Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions

Wonk Room — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:30:00 -0500

Topics covered will include the firing of EPA regional administrator Mary Gade, the GAO report on the IRIS toxic assessment process and the UCS survey of political interference of EPA scientists.

Witnesses

Panel 1

George Gray, PhD., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist, Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. Paul Gilman, Chief Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy Corporation
Dr. David Michaels PhD, MPH, Research Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University

Panel 3

Dr. George Thurston ScD., Professor of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine
Dr. Roger McClellan, Private Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg, Principal, Gradient Corporation
Dr. John Balbus, Chief Health Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

9:30 Boxer Implications for children’s health.

9:48 Whitehouse IRIS. Mary Gade. The EPA is being polluted.

9:55 Inhofe I don’t believe Johnson is corrupt. I believe in “sound science.” We are passing economic burdens onto the states. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.

10:00 George Gray I serve as the Agency’s science adviser. EPA views the relationship between science, science policy, and regulation as a continuum. Our scientists are encouraged to publish. The scientific method encourages critical thinking and disagreement. We rely on policy processes to make decisions. From the lab bench to the Administrator’s desk, we follow a science-to-decision-making continuum in common with other federal agencies that rely on both science and science-policy considerations in decision-making.

10:06: Whitehouse If what you said is true, why did 889 scientists report political interference?

Gray We have to be careful about those numbers. This report provides useful information. It’s not statistically appropriate view of the EPA.

Whitehouse Just the raw data point.

Gray The number is unacceptable to me.

Whitehouse Why doesn’t your testimony reference this in any way? In the last two hearings we’ve heard enormous criticism about how OMB has been stuffed into even in the beginning of the process. These are fairly serious people making this challenge. There appears to be significant support for these concerns. And you act as if nothing is going on. There’s nothing going on but ‘yammering critics’?

Gray This agency relies on the best available decisions. We are very transparent in the way that we do things.

Whitehouse How are the secret meetings with OMB jibe with your claim that this is done transparently?

Gray Transparency is key to the way we do our assessments. The discussions we have with the rest of the federal agencies are kept deliberative. In the end of the IRIS, the assessment must pass strict peer review. There’s not room for monkeyshines.

Whitehouse Is it your testimony that OMB involvement is purely scientific?

Gray The development of scientific assessment involve science and science policy considerations. At the end, the decisions are transparently described.

Whitehouse The OMB and interagency IRIS review lack transparency.

10:12 Alexander How many scientists are employed by the EPA?

Gray Around 7000.

Alexander The recent ozone decision. How many scientists involved?

Gray Up to a hundred.

Alexander In the scientific advisory committee made a recommendation to the administrator.

Gray Yes.

Alexander The recommendation was that the standard should go to .06-.07. Is it possible those scientists would say it was political interference with the decision?

Gray Well..

Alexander Would you say one scientist might say their decision was overruled by political interference?

Gray I suppose so.

Alexander What factors caused the administrator to ignore the recommendation?

Gray He takes very seriously the advice.

Alexander You don’t know why. Lots of county mayors said they didn’t want it because they would lose auto jobs. Might have he considered economic factors?

Gray By law he is not allowed to consider that. There’s a lot of science.

Alexander Are the CASAC recommendations public?

Gray Yes.

Alexander Did the administrator explain why he made a different decision?

Gray He followed the requirement to do that.

Alexander That sounds like what senators do every day.

10:17 Boxer I wanted to show you a series of charts with headlines. This hearing is extremely important. If you just read the Supreme Court case decided in February 2001 written by Scalia. The Clean Air Act unambiguously bars economic cost considerations. They are not to allow politics into this. We can listen to the special interests. They’re not supposed to. It’s a disgrace. Politics is front and center at the EPA. The GAO knows what they’re talking about. The scientists are not being listened to and the special interests are invited in and everything is kept secret. I have to say, Mr. Gray. What do you mean when you say it’s transparent?

Gray We lay out the scientific and other bases for our decisions.

Boxer Do you support keeping the meetings secret?

Gray I disagree with GAO.

Boxer You agree with OMB that these documents have to be kept secret. You agree with keeping it secret and yet you say you believe in transparency.

Gray At the end of the process we are very transparent.

Boxer You have lost all credibility with me. It’s an outrage. Be honest, say you don’t agree with transparency.

10:23 Inhofe The UCS is a “radical green group.”

Gray There has been reluctance among some to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty in our science. It’s been really important that for the credibility of our decisions we have to characterize uncertainty.

Inhofe How has the ORD improved air quality?

Gray Our science helps support decisions about ambient air standards. The tightening of the particulate matter standard, ozone standard, lead standard.

10:29 Klobuchar In Minnesota we believe in science. CDC director Julie Geberding’s testimony was redacted. And now Mary Gade was forced out.

Gray In this case I have no direct knowledge. I cannot comment on an internal personnel matter.

Klobuchar How can we restore the credibility of the agency?

Gray The credibility of this agency is enhanced by the quality of our work. In our office we have no restrictions on our scientists or discussions with the press.

Klobuchar Why can’t we see the comments?

Gray You can see what outside scientists recommend.

Klobuchar Why did the administrator ignore the CASAC recommendation?

Gray The administrator did not ignore CASAC. That is the basis of his ultimate decision. He made a different choice based on his view of the science.

Klobuchar It was the unanimous recommendation of the advisers.

Gray Ultimately it is the administrator’s decision.

10:34 Whitehouse You admit other considerations would be illegal. What other science did Administrator Johnson look to on the ozone standards?

Gray This is a very good example of how uncertainty in science plays a factor.

Whitehouse You’re telling me the unanimous decisions of the advisory panels creates uncertainty?

Gray I certainly do. The panels put particular weight on the Adams study. The author said they misinterpreted it.

Whitehouse Frankly, I can’t see a legitimate explanation for this chain of events. This is not an alien group.

Gray We certainly never ignore the recommendations.

Whitehouse We can’t see the reasoning. Nobody can show me where the science is. Frankly, uncertainty is a lousy justification. In fact, because your job is to protect people, one would think you would err on the low side.

10:38 Alexander Did they not recommend .61? .62? .63? .64? They disagreed between .60 and .70. The scientists disagreed among themselves more than the administrator did. They can’t even agree between .06 and .07. In my opinion they disagreed more between themselves than the administrator did with them. Whose responsibility is it?

Gray The administrator’s.

Alexander Is the panel’s recommendation advisory?

Gray Yes.

Alexander The administrator’s decision was closer to the top range of the committee than the top range was to the bottom range. The only objection was that there was an interagency review. And that review isn’t public.

Gray That’s correct.

Alexander The Republican senators had a private discussion. I would think the Executive Branch is like that.

10:41 Boxer Comparing EPA to us doesn’t even make sense. They according to Justice Scalia cannot consider all these things we can consider. Your continuous claim that there’s transparency is ludicrous. This is Alice in Wonderland. There is no transparency. They didn’t follow the science. They went over the level any scientist recommended. Do you know why Administrator Johnson could not be here?

Gray I don’t know, but he’s been out of work because of his back.

Boxer There are serious charges that the White House interfered with this. The administrator needs to be up here. Do you know we have yet to receive emails from the White House dealing with the California waiver?

Gray No.

Boxer Will you find out and send me a letter?

Gray I can do that.

Boxer It is not a game. We have had a stall for seven and half years on climate change. There is no transparency here.

10:45 Klobuchar I want to follow up on the perchlorate hearing we held yesterday. Why has the EPA failed to issue a standard?

Gray Under the Clean Air Act there are no consideration of costs. Perchlorate is a very serious issue. We are moving to have a decision on perchlorate by the end of the year.

Klobuchar How long have we known since this was a risk?

Gray We are looking a toxicological models.

Gray Scientific information never converges on a single point. We try to reflect the uncertainty on that.

Klobuchar Do you think good science comes from the Annapolis Center? You were on the board. They just gave an award to Sen. Inhofe.

Gray I haven’t been on the board for the last eight years.

Boxer The statement that costs are not a consideration are a big lie. For you to sit here and say you follow the science. You’ve lost every lawsuit. I’m counting 11. You have tried to defend the indefensible and you have failed, as far as this senator is concerned.

Alexander I would ask consent to put into the record the recommendation of CASAC and the response of the EPA Administrator which under the law he has the sole authority to make. He agreed with the top range of the advisers more than the top range agreed with the bottom range.

Klobuchar I would like to put into the record the many health associations who agreed with the .060 standard.

11:14 George Thurston When the administrator ignores CASAC he ignore the Congress. It’s just untenable to cite uncertainty in choosing a standard less stringent. The Clean Air Act states that in the face of uncertainty a more stringent standard must be chosen. There is no uncertainty that there are adverse health effects at .075 level. The only uncertainty is the amount. Sen. Inhofe and I apparently agree on using “sound science.” And that is defined by law as CASAC.

11:19 Scientists understand science but they also have personal opinions.

11:35 Baucus I urge the EPA to make decisions based on science.

11:41 Whitehouse It’s important to remember when we discuss these process questions that has real consequences for real people. They have to stay inside or risk real medical problems. When EPA strays from its own science is it evenly balanced between straying too far towards the environment or too far towards industry?

Balbus In all of the cases I’m aware of, the decisions were tilted toward industry.

12:00 Whitehouse Dr. Grifo. When you have OMB with the ability to have secret meetings in the science stage of the EPA determination and inject its point of view, what safeguards are you aware of in the process that would restrict the OMB input to prevent, to put it bluntly, shilling for industry?

Grifo Nothing that I’m aware of.

Whitehouse Dr. Michaels, as you’ve looked at institutional forces to twist the science, there’s the legendary ones like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute. Have you ever come across the Annapolis Center to which Mr. Gray belonged?

Michaels I address that very question in my book. The Center was founded by a vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and was funded by Exxon. Their mantra is “uncertainty.” There’s no science there. Unfortunately we’re seeing a whole industry of for-profit scientist consultants and front groups. You can always find someone who appears to be a scientist to complain. They talk about “sound science” but it just sounds like science.

Whitehouse Other people have been cleared out of positions on advisory boards. One of them includes Deborah Rice. They even scrubbed the record of anything she said. The reason was an asserted conflict of interest. She had stated her professional view on an issue on behalf of the state of Maine in a regulatory hearing. Is that generally understood as a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is a financial link. I ask this because as we were preparing for this hearing we had scientists who said that they would love to testify but they fear retaliation and her name was invoked.

Michaels It is truly Orwellian. Dr. Rice is a respected toxicologist working for the state of Maine.

12:09 Boxer It’s a sin to have that attitude. I believe that attitude prevails in the EPA. I believe our children’s health is expendable to those folks in the EPA. Just as I believe the tobacco industry made that decision. This committee has a job to do, and it’s very important to blow the whistle.

Thurston There are epidemiological studies that show effects below the standard the administrator set. In 1984 we followed children in western New Jersey. We demonstrated lung-function decrements at well below the 100ppb ozone one-hour standard. At the time the standard was 120 ppb, and they used controlled exposure studies to deny the epidemiology. We have the same problem today. Real people getting real exposure in the real world show these effects. Hospital admissions. There are mortality effects of ozone. We know there are mortality effects. The OMB and the RIA does consider economics.

Boxer I predict a lawsuit on this and the people will win this. Could you describe your concern with the children’s chemical evaluation program?

Balbus EDF was involved in the development of this program. We were highly critical in the multi-tier structure. This pilot study started in 2000 and I was part of the original peer-review panel. The major issue is its incredibly slow pace. It’s been a slow walk ground to a halt.

Boxer The EPA’s chemical assessment management program. North American Competitive Council: Chevron, GM, Lockheed Martin. Their mission isn’t protecting children’s health.

Balbus I don’t know exactly what their role is.

Boxer The EPA when they deal with these pollutants in the air, by law, they must only consider the health of the people. I want to send a message to the workers over there: Change is coming. You’re going to be able to proud once again.

12:24 Whitehouse It has been a pleasure for me listening to the panel. I think we learned a lot today. I have an awful lot of alarm bells that are ringing right now. There’s the ozone standard with no visible means of support. It appears that whenever the EPA has departed from scientific recommendations it has done it on behalf of industry. In contrast to Dr. Rice, Robert Shatner, an employee of ExxonMobil, James Klonig, Dale Thickles. I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability to say completely preposterous things with a straight face. It’s a skill but not what we want. We stand adjourned.

Hill Heat: Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions

Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions