Interference at the EPA: Talking Points

View Union of Concerned Scientists Report and Supporting Documents: Click Here

Widespread Interference at EPA:

• 889 scientists personally experienced at least one type of political interference during the past five years
• 507 scientists knew of “many or some” cases in which “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.”
• 719 scientists felt that EPA’s determinations occasionally, seldom, or never make use of the best judgment of its scientific staff.

Ignoring, Deleting, and Distorting Climate Change Science

• President Bush characterized the 2002 U.S. Climate Action Report, which notably broke from the agenda of the White House by explicitly calling human activity a major cause of climate change, as “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”
• In September 2002, the White House removed a section on climate change from the EPA’s annual air pollution report, even though the topic was covered in the preceding five years.
• The EPA’s climate change website was paralyzed and left virtually unchanged from 2002 to 2006. When it finally was updated, it prominently featured a discussion of uncertainties (a common attack method against the scientific consensus) and lacked references to important federal reports.
• Not even the administrator of the EPA was immune to this interference, as Administrator Christine Todd Whitman had an op-ed for Time magazine repeatedly edited by a political appointee to unrealistically exaggerate the costs to the United States for participating in the Kyoto Protocol.

In their essay responses, nearly 100 EPA scientists explicitly identified the OMB’s meddling in EPA decision making as a major hindrance to scientific integrity at the EPA.

Here is a small selection:

_ "Get the White House, industry and OMB out of what is supposed to be science-based decision-making."

_ "Restrain the Office of Management and Budget. This Administration has not only watered down important rules protecting public health, they have also altered internal procedures so that scientific findings are accorded less weight.”

_ "OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons. Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit."

_ "In this administration, self-censorship is almost as powerful as the political censorship.

Options that OMB or the White House wouldn't like aren't even put forward."

_ "All communications between EPA and OMB during the development of Agency technical products and actions should be preserved for the public record. Stakeholders should demand an end to ‘paralysis by analysis’ strategies to prevent EPA from doing its job."

- EPA Scientists responding to the UCS survey

Peer Review – In 2004, OMB released strict guidelines for how agencies should peer review their technical and scientific information. The rules attempted to create an imbalance towards the selection of industry-funded peer reviewers, and scientists strongly objected to the changes. The new system was also more costly, in both dollars and time, than the peer review systems already in place at the EPA and other agencies.

Risk Assessment – OMB also attempted to release a one-size-fits-all system for measuring risks to human health. The National Academy of Sciences described the draft guidance as "fundamentally flawed," as it deviated from established principles for evaluating risk and did not account for the diversity of decisions facing agencies like the EPA.

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) – OMB uses PART to rate the effectiveness of federal programs. PART is overly simplified and discriminates against scientific programs that do not have easily quantifiable short-term results. As a result, OMB classified every EPA research program as "results not demonstrated," a categorization that can jeopardize a program's continued funding.

Executive Order 13422 – This presidential order increases OMB oversight by injecting more political appointees into agency rule-making and promoting free market concerns over the welfare of citizens. It also cripples an agency's ability to issue helpful guidance to the public by giving OMB review and edit powers over any guidance it deems economically “significant.”

Letting Polluters Go Unpunished

The EPA is failing to enforce pollution regulations in a consistent and meaningful fashion.

• In the first five years of the Bush administration, the EPA opened fewer criminal investigations, filed fewer lawsuits, and levied smaller fines against polluters, in comparison with the final five years of the Clinton administration.
• The number of EPA criminal investigators has fallen below the minimum set by Congress.
• Changes that weakened existing regulations have undercut pending EPA lawsuits against polluters.

The EPA is also failing to effectively monitor pollutants in many critical areas. In addition to weakening reporting requirements under the Toxics Release Inventory, the EPA exempted farms and other agricultural facilities from requirements to report emission of toxic substances, again despite findings by staff scientists that such emissions could harm nearby residents. The network for monitoring lead air pollution has shrunk from over 900 in 1980 to little more than 200 in 2005, such that only two of the 27 worst sources of such pollution have a monitor within one mile.

Findings Are Suppressed and Distorted

Large numbers of EPA scientists reported political interference with their scientific work:

• 889 scientists (60 percent of respondents*) personally experienced at least one type of political interference during the past five years.
• Among agency veterans (more than 10 years of experience at the EPA), 409 scientists (43 percent) said interference has occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period. Only 43 scientists (4 percent) said interference occurred less often.
• 94 scientists (7 percent) had frequently or occasionally been “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document.
• 191 scientists (16 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”
• 232 scientists (18 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “changes or edits during review that change the meaning of scientific findings.”
• 285 scientists (22 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”

Scientists Are Pressured by Outside Interests

Political pressure on EPA scientists comes from the White House, EPA political appointees, and external commercial interests:

• 507 scientists (42 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in which “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.”
• 516 scientists (43 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in which EPA political appointees were inappropriately involved in scientific decisions.
• 560 scientists (49 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in which political appointees at other federal agencies were inappropriately involved in scientific decisions. Nearly 100 respondents identified the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the primary culprit.

Communication Is Discouraged

EPA scientists are not free to communicate their research findings to the media or public:

• 783 scientists (51 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that EPA policies allow scientists to “speak freely to the news media about their findings,” and another 556 had no opinion or were unsure (36 percent). Only 197 scientists (13 percent) agreed that the EPA had a policy of free communication with the media.
• 291 scientists (24 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they are “allowed to publish work in peer-reviewed scientific journals regardless of whether it adheres to agency policies or positions.”
• Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express concerns about the EPA’s mission-driven work without fear of retaliation; 492 (31 percent) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency and 382 (24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.
• 299 scientists (24 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “disappearance or unusual delay in the release of websites, press releases, reports or other science-based materials.”

Science Goes Unheeded

The EPA does not make consistent use of its staff and advisory committees’ scientific expertise:

• 394 scientists (31 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings.”

(* Unless otherwise stated, percentages reflect the share of respondents who answered a specific question.)

• 719 scientists (47 percent) felt that the agency’s determinations occasionally, seldom, or never make use of its scientific staff’s best judgment.
• 565 scientists (37 percent) felt that EPA determinations and actions are occasionally, seldom, or never consistent with the scientific findings contained in agency documents and reports.
• 553 scientists (36 percent) felt that expert advice from independent scientific advisory committees is occasionally, seldom, or never heeded and incorporated into regulatory decisions.

Scientists Are Disheartened

EPA scientists reported decreased job satisfaction and concerns about agency effectiveness:

• Twice as many respondents reported a decrease in job satisfaction (670 scientists or 43 percent) over the past five years as those who reported an increase (328 scientists or 21 percent).
• 951 scientists (62 percent) said morale within their divisions was fair, poor, or extremely poor; 570 (36 percent) said morale was good or excellent.
• 696 scientists (45 percent) reported that the effectiveness of their divisions or offices has decreased over the past five years. Only 321 scientists (21 percent) said effectiveness has increased.
• Respondents are evenly split on whether the EPA is moving in the right direction (624 scientists or 40 percent) or the wrong direction (685 scientists or 44 percent).
• 969 scientists (63 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that their divisions have sufficient resources to adequately fulfill the agency’s mission.
• 555 scientists (36 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the “recent changes and closures in the EPA library system have impaired my ability to do my job.” Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) from Regions 5, 6, and 7—where libraries were closed—agreed or strongly agreed.

Removing Science from the Clean Air Act

On March 15, 2005, the EPA issued its final rule regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage and harm reproduction in women and wildlife. The new EPA rule, Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), was heavily influenced by the White House and exempted power plants from the stricter Clean Air Act rules governing hazardous air.

An investigation by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General later found that EPA scientists were pressured to change their analyses and findings to agree with a pre-determined value for a national cap on mercury emissions. In addition, whole sections of text in CAMR were lifted verbatim from utility industry memos. In February 2008, a federal appeals court ruled that CAMR violated the Clean Air Act.

In the words of Bruce Buckheit, a retired director of EPA's Air Enforcement Division, “The new mercury rules were hatched at the White House; the Environmental Protection Agency's experts were simply not consulted at all.”

EPA policies are sidelining science from setting health-based air quality standards.

• A policy announced in 2006 replaces the NAAQS review document produced by EPA staff scientists with a policy document which “reflects the agency’s views.” CASAC is removed from their traditional advisory role and can only comment in the public record after the proposed rule has been published. These changes mirror recent recommendations by the American Petroleum Institute.
• In 2008, Administrator Johnson called for amending the Clean Air Act to allow for the consideration of economic costs, instead of solely scientific health concerns, when setting air quality standards.

UCS found that among scientists at the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, which works closely with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to set the NAAQS), half (29 scientists or 50 percent) felt that advisory committee advice was only heeded occasionally or less often.

RESPONSES FROM EPA SCIENTISTS

Political Interference

“There are still good scientists producing good science at USEPA. The main problem I see is an administration that considers science only if it supports its agenda. As in other areas, science is used only if it furthers preexisting policy; otherwise it is ignored, marginalized or suppressed (e.g. climate change).”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“EPA needs dynamic, scientific leadership interested in the well being of the environment and public health. EPA should not be the political agency it has become, the right hand of industry and short economic gain.”

-A scientist from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

“Do not trust the Environmental Protection Agency to protect your environment. Ask questions. Be aware of political and economic motives. Become politically active. Elect officials with motives to protect the environment and hold them accountable.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Political considerations should not trump environmental stewardship, and the EPA should not be forced to be silent on the environmental consequences of policy shifts.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Do not allow other entities such as [the White House Office of Management and Budget] to interfere with, or suppress the publication of, EPA's scientific work products. Maintain an open peer review process…. Strengthen whistleblower protections for civil servants.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“EPA needs to be an independent agency and the amount of political interference needs to be curtailed.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Keep political appointees from interfering in scientific decisions or publications. Do not allow political appointees to pressure authors to withdraw from publication or pressure their supervisors to carry out actions that inhibit publication.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

Openness and Transparency

“Remove the political screening step in science at the Agency. For example, we are not allowed to talk to the press when they call but must refer them to a person in the front office. Often this results in the press not getting the true facts but only those that don't make the Agency look bad.”

- A scientist from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

“The premise should be that all documents (except enforcement related stuff) start out as public documents unless EPA has jumped through a lot of legal hoops to be able retain them.

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices
sts

“The science and risks and benefits need to be honestly and fairly considered. The decisions that are made should be justified and be transparent as to why a decision was made and the risks and benefits be clearly and honestly presented.”

-A scientist from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

“I perceive that there is a gag rule that prevents government employees from being allowed to tell the public what they have learned on the job, as well as their job-informed and educated opinions. This work, and knowledge gained during that work, is paid for by the taxpayers.”

-A scientist from the Office of Air and Radiation

External Interference

“[The White House Office of Management and Budget] and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons. Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Currently, [the White House Office of Management and Budget] is allowed to force or make changes as they want, and [EPA actions] are held hostage until this happens. OMB’s power needs to be checked as time after time they weaken rulemakings and policy decisions to favor industry.”

-A scientist from the Office of Air and Radiation

“External scientific advisory processes associated with risk assessment should not incorporate industrial perspectives. In other words, “risk management” should be recognized as a human values problem, and should be more explicitly separated from risk assessment.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

Scientific Review

“Do not allow political appointees into the process of scientific review. Their job is to make management decisions, not influence the data and information before it is collected and presented.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Improve the peer review process by not making it so cumbersome and by allowing those with real experience to participate.”

-A scientist from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

“One of the best current safeguards is review of Agency documents and policies by independent advisory boards including the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Board of Scientific Counselors. Much EPA work in human health risk assessment is now subjected to Inter-Agency Review by other Federal entities which appear to be more closely aligned with private interests than with the public health community…. Maybe more Congressional oversight would help the Executive Branch straighten its priorities.”

-A scientist from the Office of Research and Development

Organizational Improvements

“I have never seen morale at a lower point than we currently have in EPA. Good scientists are leaving because they can no longer put up with all the micro-management that is heaped on them in lieu of effective administrative leadership.”

-A scientist from the Office of Research and Development

“Reduce the power of [the White House Office of Management and Budget] over EPA scientific products. All communications between EPA and OMB during the development of Agency technical products and actions should be preserved for the public record…. In particular, implementation of OMB's risk assessment guidelines would be disastrous.”

-A scientist from the Office of Air and Radiation

“Make sure that there is no way that you can change the science to accommodate a political "need." Currently I think EPA's credibility is in the tank due almost entirely to trying to make the science fit a political need rather than openly admitting that both paradigms exist and then deal with the realities of both politics and science to make the decision.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“This is a young and small agency that has, since its inception, been under enormous pressures. The ability to protect the environment is often also bound by the laws that govern the agency. So, the best way to improve the scientific work at EPA is to ensure that appropriate governing laws are enacted so that with reasonable interpretation the goals of protecting the environment may be met.”

-A scientist from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

“EPA is by mandate a regulatory agency charged with protecting human health and the environment. To restore the integrity of scientific work at EPA, political appointees must be removed from all levels within the Agency. Those appointees influence ranges from subtle to direct manipulation of statutory/regulatory actions. Further, the influence of other agencies, particularly [the White House Office of Management and Budget] significantly affects the actions of specific individual program offices, which amounts to direct oversight of almost everything EPA does. These influences are not limited to manipulation of the results of basic scientific work, but from everything from how vigorously the Agency pursues oversight, weakening guidance and enforcement of statutes/regulations that are detrimental to human health and the environment.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

Funding and Staffing

“MORE FUNDING! We do NOT have the resources to meet our mission. My division has seen its resources - in purchasing power- cut over 50% since 10 years ago.”

-A scientist from the Office of Research and Development

“EPA was created and began recruiting scientists in the 1970s; many have retired or will shortly do so. The inability to fill technical vacancies along with the loss of EPA libraries are bleeding down the EPA's technical knowledge base and our ability to provide or share the skills and knowledge that are critical to overall mission success.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Increase the morale of the employees by providing incentives for growth. New hires, at least among scientists in my area are few and far between (no hires in almost 10 years) and the shrinking and aging employee population is more looking forward to retirement than providing ideas that work and will make a difference, because nobody seems to really listen.”

-A scientist from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

“Strong, independent oversight and protection of “whistleblowers” (real protection - not what is there now) could stem the most damaging practices.”

-A scientist from the Office of Research and Development

MORE

“As a user rather than producer of technical and scientific information, I find it very frustrating that I have to search out myself research findings and recommendations [of various advisory bodies] that directly affect the management of my programs. By the time the reports filter down to the staff program levels, they have either mutated beyond recognition during intervening manager reviews, or have simply been lost in the fog of the bureaucracy.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“1) Improve transparency in government by requiring comments from [the White House Office of Management and Budget] and other agencies on science documents to be made public

2) ensure science decisions on conclusions contained in EPA science documents are made by EPA career scientists

3) require political appointees to post summary of discussion (including any documents provided) and attendees when they meet with external stakeholders

4) encourage accountability in EPA political appointees through Congressional inquiry regarding basis for decisions and role of science versus political considerations in decision making”

-A scientist from the Office of Research and Development

Respect for Science

“My opinion of EPA has changed since being here. Specifically, I had believed EPA was more scientific in its approach. Now I realize that EPA has politically driven agendas that sometimes, not always, affects decisions of scientific nature.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Science and technical information needs to be given more weight in decision-making rather than just seen as background information.”

-A scientist from the EPA regional offices

“Managers need to learn to trust the expertise of the technical staff.”

- A scientist from the Office of Water

“Take the politics out of science. Senior EPA leaders and White House officials over the past 6 years have used "junk" science along with biased opinions to make bad environmental decisions. EPA needs to be fully funded to perform its mission.”

-A scientist from EPA headquarters

“The integrity of EPA science could best be improved] by allowing scientists with internationally acknowledged expertise to work and publish in their fields, instead of withholding support and restricting activity.”

- A scientist from the Office of Air and Radiation

“[The integrity of EPA science could best be improved] by staying true to the pollution laws that congress gives us (which means much more frequent revision to reflect the latest science), by leaving less discretion to the executive branch, and by giving the scientific advisory boards more weight to make decisions.”

- A scientist from the EPA regional offices