[THS] EPA Staffers Were Forced to Ignore Science, Investigation Finds

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

EPA Staffers Were Forced to Ignore Science, Investigation Finds
By Sheila Kaplan, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
Posted on April 30, 2010, Printed on May 2, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146680/
Environmental Protection Agency staffers have been forced to ignore relevant
science, have lacked key monitoring data on human health and environmental
impacts, and have worked without crucial information needed to protect the public,
according to the preliminary findings of a scientific advisory board.

The Committee on Science Integration for Decision Making is still working on its
investigation, but has quietly posted draft summaries on the agency's Web site of 73
interviews with 450 EPA employees -- an unusual bottom-up examination that could
bring sweeping changes to the 40-year-old federal agency. Some staffers traced the
problems in the agency to the Bush administration, while others said the obstacles
are longstanding and continue to this day.

EPA has an enormous mandate -- protecting air, water, land and human health from
environmental pollutants. While some staffers gave the agency high marks, the
interviews overall portray an organization that has been hobbled by political pressure
to avoid damaging industry; has lacked sufficient scientists in regional offices; has
been slow to act against known hazards, and has had a tendency to let products with
harmful pollutants enter the marketplace and the environment without first ensuring
their safety.

The review of the EPA followed accusations by a former agency official that President
George W. Bush had pressured agency employees to water down concerns of global
climate change, a Government Accountability Office report criticizing the agency's
toxic chemical review process, and stern recommendations by the National Research
Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences.

In response, the committee, made up of academics, industry scientists, and
government officials from outside EPA, was launched in 2008 by Stephen L. Johnson,
who served as agency chief during Bush's second term. Pointing out that the
environmental agency was "perceived to lack a strong scientific foundation," Johnson
asked the panel to explore how the EPA can improve its use of science. EPA
administrator Lisa Jackson endorsed the committee and its work began in earnest.

"Unfortunately the reality through the years, both those that Democrats were in
charge and the years the Republicans were in charge, was, if you agreed with a
decision, it was great science and not politicized, and if you disagreed with a
decision, then the science was politicized," Johnson told Politics Daily. "Anything I and
the agency can do now to increase that foundation of science and better integrate
the science in decision making, I believe that the public is better served."

As part of its mission, the committee -- informally called the Science Advisory Board --
interviewed scores of EPA staffers from around the country between October 2009
and February 2010. To encourage open discussion, managers were generally
interviewed separately from the rest of the staff. Many of the panel's interviews were
conducted in groups. Although the committee listed the names of everyone in each
group, in most cases they did not reveal who said what.

Some participants noted "the chilling effect of management decisions made with the
expectation that science would be 'ginned up' to support decisions already made,"
according to a committee summary. One high-level EPA official charged that "the
science review is used to create long-term loops that keep us from getting the latest
information implemented in the field." Another staffer said decisions on how to
regulate air pollutants were "influenced more by politics than by science."

One scientist who was interviewed believes the agency has been too eager to
endorse new technologies or new uses of chemicals. As an example, she cited the
EPA's support of tire crumb, shredded tires used to line playgrounds to keep kids
from being injured if they fall. Tire crumb can contain arsenic, cadmium, and other
metals and toxic substances. Although EPA in December said the material was safe,
this scientist told investigators, "Tire crumb, for example, should have been evaluated
more fully before EPA supported its use for children's playgrounds and ball
fields...The result is a costly effort "post hoc" to assess children's exposures to tire
crumb waste, a problem that could have been prevented."

On the bright side, there are some departments where staffers say politics has had
little influence. EPA's emergency response efforts during the giant 2008 spill in
Kingston, Tenn., which dumped more than a billion tons of toxic coal ash and buried
more than 400 acres of homes and farmland in sludge, was viewed as independent
and well-coordinated. And numerous staffers -- managers in particular -- defended
agency decisions as made only by weight of evidence.

But many of the employees, at all levels, offered pointed criticisms of their employer.
Committee member Wayne Landis, a professor and director of the Institute of
Environmental Toxicology at Western Washington University, who participated in
many interviews, told Politics Daily, "They (the EPA staffers) were very
straightforward, weren't they?"

Barnes Johnson, deputy director in the Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, told the panel one problem for the EPA involves "evaluating
[the] latest toxicology information for high profile contaminants important to certain
constituency groups where there are big financial implications." Translation: Powerful
players in commerce don't want chemicals they manufacture or use to be assessed as
hazardous. Such a finding might require them to take products off the market, be
liable for costly cleanups or face lawsuits by individuals who have been harmed.

He cited the examples of the chemicals TCE (trichloroethylene), dioxin and
perchloroethylene - three man-made contaminants known to pose a threat to human
health that are still plentiful in the environment. EPA first started studying TCE, a
solvent widely used for degreasing metal parts, back in the 1980s, yet the Superfund
staffer complained, "Arguments about how to interpret the available science are
perpetuated to keep new science from being implemented."

Other staffers said they were also worried about TCE. One employee from EPA
Region 9 (which encompasses California, Nevada and Arizona, Hawaii, the Pacific
Islands and tribal nations), "expressed concern that decisions get complicated with
TCE, he is not sure that the [standard] is stringent enough, [despite] a need for
immediate action." TCE is linked to cancer and brain damage. Another EPA science
advisory board is now studying the agency's draft assessment of TCE.

Across the board, EPA employees said they were frustrated by the glacial pace of
decisions to restrict or ban chemicals that are thought to be hazardous. Reviews on
some individual pollutants are more than seven years behind schedule, according to
those interviewed, forcing them to rely on outdated research to make decisions about
protecting the public.

The committee cited numerous staffers who were upset at the decline in EPA
monitoring of human health and environmental impacts, especially for groundwater
quality and soil.

Another EPA colleague agreed, telling investigators that regional resources for
monitoring air and water have been nearly eliminated.

The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances "generally does not know
how chemicals are being used, and the nature of human exposures and
environmental releases. Often even manufacturers have no information about how
customers use their chemicals," the committee noted.

Many EPA staffers said they are concerned about the nation's water supply, including
the migration of pharmaceuticals and nanoparticles -- which are man-made
microscopic compounds -- which may end up in drinking water. There is evidence
that some nanoparticles, in particular nano-scale titanium dioxide, often used in
sunscreen, cosmetics and food packaging, may cause cancer. EPA is just beginning
to study the safety of nanoparticles, which are already ubiquitous in consumer goods.

A staffer in Region 8, which includes Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado and tribal nations, said she was highly concerned about poor sewage
treatment. "EPA appears to have an aversion to political and fiscal risk," she said of
her agency, "but not an equal aversion to environmental risk."

Many employees complained about a lack of recruitment and training of expert
scientists -- there are not enough to go around. Numerous staffers said they expect
this problem to get worse as current scientists retire.

A scientist working on radiation issues said: "highly technical people -- engineers and
toxicologists -- are managed by people who may not fully understand" what their
underlings are working on. This leads them to rely on their personal opinion instead
of science when making decisions. Also, they don't have enough staff to evaluate the
work done by outside contractors, she said.

The 40-year-old independent nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council tracked
what it saw as a decline in environmental monitoring during the Bush years. In a
recent update provided to Politics Daily, the environmental group said that by
January 2010, EPA improved its testing of drinking water for industrial pollutants, and
monitoring for lead pollution in air, but still needs to increase its monitoring of
pesticide levels in urban waterways and better assess health threats at hazardous
waste sites.

"During the Bush years they created a 'hear no evil, see no evil' situation," NRDC
senior scientist Dr. Gina Solomon said. "Since things weren't being tested and
monitored it looked liked there were no problems out there. ... I have to credit the
current administration and Congress. There have been big improvements in
monitoring programs over the past year and there's still a lot that needs to be done."

Stephen Johnson, who was widely criticized by environmentalists and scientific
organizations during his tenure, said, "The EPA is faced with many more challenges
than it has available resources, so for those who want to be critical that this issue or
that issue has not been addressed, there's fair criticism. For those who want to see
that progress has continued to be made to address the myriad issues of our nation,
there's also much to celebrate."

For its part, the EPA said in a statement, "We appreciate the candid interviews
conducted by the Science Advisory Board. ... We look forward to reviewing the
recommendations in the report when the SAB formally submits it to EPA for
discussion. In the meantime, we will continue to examine and enhance our science
efforts agency wide."

The investigators will hold a public meeting in September to discuss their findings,
and will later issue a formal paper with recommendations for changes throughout the
agency.

Meanwhile, the committee's work provides a rare look at internal criticism of a major
federal agency. "None of the other EPA offices get a chance to try to turn it or twist
it," Landis said. "It's from our committee to the administrator."
This story also appeared on Politics Daily.
Sheila Kaplan is a fellow at the Nation Institute. Her work has appeared in Discover
magazine, the Washington Post, and U.S. News & World Report, and has aired on
ABC News, NBC News, PBS and MNSBC on the Internet.
© 2010 Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146680/