EPA Holds off Industry Attack on Health, Safety and Environmental Data

[Guest guest]

EPA Holds off Industry Attack on Health, Safety and Environmental

Data

OMB Watch

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3904/1/1?TopicID=1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce's Data Quality Act (DQA) challenge and appeal of

supposed inconsistencies across several EPA databases. While

agreeing to make a few changes, the agency refused the Chamber's

demands that all variations between the EPA databases on chemicals

be eliminated, stating that they were not errors but acceptable

differences based on different scientific models.

Dating back to May 2004, the Chamber has argued that the variations

in information across sixteen EPA databases on characteristics of

chemicals should be resolved, because " use of this erroneous

information leads, for example, to widely varying — and hence

unreliable or ambiguous — determinations of human health risk

impacts. "

EPA rejected this claim in January 2005 and stated, " There are valid

and specific reasons why databases may contain differing values for

physical or chemical parameters. A specific property value for some

chemical may differ due to site-specific circumstances, as your

letter acknowledges, and will also depend on the source of the

information and the methodologies used. "

Finding this response unacceptable, the Chamber appealed the

decision in April 2005. The Chamber claimed, " [EPA's response]

rejects a requested review of erroneous data, largely disclaims or

ignores the fact that problems exist, and blatantly fails to address

the public need for quality information, thereby placing the onus

for examining and assuring data quality upon the users of such

information and leaving them to employ such information at their own

risk. "

An executive panel composed of senior EPA officials reviewed the

appeal and on June 22 responded to the Chamber. EPA said, " There are

valid reasons why databases may contain differing values of physical

or chemical parameters. " EPA also noted in its response to the

Chamber that " slight variations in assessments values noted between

tools do not reflect errors in the predictions or databases, but

rather reflect differences in the structures chosen by the

scientific development staff. To further clarify, there is currently

no harmonized, universal set of procedures … Inevitably, variations

in decision points will occur and it is not uncommon for these small

variances to be observed when reviewing multiple databases, or when

making quantitative predictions… "

EPA has otherwise taken a number of actions to resolve the concerns

raised by the Chamber. The executive panel noted, " There would be

potential benefit to the Agency from participation in an interagency

workgroup that evaluates the quality of data being used across the

federal government. " The agency has investigated current

opportunities for such engagement. EPA also posted information on

its website which " describe data limitations, suggest appropriate

uses for the data, and, where appropriate, offer a range of values

instead of one value. " Finally, EPA conveyed the concerns of the

Chamber to a private sector company, Syracuse Research Company

(SRC), which owns two databases identified by the Chamber in its

challenge because they are linked to on EPA's website. SRC

reportedly made changes to their databases pursuant to EPA's

request.

EPA's response to the appeal has not satisfied the Chamber. Bill

Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology, and regulatory

affairs for the Chamber, issued a statement on July 3 and

stated, " EPA has publicly declined to assume responsibility for the

integrity for the data it provides, disseminates or sponsors. "

In an interview with BNA, Kovacs also noted his frustration with the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of

Management and Budget in handling the matter. Stating that, " OIRA is

officially dead, " Kovacs reportedly tried to meet with OIRA

administrators concerning variations across EPA databases but was

apparently rebuffed.

The DQA tasked OIRA with overseeing implementation of information

quality guidelines at executive agencies. OIRA issued the initial

guidelines that shaped how agencies established DQA procedures and

has issued several memos on DQA providing additional advice to

agencies on implementation. One such memo included a request that

agencies involve OIRA in negotiations with data quality challengers —

a provision that seemed potentially inappropriate as it would

insert a political office with little or no expertise into complex

debates of highly scientific information. There has been no evidence

that OIRA has gotten directly involved in any DQA challenges, but as

the office's activities are difficult at best to monitor, its role

in individual challenges has always been a mystery.

The DQA process has been used by industry associations and companies

attempting to stymie the release of environmental and health

information and slow down health, safety and environmental

regulations. EPA's rejection of the Chamber's request may serve as a

statement that the DQA should not be used in such a manner. Perhaps

Kovacs' reaction is indicative of a realization that the DQA is not

always effective as a tool to slow down regulations