Orme-Zavaleta, j
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see pfas teflon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-bidens-team-rushed-to-dump-a-trump-era-pfas-assessment/">https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-bidens-team-rushed-to-dump-a-trump-era-pfas-assessment/</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>How Biden’s team rushed to dump a Trump-era PFAS assessment</b></font></font></font></font></div><div>By E.A. Crunden | <b>09/01/2021 </b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><b>Trump administration appointees interfered with development of a toxicity assessment for a "forever chemical" and made changes that were "not scientifically sound," documents obtained by E&E News through the Freedom of Information Act show</b>. </div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Trump-era EPA appointees engaged in "considerable political level interference" on an assessment for a controversial "forever chemical," documents obtained by E&E News indicate.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">But the Biden administration wasted no time in yanking that document, moving to scrub the assessment of alterations made by political appointees and restore language advocated by EPA career scientists shortly after the president’s inauguration.</span></div><div>
</div><div>At issue is a toxicity assessment for PFBS, part of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances family. PFBS is a replacement chemical for PFOS — one of the two most well-studied and controversial PFAS, due to health risks like cancer. The replacement compound, a surfactant, is used in manufacturing processes and to make stain-resistant coatings for various consumer items like clothes, among other purposes.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shed light on the agency back-and-forth over the toxicity assessment for PFBS, released in the last days of the Trump administration, only to be clawed back as soon as Biden took office</b>.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> Staff conversations show the process of withdrawing and replacing the document came after a contentious publication process that saw significant input from political appointees, in a breach with agency processes.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>In an email sent Jan. 21, shortly after Biden’s inauguration, then-head of EPA’s Office of Research and Development <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta</span> conveyed wishes that the PFBS assessment be removed.</b></div><div>
</div><div>"During the rush of the last administration to complete various tasks, there was a PFAS assessment on PFBS along with an internal deliberative memo from [the EPA chemicals office] that apparently were posted Tuesday," she wrote to Jane Nishida, then-acting EPA administrator, in an email marked with a "high" importance level.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>In January, anonymous EPA staffers raised concerns that the assessment had been politically compromised (Greenwire, Jan. 14).</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As Biden took office, leadership in the research office and the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention immediately requested that the assessment and related documents be taken down at once, Orme-Zavaleta said. "The materials posted are not supported by ORD or OCSPP career scientists and violate the Agency’s scientific integrity policy. We will work to correct the document, brief new leadership then follow up with [the Office of Public Affairs] on the correct release."</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>At the heart of the controversy was a significant shift from a draft assessment, which offered a reference dose — or an indicator of how much individuals can be exposed to a chemical before experiencing adverse health impacts.</b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A key component of deriving that reference dose are uncertainty factors, which are applied to reflect data limitations. For the PFBS assessment, uncertainty factors were crucial, given a lack of information around areas like immunotoxicity and mammary gland development. But the new document refuted any database deficiency and shifted the reference dose to a range</span>.</div><div>
</div><div>While the assessment was a science, rather than regulatory, document, critics worried the change would allow for industry and government to cherry pick numbers when setting threshold levels. An EPA spokesperson confirmed to E&E News that the Biden administration "immediately began working with EPA’s career scientists and staff" to withdraw and replace the document.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Orme-Zavaleta, who recently retired, </span>meanwhile said the document published under Trump reflected "considerable political level interference" and became "a poster child for why it’s critical to have scientific integrity policies in federal governmen</b>t."</div><div>
</div><div>Pushback on a Trump EPA priority</div><div>
</div><div><b>The PFBS assessment was a priority for the Trump administration, and former Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Policy David Dunlap[kochsucker] highlighted the issue as a major focus.</b></div><div>
</div><div>EPA originally planned to publish the assessment in late October 2020. But the schedule was delayed amid last-minute comments and concerns about the uncertainty factors from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">A December document reviewed by E&E News showed that Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Deputy <b>Assistant Administrator David Fischer — a former official with the American Chemistry Council, which represents PFAS manufacturers and has lobbied extensively against a crackdown </b>on the chemicals</span> — asked senior toxicologists to review the Office of Research and Development’s PFBS work. Fischer’s office countered ORD’s findings regarding uncertainty factors for chronic and subchronic reference doses.</div><div>
</div><div>Fischer did not respond to a request for comment. But EPA confirmed to E&E News that the process became bogged down by his office’s previous political leadership, in a deviation from regular practices.</div><div>
</div><div><b>In early January, leading up to posting the assessment, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Deputy Director Tala Henry shared a draft with officials, noting it included proposed in-line edits supporting a range of uncertainty factors. </b>She commented that former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler had requested the inclusion of those edits. Conversations indicate officials sought to publish the assessment in advance of a Wheeler PFAS-centric interview.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Orme-Zavaleta confirmed to E&E News that political leadership decided to modify ORD’s peer-reviewed assessment in keeping with Wheeler’s preferences and that she did not learn of the changes until January. She called the back-and-forth "one of the more infuriating experiences I have ever encountered."</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">Her emails show that she pushed back, arguing Wheeler "did not have complete information" in making his request. The PFBS assessment had previously been considered final.</span></div><div>
</div><div>"The type of changes OCSPP proposes would require us to go through the whole process of intra/inter-agency review [and workgroup efforts] … which will take anywhere from 6-8 months," she said.</div><div>
</div><div><b>But a day later, Wheeler’s senior adviser, Taylor Hoverman, announced the process would move forward. The agency’s political leadership negotiated a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> fast-tracked review through the Office of Management and Budget that is not typically part of EPA’s processes for toxicity assessments.</span> Soon afterward, EPA published the document.</b></div><div>
</div><div>‘Very unusual’ levels of input</div><div>
</div><div><b>Multiple political appointees kept a close eye on the PFBS assessment process. In one instance, the Department of Defense gave EPA feedback disputing the agency’s approach to uncertainty factors.</b> Former career staff said those comments came as part of an interagency review process and in response to language inserted by Fischer. Emails show Dunlap wound up editing EPA’s response to the Department of Defense, taking an active role in shaping the final product. He continued asking for updates on the status of the assessment as it proceeded.</div><div>
</div><div><b>Orme-Zavaleta said the level of involvement was irregular. "David Dunlap was engaging in the decision making process for PFBS without consulting with or including anyone else from ORD," she said. "I am also not aware of any other [EPA administrator] weighing in on a science decision in an assessment before.</b>"</div><div>
</div><div><b>Betsy Southerland, a former longtime EPA top scientist, said Dunlap’s level of involvement was "very unusual." She said an official at Dunlap’s level would not typically have edited a technical document as he did.</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">"[Deputy assistant administrators] certainly keep track of the progress on high-priority projects and ensure work is done on schedule and following all peer-reviewed guidance and standard processes, but rarely if ever rewrite documents since they are generally not subject matter experts," Southerland said.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Kyla Bennett, who directs science policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, meanwhile expressed alarm</b>. The conversations, she said, "prove what we always suspected — Trump Administration political appointees improperly manipulated science at EPA," adding the revelations were "disturbing."</div><div>
</div><div><b>Dunlap did not respond to a request for comment.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Career staff, meanwhile, were unhappy with the changes imposed by political officials. EPA senior science adviser Louis D’Amico voiced harsh criticism in an email sent on Jan. 6.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is precedent setting, and flies completely in the face of legitimate and necessary separation between risk assessment and risk management," he told Orme-Zavaleta and Samantha Jones, the acting associate director for health at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment.</div><div>
</div><div>"A decision to release a ‘range of values’ in EPA assessments should be discussed across the agency, including program offices and regions."</div><div>
</div><div>Jones agreed in a response email, also taking issue with changes stating that the individual value generated for PFBS would be dependent on "the needs of the program office and in the type of risk assessment being performed," including for the general population.</div><div>
</div><div>That note, Jones said, "should NOT be in a scientific foundational document. It would go into the risk assessment by the program."</div><div>
</div><div>A speedy reversal</div><div>
</div><div>Only a day after Biden took office, EPA staff began the process of taking down the PFBS assessment.</div><div>
</div><div><b>In a Feb. 9 email, EPA science communications specialist Kacey Fitzpatrick linked the issue more clearly to former Administrator Wheeler, saying the changes made to the PFBS assessment were at "political direction" and "not scientifically sound."</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">"Administrator Wheeler determined that uncertainty factors were policy, not scientific judgements. … This is contrary to long-standing risk assessment practices based on National Academy of Sciences (NAS) guidance," Fitzpatrick wrote to Carolyn Hubbard, ORD’s science communications director, in an email laying out the agency’s response. "This constitutes a violation of the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy and the documents have been removed from the EPA website while the agency completes its review."</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">The old document was pulled that same day</span> (E&E News PM, Feb. 9).</div><div>
</div><div><b>Two months later, EPA released its replacement — one Orme-Zavaleta said in a statement "fixes errors in the version issued earlier this year, was developed by EPA career scientists, and upholds the values of scientific integrity" </b>(Greenwire, April 8).</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">The new assessment set a chronic reference dose of 300 parts per trillion per day, along with a subchronic dose of 1,000 ppt per day. That reference dose is much stricter than the 2018 Trump EPA’s original chronic dose recommendation of 10,000 ppt per day with a subchronic range from 40,000 ppt to 100,000 ppt.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>That replacement didn’t mark the end of the saga. EPA’s Office of Inspector General said in June that it would probe the agency’s decisionmaking regarding the assessment (Greenwire, June 16). At the time, EPA said it was "committed to upholding scientific integrity" and would support and assist the review.</b></div><div>
</div><div><b>For her part, Orme-Zavaleta said the PFBS assessment published under Biden "could have been a good news story" if released under Trump, offering the administration a significant action at a time of mounting focus on PFAS. Instead, the release of the compromised assessment eroded faith in an agency that prides itself on science-based decisions.</b></div><div>
</div><div>"Scientific integrity, coupled with sound external peer review and quality assurance procedures are critical for ensuring public trust," she said. "When these measures break down or are manipulated, it erodes public trust and jeopardizes our ability to protect public health and the environment, which first and foremost is EPA’s mission."</div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">intercept 921</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/formaldehyde-leukemia-epa-trump-suppressed/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">
</font></a></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/formaldehyde-leukemia-epa-trump-suppressed/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/formaldehyde-leukemia-epa-trump-suppressed/</font></a></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sharon Lerner</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx mANY DOC</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>a 2017 DRAFT assessment of formaldehyde that was suppressed by the Trump administration found that the chemical causes myeloid leukemia,</b> according to several sources familiar with the document. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The draft assessment concludes that 1 microgram of formaldehyde in a cubic meter of air increases the number of myeloid leukemia cases by roughly 3.5 in 100,000 people, more than three times the cancer risk in the assessment now in use. </span><b>The EPA currently regulates formaldehyde using an outdated set of calculations, finalized in 1991, based on the risk of nasopharyngeal cancer. If the nasopharyngeal cancer and myeloid leukemia risks are combined, the cancer risk could be 4.5 times higher than the current value.</b></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although the suppressed assessment, produced by a division of the Environmental Protection Agency known as the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, has grave implications for public health, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Trump administration officials, including former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, refused to allow the agency to release the assessment, several sources told The Intercept.</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>If the Biden EPA permits IRIS to finalize the assessment, which is among the most controversial in the agency’s history, other branches of the EPA will likely set regulatory limits based on the new risk value</b>. IRIS values are used to determine safety thresholds for the amounts of the chemical permitted in air and water, emissions caps from industrial facilities, and guidance for cleanups. Such thresholds also alert exposed people to the dangers they face.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>“This is a big, big deal. It could trigger significant interest by the personal injury bar,</b>” said Bob Sussman, who served as the senior policy counsel to the EPA administrator during the Obama administration and deputy EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton. “Even without including the leukemia, the risk is a significant one. With the leukemia, it’s certainly a very significant public health concern.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Even using the much lower, outdated cancer risk number set in 1991, <b>formaldehyde is already the greatest source of nationwide cancer risk from industrial air pollutants, </b>estimated to cause roughly 18 of the 32 cancers in every 1 million people in the U.S. that are caused by toxic pollutants in the air,</span> according to the EPA’s own data. If the risk values are increased by a factor of four or more, the reported cancer risk from formaldehyde will go up accordingly, revealing previously unrecognized cancer hot spots around the country.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Formaldehyde, mainly used to make plywood, particleboard, and glues, is also a hazard for millions of workers who are exposed to the chemical through the production of resins, wood composite and furniture production, plastics manufacturing, paper production, embalming, foundry work, fiberglass production, building construction, agriculture, firefighting, and the teaching of biology, among other occupations. The general public is exposed to formaldehyde through tobacco smoke, cosmetics, food and water, as well as “off-gassing” from consumer goods, construction materials, and furniture. In 2019, 662 facilities reported releasing 47.7 million pounds of formaldehyde.</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to looking at the chemical’s relationships to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia, the draft assessment also factored in evidence that formaldehyde causes decreased lung function, allergic conditions, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and sensory irritation.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In part because formaldehyde is so pervasive, a wide range of business interests have attempted to prevent the EPA from finalizing the assessment and publicly acknowledging the connection to leukemia. Until now, the EPA has kept the contents of its assessment under tight wraps. The leaked information provides a window into how the science and regulation around the chemical will finally be updated</span>.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Just knowing that the IRIS assessment acknowledges that formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia is huge, regardless of what the value is,” Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said after being told about the main findings of the draft assessment. “But the numbers tell you even more. They set the tone for how the agency will proceed with risk management.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Assessment Was “Ready to Go”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While the EPA has claimed in court that the formaldehyde assessment did not exist in a form that allowed it to be shared — and used that argument to refuse to release it in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the environmental whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, o<b>r PEER — former EPA officials told The Intercept that the completed assessment not only existed but that it had also been prepared for release in early 2018.</b></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We had the document ready to go for review within the agency, but we were not allowed to proceed,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former director of the EPA Office of Research and Development, who retired from the agency in July.<b> “Political leadership did not want me to move it forward.”</b></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Wheeler, the former EPA administrator, was among the Trump appointees who were involved in suppressing the calculation of the myeloid leukemia risk, according to one former agency official who worked on the assessment.</span> “The administrator would not allow us to put out that number,” the former official said, going on to explain how members of the administrator’s office, particularly his chief of staff Ryan Jackson, kept an unusually close eye on the formaldehyde assessment.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Normally when we’re doing an assessment, they [the staff of the administrator’s office] don’t have access to the guts of it, because it’s deliberative. But they would demand that we give them pieces of the assessment, including what literature we were looking at for dose responses,” the former official said, referring to the precise relationship between exposure and cancer risk. <b>“Then they would share it with ACC,” an acronym for the American Chemistry Counci</b>l. Although the former official provided no direct evidence of the administrator’s office sending out the segments of the assessment, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">they said the actions of the trade group made it clear that it had reviewed the unpublished material.</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“All of a sudden, after we gave the information to Ryan Jackson, there would be all this targeted activity by ACC that would basically dismiss or disprove whatever mathematical methodology that we were going to be using even though it hadn’t been published yet,” said the former official. If the EPA did share the information with the trade group, the report would be subject to release under FOIA and would not be exempt under the “deliberative process privilege,” contrary to the agency’s claim in the PEER lawsuit.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WASHINGTON, DC - A<b>PRIL 26: Environmental Protection Agency Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson (R) listens to Administrator Scott Pruitt</b> testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The focus of nearly a dozen federal inquiries into his travel expenses, security practices and other issues, Pruitt testified about his agency's FY2019 budget proposal. (]</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Orme-Zavaleta confirmed that Jackson, who now works for the National Mining Association, played a key role in preventing the assessment from moving forward. “The ACC was in contact with Ryan a lot,” she said.</font></b></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Asked about his role in the formaldehyde assessment, Jackson stated, “Following enactment of the Lautenberg Act, EPA placed formaldehyde though the risk evaluation required in that new law so formaldehyde could be directly regulated by EPA</b>,” referring to the Trump administration’s decision to add formaldehyde to the list of chemicals to be evaluated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. That assessment has also yet to be completed or released. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Jackson also stated that “I’m not contributing to anonymous rumors.”</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Wheeler declined to comment. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the ACC wrote that the group “has never had access in any manner to unpublished findings from the formaldehyde draft IRIS assessment.”</font></b></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Orme-Zavaleta also pointed to other Trump appointees who she said were apparently involved in suppression of the document. Among them was the<b> director of the Office of Air and Radiation, Bill Wehrum</b>, whose input Orme-Zavaleta needed to move the assessment forward. “<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">A couple times we set up briefings for Bill Wehrum. But they canceled those briefings, and I was not given the OK to further the review within the agency.”</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dunlap Koch email to EPA</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1 page</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">David Dunlap, who served as deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, also helped suppress the assessment, said Orme-Zavaleta. “When we were in the process of coming up with the priority list for IRIS assessments, a lot of those discussions were held during ‘politicals-only’ meetings, so I wasn’t there. But [Dunlap] was, he was our representative. Formaldehyde was on the list of chemicals being considered. And in November, I got back a short list of the chemicals IRIS would assess, and formaldehyde was not part of it,” she said. <b>Dunlap worked for Koch Industries and defended formaldehyde until shortly before he joined the Trump administration in 2018. </b></span><b>Dunlap did eventually recuse himself from work on the assessment, though only after formaldehyde was removed from the list of chemicals IRIS would be allowed to assess</b>, according to Orme-Zavaleta. “I only received a copy of his recusal letter after I got the list of chemicals.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></b></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Dunlap declined to comment on the matter.</font></b></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“EPA lied to us. And they lied to the court.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Presented with information from Orme-Zavaleta and others about the completion of the assessment in 2017,<b> PEER attorney Kevin Bell</b> expressed anger and frustration. Bell oversees 3-year-old litigation against the EPA over the group’s Freedom of Information Act request for the assessment. In that case, the agency has insisted that it didn’t have a completed version of the document that it could publicly release.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“EPA lied to us. And they lied to the court,” said Bell. “They said, ‘We just can’t give you anything like this, because it would be totally full of all sorts of irrelevant things, so that it would totally undermine the deliberative process,’ whereas in reality they had a fully drafted document that was all set to go.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA declined to comment on Bell’s statement but did provide a broader response, saying that “EPA is committed to ensuring that science is at the backbone of everything the Agency does to deliver on our public health and environmental protection mission, and that we operate in a transparent manner to ensure public trust.” Bill Wehrum did not respond to requests for comment.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Decades of Industry Influence</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The suppression of the most recent draft assessment follows many years of interference with government science on formaldehyde. IRIS began updating its original assessment of the chemical in 1997 but almost immediately ran into resistance from industry, particularly <b>around the link to leukemia. A group called the Formaldehyde Council,<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"> Inc.</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">,</span> which represented companies that used the chemical, began challenging the numbers in the assessment and came up with a cancer risk that was thousands of times lower than the EPA’s. <b>Political appointees in the George W. Bush administration also helped industry postpone the release of the updated document.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> A 2008 Government Accountability Office report documented those delays and lamented the public health implications of having to rely on an IRIS assessment that was then 18 years old.</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yet that first assessment, completed three decades ago, is still guiding regulation.</span> I<b>n the intervening years, both the International Agency on Cancer Research, or IARC, and National Toxicology Program, whose chemical reviews don’t have the regulatory weight of IRIS assessments, classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen and recognized it as a cause of leukemia.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> In 2010, the EPA released a draft of the updated assessment, which also found that formaldehyde caused leukemia, but did not finalize it. </span>The <b>ACC was harshly critical of that draft,</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">and the agency sent the report to the National Academy of Sciences for peer review. The external agency confirmed its finding that formaldehyde causes cancer and encouraged the agency to quickly rewrite and reissue its report. But the EPA didn’t complete that work until 2016.</span></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vincent Cogliano, who directed the IRIS program from 2010 to 2017, said the delays during those years weren’t due to political or industry pressure. “We were really trying to get a very objective assessment released,” said Cogliano, who attributed the slow progress on the assessment in that period to the heavy workload of the small program. While Cogliano characterized some of the science around formaldehyde as complex, he said that no one on the IRIS staff disagreed about the relationship between myeloid leukemia and formaldehyde. “When I left the IRIS program in January 2017, I thought that it was ready to be released,” he said.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And yet more than four years later, the EPA has yet to release the updated IRIS assessment.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s very frustrating,” said Linda Birnbaum, who directed the National Toxicology Program from 2009 to 2019. “Here there is evidence that IARC said that formaldehyde was a known human carcinogen. And we said it was a known human carcinogen and that the data was clear. And more data has come out since then, especially from the National Cancer Institute, yet no word from EPA.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Formaldehyde was added back on to the list of chemicals being assessed on the IRIS public calendar in March. According to an EPA spokesperson, the IRIS Program anticipates releasing the draft assessment of formaldehyde for public comment and external peer review by September 30, 2022. The agency is widely expected to ask the National Academy of Sciences to weigh in on how and whether the agency should combine the cancer risk estimates for myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Orme-Zavaleta said that no one in the Biden EPA expressed hesitation about resuming work on it when she raised the issue in the first weeks of President Joe Biden’s tenure. “I asked them several times. I said, ‘I’m going to unsuspend formaldehyde, are you good with that?’ And every time, everybody said, ‘Fine, do it,’” she said. “It is moving!”</font></span></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite the assurances, those intimately familiar with the history of formaldehyde remain guarded in their optimism that the EPA is finally about to update the assessment of one of the most significant and widespread carcinogens in the U.S.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“For decades, up to now, the industry has pretty much managed to put out all the fires,” said Sussman. “But perhaps something really significant might be about to happen.”</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Update: August 19, 2021</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article has been updated with a comment from the American Chemistry Council.</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060095083">https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060095083</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>EPA's top science post has been vacant for six years, and there's no sign anyone will be hired soon.</b></font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Office of Research and Development has been without a Senate-confirmed leader since Paul Anastas left in early 2012. President Obama's next nominee for that job languished in the face of Republican opposition, and the Trump administration hasn't put forward its own nominee during 19 months in office.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The long-term lack of leadership in EPA's research arm has current staffers and former agency officials worried about the state of science at the agency charged with protecting public health and the environment. They warn that the Trump administration is overhauling EPA's science policies and crafting consequential rules without giving proper consideration to the agency's experienced researchers. And some see it as a signal that the administration more broadly is sidelining scientists as it advances industry-friendly policies.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The strategic decisions are made at the political level," said Anastas, who's now a professor at Yale University. "If science isn't at those strategic discussions, there's an important voice being left out."</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The administration is rumored to have reached out to several people for the job, all of whom declined, according to a career EPA employee.<b> Myron Ebell of the Conservative Enterprise Institute, who led the EPA transition team under President Trump, said he suggested several people for the agency to consider. "I don't know whether any of them wanted the job," he said. "It's frustrating that they still have these openings."</b></font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA's press office did not respond to a request for comment about the lack of political leadership in the science office.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Office of Research and Development (ORD) "is the scientific research arm" of the agency</b>, "whose leading-edge research helps provide the solid underpinning of science and technology for the agency," according to EPA's website. The office's research covers topics including air, climate, chemical safety, human health risks and water safety.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ORD has about 1,700 employees, according to an agency spokesman. Its staff is the largest within EPA's headquarters, and it's the second largest division after the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance when the regional office staff is included.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"The person we have is excellent, but she's an underdog," the career EPA employee said. Orme-Zavaleta attends meetings with political staff, and "she's there from time to time briefing them, but there's no consequence for them beating up on her," that person added</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. "ORD as a whole is being held hostage by the fact that we don't have someone at their equivalent stature going to bat for us."For now, longtime EPA career employee Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta is at the helm of the science office as its principal deputy assistant administrator. She has a doctorate in wildlife science and public health and has been at EPA since 1981. She's respected by her colleagues, but she isn't seen as an empowered leader of the office.</span></font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There's an issue of trust, said Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Any administration needs someone they're going to trust in a leadership position, and this administration in particular is extremely distrustful of career staff," he said.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">If the career staff running EPA's science division "were to threaten to quit and go to your news group or <em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Washington Post</em> with a tell-all of how EPA is distorting science, it's a lot less powerful than if President Trump's nominee does it,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">" said Bernard Goldstein, EPA science adviser during the Reagan administration. He took the science office's reins in late 1983, after Reagan's first EPA leader, Anne Gorsuch Burford, had resigned under pressure and while William Ruckelshaus was doing his second tour as administrator.</span></font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Goldstein recalled butting heads with EPA's air office over wood-stove rules. Congress wanted EPA to regulate pollution from wood stoves, but — fearing pushback for regulating household stoves — the air office drafted a document downplaying the cancer risks, he said.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As ORD chief, Goldstein went to Ruckelshaus to defend the science. Ultimately, by using the threat of regulation, the air office worked with industry to boost wood stoves' efficiency to produce less smoke and reduce the health risks, Goldstein said.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Being in the room when the information on a regulation that's science-based is presented to the administrator and the deputy administrator for a decision is really important to protect the science," Goldstein said. "Having someone who is nominated and confirmed by the Senate gives one more likelihood of being able to be there."</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Norine Noonan, who led the EPA science office during the Clinton administration, said her shop provided scientific support for tougher limits on fine particle air pollution and on arsenic in drinking water. She was frequently called before Congress to defend her office's work.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bob Huggett, who was also appointed to lead EPA's science office under Clinton, said he had to battle "all the time" to defend the agency's research — on Capitol Hill, in particular.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He recalled an epic brawl over curbing fine particle pollution. "We had hearings on the Hill, fights that you can't believe. [California Rep.] Dana Rohrabacher and other Republicans didn't want any part of it because it would have been more stringent regulations on emitters," Huggett said.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former officials say it's important to have the backing of the White House during those fights.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And there are plenty of political fights ahead for some of the big scientific and regulatory decisions currently pending at EPA.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The agency has proposed to overhaul how science is used in rulemaking by barring some scientific studies for which the underlying data aren't publicly available. Supporters of that move say it will boost transparency, but critics — including many scientists — say it will keep important public health data from being considered and will result in weaker regulations.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A political appointee in the research office, Richard Yamada, is a former House Republican staffer who is widely seen as a driving force behind the push to change which science EPA uses in rulemaking</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">s (</span><a href="https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060082467/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold;"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Climatewire</span></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, May 23).</span></font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA is also drafting important regulations dealing with everything from climate change and air pollution to water contaminants and pesticides. Those include major greenhouse gas rules for cars and power plants, which have been proposed but not finalized.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not everyone is convinced that a political leader in the science office is critical for moving ahead.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Obviously the agency has been able to proceed with rulemakings. They have a Science Advisory Board, a Clean Air [Scientific] Advisory Committee; they have an agency with thousands of scientists in it," said Howard Feldman, senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. "I'm not sure a singular individual is that essential."</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But former EPA officials and some advocacy groups say an empowered science official should be on hand to help shape those moves.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bureaucracy of the science office has attracted scrutiny in the past. A report by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council back in 2000 found that the assistant administrator for the research office was one of EPA's weakest and most transient administrative positions, <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Government Executive</em> reported at the time. The report found that the role had no authority over scientific work done by EPA program officials or the regional offices and often sparred with the agency's lawyers.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The power of the position to defend science likely depends on how much sway its holder has with the agency's top political brass. Former EPA officials and some advocacy groups are calling for Trump to hire an empowered science official to help shape future policies.</font></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Without science at the table, you're guaranteed not to have a strong scientific basis for your decision," said Tom Burke, who was appointed by Obama to replace Anastas as the head of the research and development office. Burke wasn't confirmed before the administration left office.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"This has not been a supportive environment for the application of science to policy choices," he added.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He and other critics of the Trump administration pointed to a recent EPA court setback on the pesticide chlorpyrifos as an example of where a confirmed official might have changed the outcome.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In that instance, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected agency scientists' proposed ban on the pesticide, prompting a fierce backlash from critics. A federal court earlier this month ordered EPA to reinstate the ban (<a href="https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060093783/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; font-weight: bold;"><em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Greenwire</em></a>, Aug. 9).</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"The science was settled on that," said Noonan, the Clinton-era ORD chief. "Without a leader in ORD — not that the administrator would necessarily go along with it or even listen — but when there is no assistant administrator at ORD, there is no one at the agency who can stand on the pillars of science and technology and say, 'This is a mistake.'"</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div>