EPA Wants New Rules to Rely Solely on Public Data

Agency says proposal means transparency; scientists see public-health risk

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt at a news conference earlier this month.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt at a news conference earlier this month. PHOTO: JASON ANDREW FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By Heidi Vogt

April 24, 2018 3:50 p.m. ET

18 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency plans to restrict research used in developing regulations, the agency said Tuesday, a change that could affect rules governing everything from household products to power-plant emissions.

The proposed rule—which would only allow the use of studies if their underlying data is made public—prompted an uproar from scientists, who said it could endanger Americans’ health. The EPA says the rule would increase transparency by providing complete information about the data undergirding rules.

“When you have studies that you actually publish from third parties, but you don’t publish the methodology, and you don’t publish the data, you only publish the conclusions, that presents problems to those that want to offer comment on the veracity, the authenticity, the ability to assess and evaluate the conclusions that have been drawn,” Administrator Scott Pruitt said before signing the proposed rule.

The rule is subject to a public-comment period.

Ahead of the announcement, a group of 985 scientists issued a statement decrying the move.

“This proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence,” they said in a letter issued Monday. The group said the EPA has long been very transparent in explaining the scientific basis for decisions and that requiring public data would exclude essential studies that involve proprietary information or confidential personal data.

“EPA can only adequately protect our air and water and keep us safe from harmful chemicals if it takes full advantage of the wealth of scientific research that is available to the agency,” the letter added.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3958714&forum_id=2#35911094)

GOP Effort To Make Environmental Science 'Transparent' Worries Scientists

Groups that represent industries from farming to fracking are supporting a legislative push to rewrite how government handles science when drawing up regulations.

And the whole effort has scientists worried.

Consider, for example, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, which passed the House in the spring and now is with the Senate. Just how "honest" it is depends on whom you ask.

Public To EPA On Cutting Regulations: 'No!'

THE TWO-WAY

Public To EPA On Cutting Regulations: 'No!'

The HONEST Act says the EPA can't take a particular action based on scientific research unless that research is "publicly available online in a manner than is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results."

Trouble is, making all that data widely available in such detail isn't always possible — past studies may not have all this documentation. And it's a huge burden to require that everything from raw data to computer models be made available to outsiders, says Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was a science advisor at the EPA.

"To say that every study needs to have the data out there — this is code for 'We are going challenge it — to raise issues of uncertainty and play the delay game' that was so successfully played, unfortunately, with things like tobacco," says Burke.

When industry delays regulation by nitpicking the science, he says, public health suffers.

Article continues after sponsorship

Senators Ask Trump's EPA Pick To Disclose His Connections To Energy Industry

POLITICS

Senators Ask Trump's EPA Pick To Disclose His Connections To Energy Industry

The HONEST Act has been endorsed by industry groups ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Chemistry Council. Bruce Thompson, president of the American Exploration & Production Council, which represents oil and gas exploration companies, says his group supports the bill because when it comes to issues like fracking, science at the EPA has previously gotten mixed up with politics.

"Hopefully that is changing," says Thompson. "And I don't say that from the standpoint of, 'They'll politicize it our way.' That's not what we want. We want it to be objective and seen in a proper, transparent, scientific light."

Industries like fracking are important for the economy, Thompson says, so there's a lot at stake here.

California Eyes Climate Leadership Role, But Trump's EPA Holds A Key On Cars

ENVIRONMENT

California Eyes Climate Leadership Role, But Trump's EPA Holds A Key On Cars

The chairman of the House science committee, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, has described it as a common sense bill that requires the EPA to act on solid, transparent science.

"In our modern information age, federal regulations should be based only upon data that is available for every American to see and that can be subjected to independent review. That's called the scientific method," he told his colleagues.

Other legislation being considered by the current Congress, such as the Regulatory Accountability Act, also tries to spell out what kind of science can get used when the government acts.

This legislative effort has the support of groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, which is concerned about possible restrictions on pesticides.

"More than anything else, we're looking for a process that's open, a process where other scientists can kind of look at the data that EPA uses, and then look to see if that science is repeatable," says Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations for the federation.

But words like "repeatable" are exactly what worries Sean Gallagher, the senior government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Climate Scientist Says He Was Demoted For Speaking Out On Climate Change

THE TWO-WAY

Climate Scientist Says He Was Demoted For Speaking Out On Climate Change

"Defining terms, or setting in stone, terms like 'reproducible' or 'independent analysis' may sound good when you read it and it may look simple," says Gallagher, "but they have serious unintended consequences that may manifest down the line."

For example, Gallagher points out that research done in the wake of a catastrophe, like the BP oil spill, wouldn't be repeatable — because no one wants to reproduce an environmental disaster, even if they could. That kind of science could potentially get excluded from decision-making if the HONEST Act became law.

That's why a number of scientific organizations oppose the bill. "For the scientific community," Gallagher says, "this is a very bad bill, and it has serious implications."

President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have made reducing government regulation a top priority, however. That's why Gallagher thinks some kind of legislation like this bill has a real shot at being taken up by the Senate later this summer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3958714&forum_id=2#35911174)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-gallagher-5815656/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3958714&forum_id=2#35911229)

what is max IQ to read that job title and not automatically translate it as "bureaucratic leech of taxpayer money"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3958714&forum_id=2#35911627)