that lists Eastman Chemical (which made the substance that leaked in January), Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical among its members — worked to support the bipartisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act, an overhaul of TSCA. The Council spent almost $12.3 million on lobbying in 2013, the group’s highest tab on record and the most of any chemical industry organization that year. It even sponsored a sharp-looking interactive website, complete with cheerful stock photos and colorful tabs, dedicated to promoting the proposed legislation.

The group’s support seemed to signal an abrupt turnaround, given its legacy of opposing regulation. For instance, just the year before, the Council weighed in to oppose greater oversight of flame retardants in couches after a study by researchers with three prominent universities found them hazardous. As this blog has noted, the Council maintained in a press release that retardants provided valuable escape time in the case of a fire. Existing EPA regulations, according to the group, provided the public with sufficient safety. The Council logged nearly $9.1 million in lobbying expenses in 2012.

‘It’s important to remember that flame retardants currently in use, like all chemicals, are subject to review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and national regulators around the globe,” the press release reads.

So why would the premier advocate for the chemical industry’s interests suddenly embrace stiffer rules? One reason: The TSCA update — sold to the public as an improvement — was mostly hollow, and the bill also weakened state authority to regulate chemicals, according to Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council. To pass the Chemical Safety Improvement Act “would be compounding one environmental disaster with another,” Rosenberg wrote in a blog post on Jan. 15. The bill would grandfather in even more chemicals, assess chemicals using industry-preferred standards over National Academy of Sciences-approved methods and prevent the EPA from requiring testing of existing chemicals unless it has evidence they’re dangerous, according to Rosenberg. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) cited the post in a Senate hearing on the spill on Feb. 4.

The bill, which was sponsored by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and the late Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), replaced an earlier measure that Lautenberg had proposed, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013. That bill, which did not have bipartisan support and would have imposed stricter oversight, attracted hundreds of lobbying reports by 51 discrete organizations during the month between its introduction in April and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act’s appearance in May.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of public health and parent organizations, praised the Safe Chemicals Act for broadening and strengthening the EPA’s authority to regulate dangerous chemicals. By contrast, in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the group was critical of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act.

“Neither bill would have prevented the [West Virginia] spill but the key difference is that with SCA there would be health and safety information available to better respond and protect people,” wrote spokesman Tony Iallonardo in an email interview with OpenSecrets Blog. “The CSIA continues the status quo on that score.” The coalition spent $100,230 lobbying on the two bills in 2013.

Judging by another press release from the American Chemistry Council, it appears that industry reps were working with Vitter to craft an industry-friendly alternative as soon as Lautenberg’s first bill was introduced.

Vitter has been a strong ally of the chemical and energy industries. He consistently bucked evidence showing that formaldehyde is a carcinogen. From his seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, he held up the confirmation of an EPA nominee to push for more research and delay tighter regulation of the chemical. Though thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims in his district developed respiratory problems after staying in emergency trailers that contained formaldehyde, Vitter didn’t change his position. The EPA is expected to release a new assessment of formaldehyde’s potential public health risks this year.

Charles Grizzle, a lobbyist for the chemical industry who worked briefly for EPA, contributed sizably to Vitter after the release of new evidence that formaldehyde is a carcinogen, according to a ProPublica investigation. In the spring of 2010 Grizzle hosted a fundraiser for the lawmaker at the Capitol Hill Club with a $1,000 per plate suggested donation. According to OpenSecrets.org data, he and his family have contributed $18,000 to Vitter since the 2011 ProPublica story.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

The super PAC supporting Vitter’s bid to be his state’s next governor, Fund for Louisiana’s Future, has pulled in $1,509,574 so far, much of it connected to oil and energy interests.

Meanwhile the oil and gas industry has given Vitter $1.2 million over the course of his congressional career, putting it in a virtual tie with health professionals as his most generous industry donor. So far in the 2014 cycle, it has given him $46,000.

Vitter’s personal finances also are tethered to the chemical and energy industries. Investments in energy accounted for at least 48 percent of his minimum net worth in 2012 (it is impossible to tell what some assets, such as mutual funds, are invested in).

It appears Eastman was also very invested in the Chemical Safety Improvement Act in the months before 4-MCHM trickled into the West Virginia water supply.

Of the 17 lobbying reports Eastman filed in 2013, 11 expressly mentioned TSCA. Eastman spent more than $1.9 million on lobbying last year.

“Eastman [Chemical] strongly supports the Chemical Safety Improvement Act,” wrote company spokesperson Maranda Demuth in an email interview with OpenSecrets Blog. “The bill would address some of the issues raised by the West Virginia situation,” though she didn’t specify what those were.

Eastman has operated a PAC since at least since 1993, according to FEC records; the PAC reported spending $208,000 in 2013. Most of Eastman’s favored candidates for 2014 are Republicans, and many are from Tennessee, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn, vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee; she received a $3,000 contribution. In the 2012 cycle, Eastman’s PAC gave $378,495 to congressional candidates.

Overall, chemical manufacturers have spent more than $456 million lobbying in the last decade, in part to avoid stricter regulation of their products. Though lobbying overall fell in the years following the 2007 financial downturn, chemical industry lobbying ticked rapidly upwards, hitting an all-time high of $61 million in 2013. Campaign contributions by PACs and individuals connected to the chemical industry increased five fold from 2010 to 2012, from $9 million to $48 million.

A pending class action lawsuit alleges Eastman Chemical should have provided more information about the chemical’s potential harms, especially any carcinogenic dangers, to plant workers and the public. Whether current law requires Eastman to provide that information, or for that matter, to have done any such research on 4-MCHM, remains ambiguous at best.

Currently, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act is stalled, with no votes or hearings scheduled, according to a staffer in Boxer’s office. The bill is being held up in negotiations over strengthening its provisions and ensuring they don’t preclude state action, the staffer said.

Follow Emily on Twitter @emilyakopp



Image: Eastman Chemical Company, November 2011 (Flickr/Rob King)



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜