By Sarah Vogel

Today EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced additions to the Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Taken in conjunction with the drastic policy shift also announced today, Pruitt is set to fundamentally undercut the role science in driving EPA decisions that directly affect the health and safety of American families and communities.

The new policy would exclude any scientist receiving an EPA grant from serving on any of the agency’s advisory panels. This creates a profound hypocrisy: under the policy scientists who take money from ExxonMobil or even Russia—since funding from other governments wouldn’t be disqualifying—Pruitt would regard as trusted to offer impartial advice. Meanwhile, those who have grants from the US environmental agency – whose research program was praised by the National Academy of Sciences in a report just this past summer – cannot.

In Pruitt’s Alice-in-Wonderland world, the EPA advisory panels intended to ensure the agency is making use of the best and latest science should be populated overwhelmingly by industry-affiliated scientists, at the expense of independent academic scientists.

Along with the policy, Pruitt’s new appointments to the SAB and CASAC (see below) include longtime fossil fuel and chemical industry advocates, who have consistently played down or outright dismissed concerns about the risks of pollution or toxic chemical exposures based on discredited and outrageous scientific claims. Although the SAB is supposed to “provide independent advice and peer review on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to the EPA's Administrator,” these additions cannot be relied upon to faithfully uphold the Board’s mission.

Meanwhile, Pruitt also took the unprecedented step of not renewing any appointments for members whose terms expire this year. This allows Pruitt to reshape the panel in his own image more quickly.

All told, the goal is as clear as it is concerning: to create a rubber-stamp set of scientific advisers that can distort the science while still lending an aura of credibility to Pruitt’s destructive actions at the Agency.

The real losers are not the researchers, but rather American families who depend on having an agency that actually works to protect their health.

Meet some of Mr. Pruitt’s new science advisers

• Dr. Michael Honeycutt (Named to chair the Science Advisory Board)

Texas official with a long record of downplaying health concerns about pollutants and toxic chemicals ranging from ozone to benzene. Honeycutt argued against stronger ozone standards by noting most people spend their days indoors. He also claimed that “some studies even suggest that PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer.”

• Dr. Tony Cox (Named to chair the CASAC)

Denver-based consultant with long track record of conducting research that disputes the public health benefits of reducing air pollution. Cox has stated that there is “no evidence that reductions in air pollution levels have caused any reductions in mortality rates.”

• Dr. Robert Phalen

Record of disputing the benefits of clean air and air pollution limits; said that “Modern air … is a little too clean for optimum health.”

• Dr. S. Stanley Young

Professor at NC State affiliated with the climate-denying Heartland Institute, who claims that the “evidence is overwhelming” that if temperatures do increase, it will be “better for humans.”

• Donald van der Vaart

Former Secretary of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), who questions the well-established scientific consensus of climate change and, had a controversial tenure at the agency, notably over health advisories to well owners whose water might have been contaminated by coal ash.

• Dr. Anne Smith

Smith is a Managing Director of NERA Economic Consulting and co-head of its environmental practice. In work funded by the fossil fuel industry trade group the American Petroleum Institute, Smith argued that EPA data on lung response to ozone is imprecise, roundly debunked by policy experts and independent fact-checkers.

Today EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced additions to the Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Taken in conjunction with the drastic policy shift also announced today, Pruitt is set to fundamentally undercut the role science in driving EPA decisions that directly affect the health and safety of American […]

Co-authored by Beth Trask Utilities who deliver gas to homes and businesses, and/or generate electricity from gas, are important stakeholders along the natural gas supply chain. They are the face of natural gas to their customers; and, thus, they need to know that the gas they sell is being produced in the most responsible and transparent […]

By Mark Brownstein

Co-authored by Beth Trask

Utilities who deliver gas to homes and businesses, and/or generate electricity from gas, are important stakeholders along the natural gas supply chain. They are the face of natural gas to their customers; and, thus, they need to know that the gas they sell is being produced in the most responsible and transparent way possible—one in which the impacts to the air, water, and communities are minimized.

This week, some of the nation’s largest gas buyers joined forces in a new voluntary coalition, the Natural Gas Supply Collaborative (NGSC). Together, they released a set of 14 performance indicators—spanning air, water, chemicals and community/worker safety—that they’d like to see natural gas companies report on publically on an annual basis.

Developed in consultation with environmental NGOs, including EDF, and with input from a handful of gas company representatives, these indicators are positive step toward a more transparent gas supply chain in which buyers and sellers can have informed dialogue about how gas is being produced.

We encourage more large gas buyers to join the coalition and get involved in this conversation.

Customers are watching

There are nine participants in the NGSC, including Austin Energy, NRG Energy, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Combined, these nine companies deliver enough natural gas to meet the needs of more than 36 million households and business customers. They supply enough electricity from natural gas to power over 17 million U.S. homes annually.

Thus these large gas buyers and others like them have influence in the marketplace. And when they enter into contracts with oil and gas companies, they have an obligation to discuss how air and water pollution is being minimized and how the well-being of communities and workers is being protected.

As with all supply chain management work, these conversations begin with transparency—the foundation for the NGSC’s 14 indicators.

Better reporting on methane

About one-quarter of the warming we experience today is caused by methane from human activities, and the oil and gas industry is one of the largest human-caused methane sources on the planet.

Recent data from the International Energy Agency shows that at least 75% of global oil and gas methane emissions can be cut cost-effectively with existing technology.

The NGSC performance indicators prioritize the importance of methane emission reduction to a producer’s social license to operate. They suggest that companies disclose their methane emissions, in total and by intensity. Suggested remediation techniques include developing leak detection and repair (LDAR) practices and schedules; developing methane reduction goals; reducing flaring and venting practices; and participating in the field testing of new technologies designed to detect leaks.

Leading practices on wastewater management

The report also shines a spotlight on aspects of production relating to water, chemical use, community, and safety that would benefit from enhanced transparency and action. Of particular note are a number of performance measures related to water and wastewater management. Wastewater, or “produced water,” in particular can pose serious risks to water and land resources surrounding operations if spills and leaks occur, and even if wastewater is treated onsite and intentionally released to nearby waterways or fields without proper controls. This is due to not only the high salinity of wastewater, but also hundreds of potentially toxic pollutants that may be present.

NGSC calls for gas companies to report on the number and volume of wastewater spills each year and to disclose their strategies for managing and ultimately disposing of wastewater. Significantly, the report notes that the emerging practice of reusing wastewater in novel ways—for example selling wastewater to farmers to irrigate crops—is a concern. Before embarking on wastewater reuse, producers should participate in research to better understand the environmental and public health risks.

Co-authored by Beth Trask Utilities who deliver gas to homes and businesses, and/or generate electricity from gas, are important stakeholders along the natural gas supply chain. They are the face of natural gas to their customers; and, thus, they need to know that the gas they sell is being produced in the most responsible and transparent […]

Co-authored by Beth Trask Utilities who deliver gas to homes and businesses, and/or generate electricity from gas, are important stakeholders along the natural gas supply chain. They are the face of natural gas to their customers; and, thus, they need to know that the gas they sell is being produced in the most responsible and transparent […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels.  Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries with conflicts of interest from serving as EPA advisors.  

If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named “advisor to the Administrator” on chemicals, Michael Dourson.

When it comes to advice the agency receives, the core concern over the need to avoid conflicts of interest is this:  Is advice tainted because the entity employing and paying the advisor stands to gain or lose financially from the agency decision that is under advisement?  Say, for example, EPA selected as an advisor a consultant to Koch Industries who it paid for work that concluded the company’s releases into the environment of the petcoke generated by its facilities are safe.  A reasonable person would have a basis to believe that Koch could benefit financially from the advice its consultant might provide the agency.  In contrast, how does EPA stand to benefit financially from the results of research conducted by an EPA-funded scientist?  The simple answer is, it doesn’t.

Now let’s look at it from the perspective of the scientist receiving the funding.  Pruitt’s directive is based on the outlandish premise that EPA funds research in order to find problems it can then regulate, and hence that an EPA-funded researcher has an incentive to find a problem in order to better ensure continued EPA funding.  The claim is that the advice offered by that researcher would be “pre-tainted” toward supporting EPA policy decisions that drive regulation.  This theory that imagines a grand conspiracy between researchers and the agency is inherently flawed and unfounded.  

First, it ignores the fact that a distinctly non-regulatory part of EPA – the Office of Research and Development – funds virtually all of EPA’s extramural research.  ORD is intentionally a separate entity within EPA that manages science issues, precisely to provide some degree of separation from the program offices that make regulatory decisions.

Second, it ignores the process by which the agency’s research dollars are awarded.  These grants are competitive and grant applications undergo peer review by outside scientists – just like research grants funded by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.

Third, the results of EPA-funded extramural research must undergo another round of peer review in order to be published.  To the extent Pruitt believes that EPA researchers conduct unsound science just in order to find a problem EPA can regulate, there are safeguards the scientific community adopted long ago and continues to refine to prevent such scientific fraud or misconduct and punish it severely.

Folks, this is how public sector-funded science works across virtually every field of human inquiry.

But don’t take my word for the strength of EPA-funded research:  Just this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a review of the agency’s main research program, called “Science to Achieve Results” (STAR).  That review effectively raved about the program.  Among its conclusions:

• EPA has high-quality procedures for priority-setting that allow STAR to be integrated within EPA's research program.
• STAR's procedures to develop funding announcements and award grants ensure that the program sponsors research of high scientific merit.
• Research proposals are subject to thorough peer review, and conflicts-of-interest checks are extensive and embedded throughout the peer review process.
• The STAR program is productive. The committee found that the results of the research the program funded have led to numerous public benefits, including:
  • development of an environmental-science workforce,
  • development of human-resources and research infrastructure across the nation,
  • a potential reduction in the costs of compliance with environmental regulation, and
  • provision of the scientific basis of decisions required to protect public health and the environment.

Is Pruitt now going to impugn the integrity and objectivity of the NAS – the nation’s leading scientific body??

Which brings us back to Pruitt’s directive and the real motivation behind it:  to skew the advice EPA receives heavily in the direction of supporting the anti-science and anti-public health agenda he is aggressively implementing.

So what does all of this have to do with the provocative headline I gave to this post?  If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named “advisor to the Administrator” on chemicals, Michael Dourson.  Pruitt made that appointment so that Dourson could start work at the agency (he started two weeks ago) even though his nomination to head the chemical safety office at EPA has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.  Dourson has repeatedly touted the fact that he and his company Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) were funded by EPA.  Just look at their annual reports.

Pruitt seems just fine with ignoring Dourson’s extensive conflicts of interest involving his work for companies to exonerate their chemicals – companies and chemicals he would be charged with regulating if confirmed to his leadership post at EPA.  Pruitt certainly didn’t let such things bother him when clearing his political deputy Nancy Beck of any ethical conflicts based on the astounding ethics agreement that gives her wide latitude to work at EPA on issues in which her immediately preceding employer the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has financial interests – in order to ensure those interests are taken into account.

My guess is Pruitt will just as readily ignore the fact that Dourson should be Exhibit A under his new directive.  But then, the bar for hypocrisy has never been set lower than under this administration.

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels.  Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries […]

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels.  Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries […]

Tell the Alabama Public Service Commission to curb natural gas leaks. Regional.

Tell the Alabama Public Service Commission to curb natural gas leaks. Regional.

Tell the Alabama Public Service Commission to curb natural gas leaks. Regional.

More and more companies are making public commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions outside of their own operations. Why? Because compared to scope 1 and 2 emissions (from direct activities), avoiding scope 3 emissions can have the greatest impact on a corporate footprint. The numbers are clear: the majority of GHG emissions come from indirect […]

By Daniel Hill

More and more companies are making public commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions outside of their own operations. Why? Because compared to scope 1 and 2 emissions (from direct activities), avoiding scope 3 emissions can have the greatest impact on a corporate footprint.

The numbers are clear: the majority of GHG emissions come from indirect activities, both upstream and downstream, in the supply chain. In fact, for most of consumer goods products manufacturing, scope 3 emissions account for over 70% of overall GHG emissions. Included is everything from purchasing raw materials to end of life treatment.

But their very nature—being present throughout all stages of production—also makes scope 3 emissions the trickiest to influence. After all, companies can’t see reductions without the help of suppliers.

Project Manager, EDF Climate Corps

So how one approaches setting supply chain goals is important:

1. Before anything can be set, the proper stakeholders must be looped into the process. Understanding of how a company’s supply chain works will dictate what data needs to be collected, and from which suppliers;
2. The goal also has to be achievable, and set specifically to a company’s own GHG footprint;
3. A system must in place to credibly measure and report on both the environmental and business impacts;
4. The target should be based in science.

This last point is incredibly important, because setting science-based supply chain targets has officially become mainstream: since 2015, when Walmart surpassed it’s 20 million metric ton GHG avoidance goal, and the Science-Based Target initiative was launched at COP 21 in Paris, over 250 companies (including some of the Fortune 500’s largest) have committed to setting science-based scope 3 goals. Now Walmart’s pushing the envelope even further with its Project Gigaton initiative.

Reducing corporate footprints by setting science-based supply chain targets has become mainstream,…
Click To Tweet

My point here? All this momentum, at such a huge scale, means that without science-based supply chain goals, your company’s sustainability plan will likely not be taken seriously. Not by your customers. Not by your shareholders. And not by your board members or employees.

Yes, navigating scope 3 can be daunting. There are a number of different methods—an absolute reduction goal versus an intensity goal—that take into account different scopes, have different benefits and are for different data needs. In other words, there are a lot of moving parts.

But the good news is there are tools and resources out there that can offer guidance on which approach is best suited for your company, helping to make the process more manageable. EDF’s Supply Chain Solutions Center will present a November 2nd webinar on this exact subject to help you get started.

So be taken seriously. The journey toward sustainable supply chains may contain unexpected twists and turns, but in the end, it will be well worth it… for both your business and the planet.

More and more companies are making public commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions outside of their own operations. Why? Because compared to scope 1 and 2 emissions (from direct activities), avoiding scope 3 emissions can have the greatest impact on a corporate footprint. The numbers are clear: the majority of GHG emissions come from indirect […]

More and more companies are making public commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions outside of their own operations. Why? Because compared to scope 1 and 2 emissions (from direct activities), avoiding scope 3 emissions can have the greatest impact on a corporate footprint. The numbers are clear: the majority of GHG emissions come from indirect […]

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

Children and adults are getting ready for Halloween. It appears that one of the current top selling items is some version of a Trump costume. Anyone going the political route will be perfectly synced with the recently released Chapman University Survey of America Fear Waves 4 (2017)....

We're running out of time to fight this concerning plan.

We're running out of time to fight this concerning plan.