A good new scientific integrity official at EPA

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, gave a more problematic response when asked during the question-and-answer period about restrictions on media and public communication by agency scientists.  McCarthy said:

EPA has a policy of open transparency.  I think that EPA has done the best job it can to give the scientists a platform to speak the truth and develop the data.  There is no question that EPA carefully manages EPA’s business, which means that not everybody has the credibility within the agency to speak to everything going on in the agency.

“Some of the difficulties EPA has had recently is that we have people who aren’t scientists who work for EPA who decide to speak for the scientists. So it’s never easy to work in a large agency that has many scientists. …

The panel moderator, Francesca Grifo, who has led the UCS Scientific Integrity program, stayed on the case with a follow-up:  So what should a reporter do? Is there a place where the buck stops?  That if they try to get to a scientist and they can’t, what do they do about that?

Gina McCarthy, EPA:  We work through our communications shop and identify the right person to answer the right questions – the folks with the scientific and technical background. … Human beings remain human beings – just because they’re government employees, it doesn’t change that.  We’re all advocates of what we believe in, and we all look at data that is our own personal way of relating to the world.  But it is the job of the agency to make sure that our personalities don’t get in the way of really discussing the science in a way that maintains the agency’s credibility.  That’s the balance we try to bring to it, to just make sure we’re providing factual information, not a layer of assessment that is based on someone’s personal interest or advocacy.

Robert Detrick, NOAA:  But Gina, that’s a challenge that we have. If you go back into NOAA seven, eight years ago, I think it was your guys [Union of Concerned Scientists] who did the questionnaire – and out of that, with NOAA scientists, they found that there was a feeling that they were not allowed to speak their mind – that they were, in essence, being stymied in terms of providing information that they believed was appropriate.  So I will tell you, coming into government five years [ago] after spending the rest of my career in industry and academia: there are no more passionate scientists that I have ever met than the folks I work with at NOAA.  And every one of those is there because they are concerned about our resources, the public’s resources.  So it’s really important to have that leadership layer come in and say, “Yes indeed, you can express yourselves and we’re not going to put a gag in your mouth” – within the confines that each agency needs to do the work that it needs to do.

Grifo:  We get a lot of calls from those reporters when they get stymied.  I think it would be incredibly useful for there to be a place, that isn’t public affairs, where that buck could stop, when that happens. … Right now it’s like, who do we call?

Grifo also asked panelists about what she called “the other elephant in the room” — the role of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as what one questioner called a “politically connected and secret kill switch for federal Executive Branch disclosure policies and initiatives.”  (We discussed this problem last year in a four-part series:  On the White House Scientific Integrity guidelines – Part 1: OMB’s Secret ‘Openness’ Policy) …

McCarthy spoke on what for EPA is a familiar subject, with the agency having substantial interaction with OMB due to the large number of rules and findings the EPA has issued in that time:

… I will tell you there have always been questions raised about OMB because they ask very tough questions.  It’s not an easy process to get through, the interagency review process, but frankly I don’t know how else one would do it.  In a government you need to have those viewpoints expressed … you need to look beyond your own mission to understand the implications of the work that you do.  And it has made us and compelled us to be better and better.  I have been at numerous hearings in front of congressional panels, subcommittees and full committees, and I feel confident about being able to talk about rules that we have done because I have been heavily scrutinized and I have already been asked those questions.  In my opinion, under this administration that has been a tenet of good government.

That is putting it diplomatically, as is to be expected.  An Administration political appointee is not the one to speak candidly about the complex and at times difficult relationship between EPA and OMB, including instances of when OMB has acted politically to prevent EPA from doing its job under its statutory authority and responsibility.  (We discussed one significant example of this in “Smog Rules” — Obama, scientific integrity, and environmental policy.)

OMB not only controls agency budgets, it also exercises authority given to it by successive presidents to approve, disapprove and shape proposed new federal regulations, including science-based regulations, and has extensive authority over federal collection and dissemination of information.  OMB, while not having appreciable in-house scientific expertise, in effect exercises considerable authority over the use of science in policymaking.

Many examples could be given of how OMB manipulates outcomes without transparency, i.e., the “politically connected secret ‘kill switch.’”  Here’s an example:  In September 2011, the White House rejected a proposed (EPA) rule under the Clean Air Act that would have set a science-based health standard requiring substantial reductions in emissions of smog-causing pollutants.  The new rule, following the recommendations of EPA science advisers, would have strengthened a weaker standard set at the end of the Bush administration. Ground-level ozone pollution, or smog, can cause lung damage, breathing difficulties, and heart problems.  The EPA’s own analysis had found that the health benefits of the proposed new standard would outweigh industry’s regulatory compliance costs. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson had made pushing through a tough new clean air standard for ozone one of the key initiatives of her tenure.  That initiative was put on hold, to face an uncertain fate after the election.

Notwithstanding the Clean Air Act requirement that the EPA set a health and science-based standard, with economic costs to be considered only at the stage of state-level implementation plans, the White House decision to direct the EPA to pull down its smog rule did not pretend to be based on science. In fact, it flew in the face of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ozone pollution.  Rather, the White House gave in to industry pressure.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OMB regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and White House Chief of Staff William Daley had teamed up to kill the smog rule.  A record of meetings on the OMB website reveals that, on August 16, 2011, Sunstein, Daley and other White House officials met with representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Forest and Paper Association and the Business Roundtable to discuss reconsideration of the ozone air quality standard – just 17 days before Obama rejected the new rule.

EPA was clearly outgunned in this company.  It is caught between the influence of corporate regulated interests on the White House and the relentless attacks on the agency by members of Congress who front for corporate power.  The agency has been, on the whole, a bright light during the Obama Administration.  Its sensitivities about message control are understandable.  Federal managers take their cues from the political level.

Political power is maintained through control of information – including information that should be available to the public.  No matter who wins the election, we need open government advocates and watchdogs to help make visible things the White House and the agencies would find it more politically convenient to withhold.

Some other earlier posts:

Heinzerling on Obama OMB’s power grab v. EPA and science-based rulemaking (April 5, 2013)