The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board unanimously agreed Thursday to vet a controversial proposal from Administrator Scott Pruitt that would block the agency from using scientific studies that do not make public the raw data used in research.
Members of the 44-person board, a panel of outside researchers and experts who review the quality of the science the EPA relies on, concur with critics who say the proposed rule would restrict the science the EPA could use when drafting environmental regulations.
They also complained the rule was drafted without the consultation of the scientific community and outside the normal public engagement process.
“There is a real lack of clarity in how you would unroll this and actually apply it,” Allison Cullen, a public policy professor at the University of Washington and a member of the board, said at the meeting.
The new science research rule “would limit the use of science based on human subject data and was conducted without consultation from the scientific community,” a working group of the Science Advisory Board noted in recommending that the full board vet the proposed rule.
The working group found the rule to be “highly controversial and could have the effect of removing legal, ethical, and peer-reviewed studies of health effects as sources to support the agency’s regulatory efforts.”
The decision to review the rule was made during the Science Advisory Board’s first meeting since Pruitt appointed new members, many with energy industry ties, with the goal of diversifying its representation.
Pruitt shook up the makeup of the panel last October when he issued a policy barring members of EPA’s scientific advisory boards from also receiving agency grants.
Last month, Pruitt built on the advisory board’s policy when he unveiled his proposed rule on scientific research, which he says is meant to combat “secret science” by improving transparency and ensure science used in policy-making can be independently verified.
The board’s decision Friday to review the science rule reassured environmentalists and others who worry Pruitt’s shake-up of advisory boards threatens their independence and oversight role.
Thomas Breenan, the EPA’s acting director for the Science Advisory Board staff office, defended the panel’s diversity, telling reporters Friday that of the 44 members, half are from academia, with the second half split between state government officials, industry representatives, independent consultants, and members of nonprofit groups.
In voting to review the science research rule, the advisory board can issue recommendations on how to improve it or whether to scrap it.
Pruitt is not required to follow any proposed recommendations.
The Science Advisory Board also voted Friday to review five other EPA actions, including the agency’s planned repeal of the Clean Power Plan, its decision to scrap Obama administration fuel-efficiency rules, and repealing a rule regulating emissions from so-called “glider trucks.”
Members mostly did not express concerns about the substance of the plans, but rather said the EPA had not adequately responded to requests from board members for information about the proposed rules. The board can advise EPA only on scientific matters, not policy or legal issues.
But board members said there were several cases where key information about the planned action and its supporting science were provided only after requests.
“We always encourage the EPA to engage the SAB [Science Advisory Board] as early as they can, as early as practical,” Michael Honeycutt, the new chairman of the board selected by Pruitt, told reporters.
Honeycutt is director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division.
An EPA official who attended the meeting vowed to be more transparent with the board, but argued its repeal of the Clean Power Plan, for example, does not contain new science and represents a policy decision based on the legality of the regulation.
The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan targets carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, requiring states to reduce carbon emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Pruitt says former President Barack Obama based the Clean Power Plan on an expansive and illegal interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
Members did express specific doubt about the glider rule rollback.
Pruitt has moved to exempt glider trucks from a requirement that forces other heavy-duty trucks to install modern emissions control systems.
Glider trucks are older trucks equipped with remanufactured engines that do not have modern emissions controls.
EPA’s own researchers had determined that glider trucks are 40 to 55 times more polluting than new trucks.
Pruitt’s EPA, however, claims glider trucks are not new motor vehicles so the agency can’t regulate them under the Clean Air Act.
The agency justified its reasoning for repealing the stronger emissions standards by citing a Tennessee Technological University study that the president of the school has since disavowed because of questions about its accuracy and methods.
The study was funded by the country’s largest manufacturer of glider trucks, Fitzgerald Glider Kits of Byrdstown, Tenn., which would benefit from the repeal of the emissions standards.
“It is clear that this proposed rule is based on claims and assumptions about glider vehicle emissions, safety, and cost that could be assessed via rigorous technical analysis, but it appears that EPA has not attempted to undertake relevant analyses,” a work group of the Science Advisory Board said in convincing the full board to review the proposal.
