WORC Chair Beth Kaeding asks the Environmental Protection Agency to keep scientific integrity when making policy.
On behalf of the thousands of members of the Western Organization of Resource Councils, please accept this comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule entitled, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” and enter it into the record.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) is a regional network of eight grassroots community organizations with 15,190 members and 39 local chapters and affiliates in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Our members live across the rural West. Many of our members have experienced improved health outcomes from the stringent regulation of air pollution by EPA, as described below, and demand continued, better, and stronger regulation of air pollution.
Requiring a study’s underlying datasets be fully open to public inspection would drastically limit EPA’s ability to use the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed science.
As written, the proposed rule would require that key scientific studies relied upon in EPA’s regulatory decision-making must provide open access to those studies’ underlying datasets, models, and data handling protocols. The alleged purpose of this rule is to promote the ability to validate data used in regulatory decision-making. Validation and replication of previous studies are key parts of the scientific process and are essential to the acceptance of new knowledge. Although we agree with the agency’s statement that “[t]he best available science must serve as the foundation of EPA’s regulatory actions,” we do not agree with the agency’s subsequent assertion that the best available science is that for which underlying datasets are fully open to public inspection.
Requiring a study’s underlying datasets be fully open to public inspection would drastically limit EPA’s ability to use the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed science. This standard conflicts with privacy protections and the confidentiality of personally identifying information. It is not possible for a host of epidemiological studies and long-term health studies to open their datasets without publishing sensitive information that cannot, by law, be made public. Furthermore, the cost of sanitizing such data would be immense and would be borne by researchers who do not necessarily have the resources or institutional support to complete the process. If the EPA restricts the science it relies upon to only those studies that publish open datasets, the outcomes and data from key areas of scientific inquiry related to EPA’s decision-making will be put beyond the reach of agency staff.
This appears to open the door to interference from the agency’s political appointees, who would be vested with the ability to arbitrarily choose which science is considered during regulatory decisions – and which is not.
The proposed rule also gives the EPA Administrator authority to grant exemptions from the proposed regulations. This appears to open the door to interference from the agency’s political appointees, who would be vested with the ability to arbitrarily choose which science is considered during regulatory decisions – and which is not. We believe that if some science is worth considering even though it is not feasible to ensure that the underlying data and models are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation, all science should be. The decision of what science to include and exclude from the agency’s consideration should be made based on the standards and judgement of professional scientists, not political appointees.
Our organizations regularly engage in regulatory decision-making processes at EPA and other government agencies through the submission of technical comments on projects and proposals as well as personalized comments from our individual members. We have a significant interest in preserving EPA’s ability to access and rely upon the best available science, and we have a specific interest based upon previous and anticipated future engagement with the agency’s proposed rules, including its rule entitled, “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources” (the “methane rule”).
We have many members who live in areas of oil and gas drilling and production. Many face health impacts due to flaring and venting of methane and gases associated with oil production. If EPA’s methane rule was not able to consider epidemiological studies related to the respiratory impacts of particulate matter, benzene, and nitrous oxides, among other compounds, the health impacts to our members could be worsened.
We urge you to withdraw this proposal.
Sincerely,
Chair, Western Organization of Resource Councils
Read more oil and gas stories here.