Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 09 Apr 2017 6:48 pm » wrote:Strange, I didn't see one single word in your source that backs that up.
So I suspect you're lying, as you do so very often.
What he likely believes is that trial lawyers and Fake Science greatly over state the risks from it.

In the written questions for the record following Pruitt’s nomination, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the top Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee, asked Pruitt a series of questions regarding asbestos.

Pruitt failed to give a definitive answer to his stance on asbestos or if he will pursue a ban. Instead, he repeatedly referenced the newly reformed Lautenberg Act and the risk evaluation process it requires for substances like asbestos.

“Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate,” Pruitt wrote.

https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/02/0 ... tt-pruitt/

Last week, in response to written questions from senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt refused to affirm that he would push through a full ban of asbestos.

http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01 ... bestos-ban

Scott Pruitt’s Answers on Asbestos Leave Families Worrying about Toxic Chemicals

Pruitt: Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical substance pose an unreasonable risk.

Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate.

If Mr. Pruitt is in charge of the EPA, it’s hard not to think that big business will have a hand in the evaluation process.

https://www.sokolovelaw.com/blog/scott- ... chemicals/