SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY 

AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 

Serial No. 110–149 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AT THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–923 PDF 2010

SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY 

AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 

Serial No. 110–149 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chair 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

BART STUPAK, Michigan, Chairman 

DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 277 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 278 

WITNESSES

John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Francesca Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Director, Science Integrity Program, 

Union of Concerned Scientists ............................................................................ 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Deborah Rice, Ph.D., State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................................................ 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council ...... 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 107 

David Parshley, Project Manager, Glynn Environmental Coalition .................... 137 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 139 

Sharon H. Kneiss, Vice President, Products Division, American Chemistry 

Council .................................................................................................................. 212 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 214 

George M. Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 245 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 248 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Slide presented by Mr. Inslee ................................................................................. 279 

Charts on IRIS Process ........................................................................................... 280 

Subcommittee exhibit binder .................................................................................. 285 

(1) 

SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE: SCIENTIFIC 

INTEGRITY AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Stupak 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stupak, Melancon, Green, 

Inslee, Dingell (ex officio), Shimkus, Walden, Burgess, and Barton 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Scott Schloegel, John Sopko, John Arlington, Paul 

Jung, Kyle Chapman, Katherine Graham, Alan Slobodin, Karen 

Christian, and Whitney Drew. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. STUPAK. This meeting will come to order. 

Today we have a hearing entitled ‘‘Science under Siege: Scientific 

Integrity at the Environmental Protection Agency.’’ Each member 

will have 5 minutes for an opening statement. I will begin. 

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 

is to protect human health and the environment. This mission is 

best accomplished by regulatory decisions based on reliable science. 

However, indications are that the Environmental Protection Agency may instead be using selective science in regulatory decisions. 

The purpose of our hearing is to review the apparent lack of scientific integrity in parts of the EPA. We will examine four specific 

examples. One, a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists 

that found significant political interference in scientific work at 

EPA; two, the supposed ‘‘streamlining’’ of the Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS, which actually makes it more difficult for 

EPA to publish scientific analyses on chemical risk; third, the removal of Dr. Deborah Rice from a scientific peer review panel at 

the request of the chemical industry; and fourth, the EPA’s adoption of a since-discredited clean-up plan for the chemical toxaphene 

at the Hercules Superfund near Brunswick, Georgia. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, conducted a study on 

political interference at the EPA. Scientists reported that they personally experienced political interference in the last 5 years and 

2 

being directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from EPA scientific documents. Scientists often identified the 

White House Office of Management and Budget as the primary 

source of external interference. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 

study paints a picture far from the open scientific debate that we 

should expect from a science-based regulatory agency. 

The Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is the U.S. 

government’s catalog of the health effects of toxic chemicals. To 

have information placed into IRIS, EPA scientists carefully evaluate the science of each chemical and provide relevant data in the 

system. On April 10, 2008, the EPA instituted a new streamlined 

process for IRIS, which actually increases the number of steps in 

the evaluation process. Notably, the new process now requires approval by OMB at least twice prior to final posting in IRIS. As expected, this new process will delay the reporting of chemical hazards and make it more difficult for EPA scientists to publish their 

data in IRIS. 

Dr. Deborah Rice was invited by EPA to chair a 5-member peer 

review panel to update the IRIS assessment of the chemical deca, 

a flame retardant used on plastics and textiles. After the deca peer 

review panel concluded their business and posted their final comments, the EPA removed Dr. Rice from the panel and erased her 

comments from the report at the behest of the American Chemistry 

Council. Their reasons included the fact that Dr. Rice provided testimony to the Maine Legislature in her capacity as the Maine state 

toxicologist on their proposal to ban deca. Dr. Rice was informed 

of this decision by telephone. She received no written explanation. 

It appears that Dr. Rice was removed from the peer review panel 

because she had expertise on the chemical in question and was 

asked to provide that expertise to a state legislature. 

Toxaphene is an insecticide that was widely used in the United 

States on crops, fish, and livestock before it was completely banned 

in 1990 due to health hazards. Brunswick, Georgia, is the home of 

the Hercules 009 landfill, a superfund site where toxaphene waste 

was dumped from 1975 to 1980. This superfund site abuts the local 

elementary school and the community is concerned that toxaphene 

and its harmful breakdown products may persist at that site. Since 

the Hercules 009 became a superfund site in 1984, EPA continues 

to use an outdated, inaccurate scientific method to detect the 

toxaphene, while other federal agencies, including the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, the Army Corps of 

Engineers, and EPA’s Inspector General recommended the use of 

the negative ion mass spectroscopy, NIMS, as they call it. EPA has 

not adopted NIMS as their standard test. In addition, the EPA’s 

method to clean up the Hercules 009 site is based on an article 

published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 

which has been assailed by scientists as having an industry bias. 

In addition, it appears the Hercules Corporation has hired the 

Weinberg Group, a consulting firm under investigation by our committee, to determine the toxicity of toxaphene. These actions paint 

a suspicious picture of questionable regulatory decisionmaking. 

Today we will hear from several witnesses. Our first panel will 

include Dr. Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, 

who will discuss her organization’s report, and Mr. John StephenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
3 

son of the Government Accountability Office, who will discuss 

GAO’s report on the new IRIS changes. 

Our second panel will include Dr. Rice, who will testify about her 

removal from the EPA peer review panel, Dr. Jennifer Sass from 

the National Resources Defense Council, who will tell us how the 

new IRIS changes will affect environmental science, Mr. Daniel 

Parshley of the Glynn Environmental Coalition to discuss issues at 

the Hercules superfund site, and Sharon Kneiss of the American 

Chemistry Council, who will testify about ACC’s role in the removal of Dr. Rice from the EPA’s peer review panel. 

Finally, we will hear from Marcus Peacock, Deputy Director, and 

George Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses. I believe today’s testimony will show how the EPA has dangerously undermined the role of science in regulatory decision making. The EPA 

under the Bush Administration appears to have put politics before 

science, to the harm of not just the environment but to the fundamentals of science. Science is not a Republican or Democratic 

issue. It must be based on facts and not political affiliation. I sincerely hope today’s testimony will be taken seriously by the EPA 

and that they will work seriously to ensure the science will return 

to its proper role within the Agency. 

That concludes my opening statement. 

Mr. STUPAK. I will turn to my friend, Mr. Shimkus from Illinois, 

for your opening statement, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this oversight hearing. 

Over the last year, some individuals and advocacy groups including some of the witnesses before us today have charged that the 

EPA has interfered with certain scientific decisions for political 

reasons or at the behest of industry. Dr. Francesca Grifo of the 

Union of Concerned Scientists will testify on the first panel as she 

has testified before the House and Senate panels about her organization’s report, Interference at the EPA. After reviewing the testimony in that, I guess part of the irony of this is that the Union 

of Concerned Scientists not using a scientific poll in this Interference at the EPA, which we all know about polling and we know 

the scientific process and we know one that is not. 

A number of hearings have been held in the House and Senate 

discussing alleging interference, in particular this year’s hearing on 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS. This committee and this subcommittee have a long history of examining 

EPA on issues of scientific decisionmaking. These issues are altogether appropriate topics for an oversight hearing. What troubles 

me is the way this hearing has come together and the title of the 

hearing implies that the Majority has drawn a conclusion before we 

have even obtained testimony and all the evidence. It is important 

in any investigation to take the time to gather the facts, to hear 

both sides of the story and to weight and vet the information you 

receive. Given the amount of attention that has been devoted to alVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
4 

leged political interference at the EPA over the last year, it may 

be tempting to make assumptions and prematurely draw conclusions. We are presented today with three separate cases that the 

Majority contends are examples of science under siege, but based 

upon the incomplete factual record of today, I cannot conclude one 

way or the other that EPA made the decisions it did because of political or industry influence or that anything was done wrong. We 

all know there are good-faith disputes over science and disagreements with policy calls that happen every day at the EPA. In fact, 

the background on each of these cases is complex and the three 

case studies may not even be particularly strong examples in support of the charge of political interference. 

For instance, let us consider the case of the cleanup plan for the 

Hercules site in Georgia. EPA implemented a plan to clean up 

toxaphene, a pesticide, at a landfill site. A dispute arose as to 

whether the EPA had picked the right method to test for toxaphene 

in the soil and the groundwater. Two EPA Office of Inspector General reports issued in 2005 essentially concluded that EPA would 

not be able to determine whether its cleanup plan was effective because its testing method was incapable of measuring whether degraded toxaphene was present. In responding to these reports, EPA 

cited an article published in the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Journal as a basis for its Hercules toxicity calculations. 

Now, some in the scientific community believe this journal’s efforts 

to identify conflicts of interest among its board when selecting articles for publication are inadequate and therefore the Agency’s reliance on this article was improper. It may be that this article does 

not support the cleanup plan EPA adopted or does not represent 

the best science on toxaphene. It may also be that the Agency’s 

delay in resolving the questions surrounding the testing for 

toxaphene is indefensible. But this does not mean that the EPA’s 

decision was improperly influenced by industry and we have yet to 

uncover any evidence to substantiate that claim. Indeed, the Committee has not even interviewed the EPA staff who worked on the 

cleanup plan or collected a single document on the issue. Let me 

just highlight that. The Committee has not interviewed the EPA 

staff who worked on the cleanup plan or collected a single document on this issue. 

I have similar questions about the EPA’s actions with respect to 

peer review panel for deca, a flame retardant. Dr. Deborah Rice 

was the chair of the panel but her comments were removed from 

the peer review report due to possible appearance of impartiality 

after the American Chemistry Council informed EPA that Dr. Rice 

has testified before the Maine Legislature about deca. Dr. Rice and 

the ACC are witnesses on the second panel, and Dr. George Gray 

of EPA, who ultimately removed Dr. Rice’s comments, is on our 

third panel. At least with respect to this case, we may be able to 

hear all sides of the story because the parties are here. The removal of Dr. Rice’s comments is obviously a very sensitive issue because it involves not only the integrity of the peer review process 

but also Dr. Rice’s professional reputation. So we must be especially careful when we try to sort through the facts in order to understand the EPA’s rules on impartiality and peer review panels 

and how they are applied in this case. Does the fact that Dr. Rice 

5 

believed that the evidence supported banning deca and that reasonable alternatives exist to deca mean that she is impartial when it 

comes to developing a toxicological assessment of the chemical? Is 

a determination about banning deca or that alternatives exist a 

separate issue from the types of issues Dr. Rice reviewed as a 

member of the deca panel? Does expressing any opinion on toxicity 

of a chemical prevent you from serving on a peer review panel on 

IRIS matters? These matters are not black and white and I think 

it is fair to say that reasonable minds can disagree about when a 

person’s opinions or professional experience might cause them to be 

impartial on a certain issue. I hope the witnesses today will give 

us some guidance on this issue and their thoughts on whether the 

EPA process are sufficient or whether they can be improved. 

Finally, Mr. John Stephenson of GAO is here to discuss his office 

report on the recent changes to EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 

System, or IRIS. EPA made a number of changes to the process to 

allow for participation by other government agencies, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and the public. The GAO report contends 

that these changes have slowed the IRIS review process almost to 

a halt. I am interested in learning why EPA made the changes it 

did and whether the process can be improved so IRIS risk assessments are completed in a timely manner, but again, I think we 

should not rush to conclude that simply because changes were 

made that they were made by this Administration that they are 

not valid reasons for interagency involvement in the IRIS process, 

and that is my point. It is one thing to conclude that EPA has been 

slow to adopt the prevailing science and has made the wrong policy 

decisions. It is an entirely different matter to attribute that mistake to political or industry interference. That is a serious charge, 

and if it is happening, EPA must be held accountable, but we need 

to do our work and make sure that the facts support the charge. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. Dingell for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

First of all, this is an important hearing, and second of all, I 

thank you and commend you for holding it. 

Scientific integrity is an essential ingredient of every decision 

that is made by the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, there is a substantial question as to whether or not that is 

always the case. I would note that this has been a continuing problem to me and to this committee for years, and it appears to be 

continuing under the current Administration. So the question here 

is, is this the case under the current Administration and why is 

there a problem under this Administration? 

There is growing evidence that the Congress, the States, the local 

governments, the public, and even other countries cannot rely on 

EPA for honest science. I repeat, I have found that to be the situation which has confronted this committee for a number of years. 

6 

The landmark survey of EPA scientists conducted by the Union 

of Concerned Scientists, UCS, confirms what many had feared, that 

the Bush Administration’s political interference now going on with 

EPA scientists is both pervasive and frequent. 

The UCS scientist survey found that more than 500 EPA scientists knew of many or some cases where EPA political appointees 

had interfered with scientific decisions. 

Nearly 100 EPA scientists identified the White House Office of 

Management and Budget as the primary source of external interference and more than 500 scientists said they feared retaliation 

for speaking candidly about EPA’s scientific work. Clearly then, 

there is reason to believe we are not talking about an isolated instance. 

The testimony we will hear today exposes a broad pattern of political meddling by the Bush Administration directed at EPA scientists and its science. 

The prime example of the Administration’s recent changes to the 

Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS process, under which 

chemicals are evaluated to determine the extent to which they may 

be hazardous to the public health, is a matter of concern to the 

committee. For 20 years, government agencies both here and 

abroad have relied on IRIS for scientific, reliable information on 

the human health effects of hundreds of widely used chemicals. 

Drinking water standards and workplace exposure standards are 

based on scientific data contained in the IRIS database. 

Undeterred by the success of the IRIS system, however, the Bush 

Administration has changed the IRIS process to all but halt the addition of new chemicals to the database. What was once a careful 

and thoughtful scientific process managed by EPA scientists has 

become a cumbersome, bureaucratic, political exercise run by OMB, 

and the studies and the analysis that you have on this matter, Mr. 

Chairman, will tend to buttress the complexity that is now built 

into this system. 

Under the new system, the two largest polluters in the United 

States—the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy—are permitted to provide secret comments to OMB, which 

then has the final say on what goes into the IRIS system. We must 

inquire why these two agencies should be permitted to submit secret comments to OMB and why it is that even EPA is not permitted to see these comments. It raises questions as to the worth 

of the system under this kind of curious modification. And because 

all of this is now done in secrecy, it is entirely unclear as to who 

has or does not have a hand in the process. In short, what was 

once a process marked by transparency, candor, and credibility is 

now apparently marked by secrecy, manipulation, influence, and 

probably connivers. 

Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to welcome to this hearing Dr. 

Deborah Rice, chief toxicologist for the State of Maine. Dr. Rice’s 

removal from the IRIS peer review panel at the request of the 

chemical industry is curious, and it is to be assumed that this is 

because she testified before the Maine Legislature. Clearly, this is 

disgraceful. I look forward to hearing from EPA management about 

specific steps they are taking to rectify these problems and to protect the scientific integrity of the Agency and at the Agency. I also 

7 

will look forward to hearing from the Administration what they 

propose to do to see to it that the taint of possible political manipulation or influence at the IRIS process is corrected in a proper fashion. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Barton for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Stupak. Thank you for convening this hearing concerning the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Republicans on the Committee welcome oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. The topics discussed in this hearing, the 

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, the composition of EPA 

peer review panels, and the management of Superfund sites are all 

important issues and important to public health. The title of this 

hearing, however, does trouble me. It in itself could be considered 

to be an attack on the EPA, or if you want to say, a surrogate attack on the Bush Administration. The title of this hearing makes 

a serious charge that science at the EPA is under siege and that 

its integrity may have been compromised. Has this really happened? Have scientific conclusions been improperly influenced by 

politics or by interested parties? These are certainly critical questions but somehow I don’t believe that we are going to get too many 

facts at this hearing to really answer those questions. 

The Majority offers three case studies today to make the argument that the EPA and its scientific conclusions have somehow 

been improperly influenced. One case involves changes to the IRIS 

system, which were the subject of a GAO report issued last spring. 

The second involves a Hercules Superfund cleanup site in Georgia, 

which has been the subject of some dispute due to the cleanup 

methods that the EPA adopted for the site. The third is a peer review of a chemical used in flame retardants known as deca that 

took place in early 2007 for the purpose of including certain information on the aforementioned IRIS system. Reviewer’s comments 

were struck from the peer review report after concerns were raised 

about a potential conflict of interest. Both Dr. Deborah Rice, the reviewer, and the American Chemistry Council, the group that raised 

the concern to EPA, will testify today and I think that is a good 

thing. We will also hear from two organizations, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, 

about their experiences with the EPA decision making. 

I am not prepared today to conclude one way or the other whether the Agency was right or wrong or whether they influenced data. 

In the Hercules case, for example, the Committee has not even 

talked to the EPA project managers who oversaw the cleanup to 

get a sense of why they adopted the cleanup method that they did 

or why they didn’t use certain technologies to detect chemicals at 

the site. As far as I know, no documents have been requested from 

the EPA or, for that matter, anyone else. I understand that the 

Majority may suggest that EPA improperly relied on a particular 

journal article because a journal has an affiliation with industry. 

8 

The Agency’s reliance on the article and its role in determining the 

Hercules cleanup is a legitimate scientific issue. But at least in my 

opinion, without talking to the people involved and obtaining the 

documents, it is somewhat of a leap to judge the EPA’s motives. 

Shooting first and asking questions later does get results, especially if you hit your target, but better science probably won’t be 

one of them. 

The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, that whether we are a Republican or a Democrat, we all want the EPA to develop and use the 

best science possible, and I emphasize the best science possible, 

when making regulatory decisions. An agency like EPA that is entrusted with the public health cannot be allowed to ignore honest 

scientific reports. It must be required to apply the data objectively 

but science is progressing and science does change. Good faith disputes about what the data is are just that, good-faith disputes. 

What we conclude from those data points, we can all have a different opinion, especially experts. It happens all the time. We 

should be very careful before we assign motives to those disputes 

and attribute differences in opinion to political meddling or industry influence. It is our job to keep an eye on both the politics and 

the science as members of this oversight subcommittee but it is not 

our job sometimes simply just to shoot at specific targets for political purposes. 

We are having a hearing today, and again, I am not opposed to 

having this hearing, but I do think that we should have scheduled 

this particular hearing 2 years ago when the new Majority took 

over. I think it is a legitimate question for a different political majority to want to have an honest review of a different politically affiliated Administration’s opinions and perhaps even system review 

processes about issues of this type. I don’t really have a problem 

with that. But we are having this almost the last week that we are 

scheduled to be in regular session and it is just simply not the time 

to find the kind of facts and to develop the kind of database that 

we really need to develop if we are going to make some conclusions 

about the EPA, as the title of the hearing puts it, being under 

siege. 

Our oversight and investigation responsibility, and I mean this, 

this subcommittee and the full committee under the chairmanship 

of John Dingell in the past and Mr. Bliley, Mr. Tauzin and myself 

in the recent past and now in the current sense with you, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Dingell as the full committee chairman is probably, 

and I shouldn’t even say ‘‘probably,’’ I will say it is the most effective oversight operation in the House of Representatives, so we 

should use it in an objective fashion to get the facts and then come 

to the conclusions. 

Mr. Chairman, sometimes the risk of overlooking a problem is 

outweighed by the risk of underinvestigating one, and I really hope 

now that we have started this, and I mean this, let us really get 

all the facts. We all need an EPA that is objective. We all need an 

EPA that does use the best science and we all need an EPA that 

does provide the Congress and the country with the optimal solutions to our environmental problems. So again, I have no problem 

with this hearing. I do have a little bit of a problem with the timVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
9 

ing of it and I hope that as we progress in this particular inquiry, 

that we do get the facts before we come up with conclusions. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I certainly respectfully yield back my 

time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thanks, Mr. Barton, and specifically as to the 

Hercules cleanup, you raised a couple of questions there and I just 

wanted to let you know that the committee staff on both sides have 

done due diligence here. We did invite the head of the Superfund 

program to testify but they said they couldn’t make it. We specifically asked for a briefing on Hercules prior to the hearing. We are 

still waiting for the briefing. We also invited the EPA to send a 

witness from Region 4 who would be familiar with the site but 

again, we are still waiting for an answer from the EPA whether or 

not these people can testify. And you are right, we are running out 

of time so I guess bob-and-weave can only go so long, so we had 

to have our hearing. So some of those concerns are valid but I want 

you to know, we did ask for those witnesses because we do always 

try to have a full, complete hearing. Once in a while we just have 

to move forward if an agency is not going to cooperate with you and 

we didn’t think a subpoena was necessary at this point in time. 

Maybe it will be in the future on this issue. 

Mr. Burgess, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

recognition. I am going to submit my opening statement for the 

record because this is an important hearing and I do want that recorded but I do want to go off topic for just a moment and talk 

about something else because we are up against the end of a session and our time is limited. 

This committee, this subcommittee in particular, has taken a 

leadership role with issues relating to individual privacy. We have 

focused on privacy-invading practices such as pretexting, spyware, 

and hacking. We recognize correctly the pernicious effects of information theft, identify theft, and theft of information in a free society, but this morning we are faced with stories on the news wires 

involving a governor of a State, a vice presidential nominee, and 

these assaults on the privacy of Governor Palin should be aggressively investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted to the fullest 

extent of federal law. This subcommittee has jurisdiction over this 

issue and should take the lead in this investigation. 

The fact that Governor Palin’s e-mail account was hacked and 

not only was it hacked but the information was then freely distributed on the World Wide Web and the information posted revealed 

only information of a personal nature because it was a personal email account. As the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, let us look to whether appropriate safeguards are in place by 

e-mail carriers such as Yahoo, MSN and Google against the malicious actions of those who would act to violate the personal privacy 

of a public individual. Theft of personal information is an asymmetric threat which can affect any one of us in public service and 

certainly any one of the constituents that we serve. We are obligated to maintain oversight of the telecommunications industry 

10 

and ensure that no personal information is made inappropriately 

available. And if and when transgressions are uncovered, they need 

to be fully investigated and prosecuted under existing statutes. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the indulgence and I will yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Melancon, opening statement? 

Mr. MELANCON. No, I am going to waive. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. That concludes the opening statements by 

members and I am going to ask the witnesses to come forward. 

They are already seated, Mr. Stephenson and Dr. Grifo. It is the 

policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. 

Please be advised that you have the right under the rules of the 

House to be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do you wish 

to be represented by counsel? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Grifo? 

Ms. GRIFO. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. I am going to ask if you would please rise and raise 

your right hand to take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect that the witnesses replied in 

the affirmative. Each of you are now under oath and you can give 

your opening statement. We would ask that you please try to limit 

it to 5 minutes, and your full statement will be made part of the 

record, so Mr. Stephenson, if you would like to start, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I am here today to discuss our recent work on EPA’s 

Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. It is a database that 

contains EPA’s scientific position on the health effects and exposure of more than 540 toxic chemicals. IRIS is a critical component 

of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations and is a cornerstone of scientific 

integrity at the Agency. My testimony today is based primarily on 

our March 2008 report and additional work we did to support a 

May 2008 testimony before the Senate. 

Our work clearly shows that the IRIS database is at serious risk 

of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to complete 

timely, credible, scientific assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 

ongoing assessments. Efforts to improve IRIS since 2000 have been 

thwarted by a combination of factors, including OMB and interagency reviews, EPA decisions to delay assessments to wait for 

new research or additional uncertainty analysis, and the 

compounding effects of continuous delays. Moreover, two new OMB 

interagency reviews involve other federal agencies in a manner 

that limits the credibility of these scientific assessments and 

hinders EPA’s ability to manage them. In addition, OMB is inserting itself into the decisionmaking process by, for example, requiring 

EPA to determine five assessments EPA’s own Office of Air said 

that it needed to help implement the Clean Air Act. The effect of 

11 

all of these changes to what should be a purely scientific process 

is that chemicals can remain in the assessment process for as much 

as 10 years and the backlog grows. 

Our report included specific recommendations for streamlining in 

the IRIS program, improving the transparency and credibility of its 

assessments and ensuring that EPA has the requisite independence to achieve its goals, recommendations that EPA in responding 

to our March 2008 report agreed to consider. However, when EPA 

released its new IRIS process in April 2008, we were extremely disappointed. 

The new IRIS process is not responsive to our recommendations 

and in many respects is worse than the draft process we reviewed 

for our report. For example, the draft process would have made 

comments from other federal agencies part of the public record. 

The new process expressly defines such comments as deliberative, 

excluding them from public scrutiny in what amounts to a black 

box. As a result, the first assessment drafts to become publicly 

available are provided to independent peer review committees incorporate undisclosed changes from federal agencies such as the 

Departments of Defense and Energy, the very agencies that may be 

affected by the assessments should they lead to regulatory actions. 

You cannot on one hand preach sound science and on the other 

hand violate one of its principles: transparency. 

Mr. Chairman, you will hear EPA say later in this hearing that 

the IRIS process is transparent because final assessments must undergo public and external peer review. However, in our view, transparency at this late stage after OMB and other agencies have had 

multiple opportunities to influence the content of the assessment 

without any disclosure of their input does not compensate for its 

absence earlier. Instead of streamlining IRIS, EPA has institutionalized the process that from the outset will take 6 to 8 years 

to complete a chemical assessment. Under those time frames, the 

scientific assessments will be obsolete before they can be completed. 

To illustrate how bad the situation is, my testimony includes several examples of dangerous chemicals that are stuck in the endless 

loop of assessment and reassessment. For example, trichloroethylene, or TCE, is a chemical degreasing agent that has been 

linked to cancer and birth defects since 1995. It is the most commonly occurring contaminant in groundwater today and it is used 

widely by many including the Department of Defense. EPA initiated a scientific risk assessment of TCE in 1998. EPA’s Science Advisory Board completed its peer review and released the assessment for public comment in 2002. DOD and others questioned the 

assessment and requested a National Academies of Science Review. 

The Academies concluded its review in 2006 and found that the 

weight of scientific evidence of cancer from TCE had actually 

strengthened since the EPA’s original assessment. So after more 

than 10 years, EPA’s TCE risk assessment is back to the drawing 

board and is still not complete and won’t be until 2010. In frustration, five Senators who heard about TCE contamination in the 

drinking water at Camp Lejeune introduced a bill last year that 

would require EPA to issue final IRIS values and a drinking water 

standard within 18 months. 

12 

Mr. Chairman, as we stated in our March 2008 report, IRIS is 

a critical process that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. In 

order to maintain the integrity of the IRIS process, EPA must 

streamline its lengthy assessment process and adopt transparency 

practices that provide assurances that IRIS assessments are appropriately based on the best available science and are not inappropriately based on the policy considerations of OMB and other federal 

agencies that have a vested interest in the results. 

That concludes the summary of my statement, and I will be 

happy to take questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 

13 


62923.001
14 


62923.002
15 


62923.003
16 


62923.004
17 


62923.005
18 


62923.006
19 


62923.007
20 


62923.008
21 


62923.009
22 


62923.010
23 


62923.011
24 


62923.012
25 


62923.013
26 


62923.014
27 


62923.015
28 


62923.016
29 


62923.017
30 


62923.018
31 


62923.019
32 


62923.020
33 


62923.021
34 


62923.022
35 


62923.023
36 


62923.024
37 


62923.025
38 


62923.026
39 


62923.027
40 


62923.028
41 


62923.029
42 


62923.030
43 


62923.031
44 


62923.032
45 


62923.033
46 


62923.034
47 


62923.035
48 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. 

Dr. Grifo. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCESCA GRIFO, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

DIRECTOR, SCIENCE INTEGRITY PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Ms. GRIFO. Good morning. I am a senior scientist and the director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned 

Scientists, a leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy 

environment and a safer world. Thank you, Chairmen Stupak and 

Dingell, Ranking Members Barton and Shimkus, and members of 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning 

about the problem of political interference in science. I thank the 

Committee for your oversight and I strongly urge you to keep the 

pressure on. I fear long-lasting consequences from both the abuses 

of science we have documented and perhaps more so from those 

abuses still cloaked in secrecy. 

The United States has enjoyed prosperity and health in large 

part because of its strong and sustained commitment to independent science. As the Nation faces new challenges at home and 

growing competitiveness abroad, the need for a robust federal scientific enterprise remains critical. Unfortunately, political interference in federal science threatens this legacy. Allowing agencies 

who may be the source of toxic chemicals greater control over the 

scientific information in EPA’s own toxicological database and 

withholding interagency correspondence about these scientific assessments from public view is emblematic of the problem of manipulation, suppression, and distortion of science at EPA. 

While I am sure we can all agree that the Environmental Protection Agency has a skilled and dedicated set of public servants that 

comprise its workforce, our research based on a UCS census, not 

a poll—polls and censuses have very distinct methodologies—conducted by Iowa State University including responses from 1,586 

scientists, combined with essays from 850 of those scientists, forces 

us to conclude that this is a troubled agency. Hundreds of scientists 

reported direct interference in their scientific work and fears of retaliation and systemic disregard for the expertise of EPA’s advisory 

committees. Their good work is compromised by the inappropriate 

influence of political appointees at the EPA and other agencies as 

well as commercial and other non-governmental interests. 

This influence takes the following forms: scientists being told to 

exclude or alter technical information in an EPA scientific document; scientists being told to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or 

misleading information to the public; selective or incomplete use of 

data to justify a specific outcome; changes or edits that change the 

meaning of scientific findings; disappearance or unusual delay in 

the release of scientific information; statements by EPA officials 

that misrepresent scientists’ findings; and lack of a coherent and 

consistent EPA policy that allows scientists to speak freely to the 

news media about their research findings. 

Our study found that 889 scientists reported personally experiencing one of these events in the last 5 years. In essay responses, 

nearly 100—and we didn’t ask them the question, this came freely, 

voluntarily—EPA scientists identified OMB as the primary culprit 

49 

in this interference. Hundreds of scientists reported being unable 

to openly express concerns about EPA’s mission-driven work without fear of retaliation. The percentage of scientists reporting political interference was highest at headquarters and at the four program offices with regulatory responsibilities: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and 

the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The National 

Center for Environmental Assessment ranked amongst the worst in 

the Office of Research and Development. 

A bipartisan Congress passed 12 pieces of legislation that authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health 

and the environment. By suppressing, distorting, and manipulating 

science, the White House has subverted this mission, making an 

end run around the legislative branch. Congress must work closely 

with the next occupants of the White House, whoever they may be, 

to ferret out and address the changes that undermine robust 

science and its application to our Nation’s health and environment. 

When agencies that would be liable for costly cleanups of environmental poisons are given expanded influence over EPA’s scientific 

assessments of chemical toxicity, the public loses. 

Fortunately, this is not a problem without a solution. The EPA 

should increase openness in its decisionmaking process. If research 

results and analysis by EPA scientists are made public before they 

drop into the black box of OMB, attempts to distort science will be 

exposed. The expanded reach of the Office of Management and 

Budget must be pushed back. Questioning the scientific consensus 

of agency experts is not the proper role for the Office of Management and Budget. The GAO should identify changes that have become embedded in the Agency that if not exposed will continue to 

harm scientific integrity. For example, what has been the impact 

of centralization of power in the White House on EPA decisionmaking? What needs to be done to reverse centralization and restore scientific integrity? How many agency employees are signing 

non-disclosure agreements and why? Are there decisions where political interference has been exposed that require an immediate review or reversal? All important questions. 

Finally, there are three actions that can and must happen immediately. The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections for federal 

employees. It is crucial that the negotiations between the two 

houses come to a close, producing final legislation that contains 

strong, specific protections for scientists who expose efforts to suppress or alter federal research. EPA should adopt media, communication and scientific publication policies that ensure taxpayerfunded scientists and their research are accessible, and the scientists at the Agency should be proactively made aware of these 

rights. 

And last but not least, just as former EPA Administrator William 

Ruckelshaus did 25 years ago, Administrator Johnson should 

pledge to operate EPA in a fishbowl. The fishbowl memo, which set 

the standard for an agency so open that it regained the trust of the 

American people, was reaffirmed by several subsequent EPA administrators. The original memo, still in the history section of 

EPA’s Web site, should be moved front and center to its home page. 

50 

We look forward to continuing our work with Congress to restore 

scientific integrity to federal policymaking. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grifo follows:] 

51 


62923.036
52 


62923.037
53 


62923.038
54 


62923.039
55 


62923.040
56 


62923.041
57 


62923.042
58 


62923.043
59 


62923.044
60 


62923.045
61 


62923.046
62 


62923.047
63 


62923.048
64 


62923.049
65 


62923.050
66 


62923.051
67 


62923.052
68 


62923.053
69 


62923.054
70 


62923.055
71 


62923.056
72 


62923.057
73 


62923.058
74 


62923.059
75 


62923.060
76 


62923.061
77 


62923.062
78 


62923.063
79 


62923.064
80 


62923.065
81 


62923.066
82 


62923.067
83 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, and thank you both. We will go to questions, and I think we are going to go 10 minutes and give everybody an opportunity so we can move the panels right along. 

You both mentioned transparency, the need for transparency in 

the deliberations and in reports and studies that the EPA does, but 

Dr. Grifo, let me ask you because you have done this survey, and 

your survey shows that political interference with science has increased over the past several years. What do you think are the consequences of inaction, if nothing happens—you gave us three recommendations, if the Congress did nothing—from your point of 

view, on behalf of the scientists? 

Ms. GRIFO. From my point of view, I think one of the scariest 

things that is going on or come out of my conversations independent of this survey were conversations that I have with young 

scientists at the EPA, scientists who say to me, we are waiting, we 

are staying until January, February to see what happens, but after 

that, we are leaving because there is no place in this agency for 

innovation and for a young scientist to really blossom and grow. 

And to me, that is frightening. We are at a point anyway with the 

EPA where retirements are happening because of the date that the 

Agency was founded. Many of its scientists are at retirement age, 

and if we don’t have a young crop of scientists who are enthusiastically there, I think that is a huge problem, but obviously there are 

many other consequences. 

Mr. STUPAK. In your report, you mentioned, I think, about 500 

scientists responded. One hundred mentioned the OMB as being 

sort of a source of interference here. Can you give me some examples of some of those comments? What did they mean, like source 

of interference? What did they allude OMB does, Office of Management and Budget? 

Ms. GRIFO. There were a number of things, and I want to be 

clear that we did not ask them about OMB. We asked them how 

could political interference at the EPA, or how could scientific integrity be restored at the Environmental Protection Agency, and as 

you said, nearly 100 scientists came back and said, you know, it 

is about OMB. Some of the specific quotes: ‘‘Restrain the Office of 

Management and Budget. This administration has not only watered down important rules protecting public health, they have also 

altered internal procedures so that scientific findings are accorded 

less weight.’’ Another one: ‘‘In this administration, self-censorship 

is almost as powerful as the political censorship. Options that OMB 

or the White House wouldn’t like aren’t even put forward,’’ and I 

think that is another serious issue. I think if the line is unclear in 

terms of what you can say or do, you don’t even want to come near 

that line and so we find scientists not even approaching a study 

that they think could potentially be controversial, and so on. There 

are many, many comments and they are all on our Web site. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Stephenson, if I may, I said that you had mentioned transparency in your testimony, and why is transparency important in 

this process? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, as I mentioned, it is a principle of sound 

science, and even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem, and what EPA has been doing lately is mixing the science part 

84 

of risk assessment with the management and policy part. The 

science is the science. I can imagine a situation where an agency 

would have a piece of research that should be held deliberative. 

The science is the science so the facts drive that. So if they want 

deliberative comments in the policy or the policymaking part of 

this, that may be OK, although I think the entire agency should 

be transparent. 

Mr. STUPAK. So is it fair to say the policy is spilling over into 

the science part of it as to whether—like TCE, you mentioned TCE 

in your testimony—or not that should be listed as a cancer-causing 

agent. The science is one thing, policy is another thing, how you 

handle it. They should be independent of each other, should they 

not? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Right, and you have to do reassessments at 

least every 10 years on all the 500 chemicals that are in there, so 

if you are constantly reevaluating or holding until additional research is done, there is lots of problems beyond just transparency 

just in the length and the cumbersomeness of the process itself. We 

have to get this done quicker. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, the reason why I mentioned TCE, this subcommittee has held a number of hearings on TCE at Camp Lejeune 

which has gone way, way back many, many years and we are still 

trying to get some kind of IRIS completed on TCE so we can begin 

the process and the policy decisions can take place and different 

administrations are going to disagree how you handle it, but how 

do we move past that? How do you get TCE on the IRIS? It has 

taken how long? Eight years? And is it completed yet? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Ten plus. That is just one example that we 

used. We offer several specific recommendations in our report to 

handle this, for example, giving advance notice when an assessment is going to begin so that the research can be done prior to 

the assessment actually starting. Don’t hold up a risk assessment 

like TCE for 2 years waiting for the National Academy to come up 

with additional information and then that information simply confirms what EPA has already done. Do that before that. The IRIS 

is supposed to capitalize on existing scientific research. It is not 

doing anything new. Why does that process take 10 years to assemble the best available science on a given chemical? 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if EPA had already made its decision and required the National Academy of Science to look at it, they reaffirm 

what EPA did, then why don’t we have TCE out there as on the 

IRIS and here is the risk associated with it? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is a very good question. I can’t explain 

that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you know of any scientific information that 

would prevent that from happening? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We are not a science organization but we can 

read the research and we can read the science. What we are suggesting, there needs to be more organization in this process. TCE 

was done under the old process before comments were declared deliberative and it took that long in the old process. Now there are 

several new steps that have been introduced into the new process 

like the two new OMB reviews. OMB contends that EPA owns the 

process. All throughout our investigation they said EPA owns this 

85 

process yet if you look at the OIRA part of OMB, they recognize 

that EPA loses control of the process once the assessment goes to 

OMB, so it is a left hand-right hand syndrome at OMB. 

Mr. STUPAK. So why is OMB’s process in the dark? Why is that 

not open to transparency? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, it is not OMB. OMB is trying to facilitate 

and coordinate interagency comments, from DOD, from the Department of Energy, but why that shouldn’t be done in the open for a 

scientific process like a risk assessment, we can’t explain. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, in this flow chart—and Kyle, if you can bring 

up the flow chart. Bring up the one, the current one, post April 10, 

2008. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. And the reason why I bring that one up, it is pretty 

wild, but not only is it hard to follow, but it looks like it is open 

to review until we get to the OMB part, then we go into sort of like 

secret and then it pops back out and there is some more review 

and then we go back into OMB again, we are secret, then we get 

right back to OMB one more time, the final process. Why is this 

process open, closed, open, closed throughout this? Any justification 

for it? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. From an interagency comment point, it is 

closed until the assessment becomes final and then it is provided 

to the general public, it is peer reviewed, but no one, no scientist, 

the general public, nobody knows what kind of input that the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy or OMB for that 

matter might have had. We don’t—nobody knows. The point is, the 

public has to have confidence that this scientific assessment is done 

in the sunlight, and this particular process doesn’t support that objective. 

Mr. STUPAK. And this process probably doesn’t show it. Is it safe 

to say, does EPA even own this process anymore? Is it basically 

OMB that controls this process? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, it depends upon which part of OMB you 

ask, but the management part will say that EPA owns the process 

but when you look at the part reviews, the OIRA part of OMB admits in the part reviews that EPA loses control of that process once 

the assessments are submitted to OMB. 

Mr. STUPAK. EPA is always going to say they control the process 

because it is supposed to be their process but from the testimony 

and studies I am seeing, OMB looks like they control it. So you as 

a member of Government Accountability Office, what is your assessment? Who owns this process? Who is controlling this process, 

EPA or OMB? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We couldn’t get past asking OMB the question. 

OMB says EPA owns it. It appears to us that OMB owns the process at a certain phase. 

Mr. STUPAK. So it would appear that OMB owns the process? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. EPA can’t move forward on a risk assessment 

until it gets clearance from OMB, until the interagency reviews are 

complete, so—— 

Mr. STUPAK. OMB coming into this process, this is just—has this 

occurred under this Administration or has it happened under other 

Administrations? 

86 

Mr. STEPHENSON. OMB has always coordinated interagency comments on anything. That is one of their functions. That is part of 

the M in OMB, the management function to facilitate the federal 

family of agencies. However, it should be done in this case from a 

scientific process in the sunlight. That is our big concern with this. 

Mr. STUPAK. Kyle, go back to Number 1, the first one of this, the 

pre-2004. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. This is the pre-2004. I don’t really see much where 

OMB is in that process. They don’t have a designated spot in there, 

do they, where they would come into this process other than overall 

coordination? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Then Kyle, go to the second one, and this is 

from 2004 to 2008. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. I see OMB in there two places, Number 9 on the 

top there and then Number 13 in the lower right-hand corner 

where final OMB interagency review and approval, and then Kyle, 

go to the last one. I see OMB, and I am just doing a quick look 

here, about three times in it, Number 9 again, Numbers 12A and 

12E, and one place earlier too, I guess that would be pretty close 

to four of them. But it just seems like this process gets more 

bogged down. Have the chemicals being looked at, have they 

been—has the process greatly slowed down under this new schematic? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It has only been in force since April. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is hard to say then, I guess. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. What we are suggesting is if DOD thinks that 

the research or the scientific evidence isn’t sound on a given chemical, it can request additional studies like it did on TCE of the National Academies. National Academies is a busy place. It took them 

2 years to complete their assessment, which reaffirmed what EPA 

had already said when it amassed the scientific evidence on TCE 

at the time. So this constantly repetitive sending it back to OMB, 

do more research, look at the sensitivity analysis, do more research, it just never gets out of this process and it is supposed to 

assimilate existing scientific research. It is not supposed to be creating new research on a given chemical. How can that process take 

10 years? 

Mr. STUPAK. My time is up. Mr. Shimkus for questions, please. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I want to ask Ranking Member Barton, do you still want to—all right. 

Kyle, if you would put the messy one up. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No one is going to try to defend this process, no 

one, so that is just bureaucratic slowing down the processes and it 

is not efficient and you will find no one on our side trying to defend 

that, and that definitely has to be streamlined. 

Dr. Grifo, who funds the Union of Concerned Scientists? 

Ms. GRIFO. We are funded by our membership and by foundations. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And can you name the foundations? 

87 

Ms. GRIFO. Not all of them. They are in our annual report on the 

Web site but I can name the ones, a couple—Hewlett Foundation, 

Packard Foundation, it is a long list. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can you tell me how this report that you published 

was peer reviewed, and was it done as we expect the EPA to do 

it publicly and externally? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And can you tell me who peer reviewed it? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, it is on the acknowledgements page, roman numeral VII. It is listed David Michaels, Mike Walsh, Eric Shaffer, 

Molly Churchill, Rick Melburth, Michael Halpern, Kathy Rest, 

Kurt Gottfried, and an unnamed former EPA scientist providing 

valuable comments. We also had a steering committee early on in 

the process as well. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Obviously I am going to base most of my questions 

on the CRS report because my frustration is, you want it both 

ways. I think because you knew we had the CRS report, then you 

had a chance to respond in writing, which is in the binder, but at 

one point you say it was a census but then in your testimony in 

the questions you say, well, we are going to extrapolate this to the 

whole body. You really can’t have it both ways. Either it is a census or it is a credible poll that you can extrapolate to the whole 

body, and for scientists to claim support of the scientific method 

and not use a scientific process is frustrating. Some examples, on 

page 2 of the report, the CRS report states that what constitutes 

such interference as opposed to editorial differences and policy or 

substantive disagreements is not spelled out for the respondents. 

One person’s political interference might be another’s heavy-handed editing. The report gives us examples of political interference. 

Aside from that, how do you define it? 

Ms. GRIFO. It is actually defined in the questionnaire that the 

scientists had. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I am asking, how do you define it? 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, I can refer you to that page in the report where 

it specifically lists a specific—it is on page 73 of the report and it 

is a very long list of about 10 different things, and this is the list 

that was given to the scientists when they were given this to respond to. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. How do you answer the concern that the way you 

phrase questions about political interference may have in fact influenced the way people answered these questions? 

Ms. GRIFO. We used political interference twice at the very end 

of the survey and where we used it was just above this list where 

we defined it. I would also like to say, I think there is another misconception which is that the entire report and the conclusions are 

based on the survey. They are not. The report is comprised of both 

qualitative and quantitative information. I think when we look at 

the list of incidents, we interviewed and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me reclaim my time and stay on this political 

interference discussion. Your report in defining political interference gave a number of examples of situations that could construe to political interference. These include directed to exclude or 

alter technical information in report, changes or edits during review that change the meaning of scientific findings. Is it possible 

88 

that some of these situations may be the result of good-faith disputes about science rather than the product of interference? 

Ms. GRIFO. I think if we look at the long list of incidents that 

we have documented at the EPA, I think we would be hard pressed 

to call them heavy-handed editing. I think if we look at, you know, 

the mercury in power plants, new source review, OMB and the 

EPA—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You know, I can debate—— 

Ms. GRIFO. There is a long list of documents. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. New source review from the electricity 

generation debate which has a false premise that when you replace 

a more efficient generator, that you have to redo the whole EPA 

permitting when you get a bigger, higher input versus that. So I 

mean, we can talk new source review all we would like but—— 

Ms. GRIFO. Could we go to page—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, ma’am, it is my time. We deal with surveys 

and polls all the time. Here is a summary. Terms and phrases used 

in the questionnaire are vague. A control group was not included. 

Longitudinal analysis was not conducted, which means this environment of corporate culture at the EPA may have existed in previous administrations but since you did not do a longitudinal analysis, you make a political attack on this Administration based upon 

an unscientific poll. Some questions—and this is just from the CRS 

report. This is not me. Some questions relied on what the respondent knew of or hearsay. 

Ms. GRIFO. That was to get at the culture at the Agency. That 

was not to document incidences. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Hearsay. 

Ms. GRIFO. In agencies like this, culture is very important. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Hearsay, a scientist using hearsay to attack the 

scientific process of the EPA. I just find that members of Congress, 

if we would use hearsay, we would get held accountable. 

Ms. GRIFO. We did not draw our conclusions based on hearsay. 

The hearsay was there to measure the culture—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK, let us go to another one. The respondents likely included those beyond the intended sample such as non-scientists and was biased toward senior scientists. The sample was 

not designed so that results can be extrapolated to a total population. 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. Correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But your statement, in your opening statement, 

you talk about, you making it widespread abuse. If you are going 

to say widespread abuse, what are you saying? We are going to extrapolate that. So that is why you can’t have it both ways. 

Ms. GRIFO. Could I respond? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If it is a census, then you can’t say widespread. If 

it is a poll that has a sample size and it has been done randomly, 

we all know that, how polls operate, then you could extrapolate for 

the whole body. But you can’t have, you just can’t have it both 

ways. And I think the frustration point here is again scientists attacking the Administration and the EPA using an unscientific poll. 

The original questionnaire and data limitations are not included in 

the analysis. The conclusions drawn from the analysis may be inappropriate instances in which no opinion responses to a question 

89 

exceed 20 percent. And then the results of these investigations 

show an agency under siege from political pressures, that is your 

comment, on a number of issues ranging from mercury pollution to 

groundwater, which you have mentioned, to climate change, political appointees, the Administration have edited—and here is a response to that statement. However, depending upon the population 

base used, the percentage who personally experienced at least one 

incident of political interference is either 56 percent or 15.3 percent, which may influence one’s perception of whether the EPA is 

under siege. Fifty-six percent, oh, we got a problem. Fifteen percent, who knows. Maybe disgruntled individuals. 

Ms. GRIFO. Eight hundred and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In addition, the survey respondents were not 

asked questions about specific environmental issues such as those 

in the quote mercury pollution. This is not my report, ma’am. 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, if I could—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. This is a congressional resource. 

Ms. GRIFO. You know, later on in the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ma’am, it is my time. So it is unknown as to which 

environmental issues survey respondents were referring to when 

they indicated political interference had taken place. That is my 

frustration. Now you have time, ma’am. 

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you. Also in the CRS report, they acknowledge 

that they didn’t have all the materials that they needed in order 

to do this analysis. This report was not done in any sort of consultation with us where we could have provided them with the 

screens that the scientists saw when they took the survey. They 

didn’t have that information. They didn’t have information, other 

parts of our research methodology. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can I ask a question? 

Ms. GRIFO. And CRS—could I finish? I think this is my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, it is not. Ma’am, it is not your time. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is technically Mr. Shimkus’s time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask why didn’t you just do a survey, a scientific survey with a random sample to be able to extrapolate to 

the whole? 

Ms. GRIFO. Because of the lack of transparency at the Agency. 

We did not have access to a full list of the scientists at the Agency. 

We had to construct that ourselves. We did not have the cooperation of the Agency. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Did you ask? 

Ms. GRIFO. Absolutely we asked. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Was it in writing or by a phone call or an e-mail? 

Do you have documents that support that request? 

Ms. GRIFO. We had conversations that we had trying to get that 

list. 

Ms. SHIMKUS. Do you have a phone log? 

Ms. GRIFO. I could probably find one. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That would be helpful to us. Science under siege, 

if you are going to use science to attack that science is under siege 

from the scientific community, I would request that you have scientific background to do that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you want to answer? 

90 

Ms. GRIFO. I would love to. 

Mr. STUPAK. I will let you answer. It should also be noted just 

for the record, and I am sure Mr. Shimkus realized that their response to the CRS is found at tab number 29 in our binder. It is 

right there—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is true, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would 

be fair for the Majority and for Dr. Grifo to appreciate the fact that 

we are the ones who found the CRS timely manner to the Majority 

so you had an opportunity to respond. It was because of what the 

Minority did to give you the opportunity to respond in writing. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is there. It is exhibit number 30. We never move 

until the end of the hearing so without objection, tab number 29 

in our hearing book will be part of the record. We will do it right 

now. If you care to respond, I will give you a minute. 

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Shimkus has the right to take all 10 minutes 

to ask a question if he wants, but you have time and then we will 

move on to Mr. Dingell. 

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you. Many, many things that need to be clarified. First of all, the CRS report was sprung on us during testimony at a hearing in May. There was no notice whatsoever. The 

response was constructed after that hearing so this was not a gift 

from anyone. I think we can turn to the last paragraph, to the last 

page of the CRS report, and it says it is difficult, you know, to tell 

whether or not any of the critiques identified above would change 

the public’s perception of the survey results regarding this issue. 

Further, it is important to keep in mind that for many in the 

science and engineering community, even one case of political interference would be considered to be improper. Independence is a critical part of this community’s value system regardless of whether 

they are working for government, universities, or industry. In the 

response that we did, we go into a lot of the specifics but I think 

the key point is the conclusions that we made regarding those 

other issues and regarding the Agency as a whole are not based 

solely on the survey. They are based on qualitative research as well 

as that quantitative research. Both of them come together to 

produce those results. As I have said, there is a long list of examples: mercury in power plants; OMB in EPA; climate change. I 

hardly think that removing a reference to numerous studies such 

that EPA itself didn’t even leave the chapter in a draft report in 

the environment in 2003, I think that is a lot more than heavyhanded editing that we are talking about here. And there are many 

examples: particulate matter; ozone, peer review, risk assessment, 

IRIS, program assessment tool rating; EPA and communication 

barriers; communication of climate change science; right to publish; 

particulate matter; and ozone, I have talked about—and on and 

on—lead, NOOx, hydraulic fracturing, library closures. It is a very 

long list. I believe that we have a lot of evidence that supports our 

conclusion, and I would just end with the statement that 889 scientists reporting interference in the last 5 years, that is a number 

that is far too large to be acceptable, and at a hearing in May, Dr. 

Gray accepted that, that that number was too large. Thank you. 

91 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. That concludes the questions of Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. Dingell is not back yet so we will go to Mr. Melancon for questions, please, 10 minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. I was going to offer Ms. Grifo the opportunity to comment since the time for the other member had run out. 

I guess one of the questions or one of the things that I have observed in one of my previous careers was scientists that feel that 

people are trying to direct their data to where they want it to go. 

Is that, do they actually do the science, do the report and then 

after the fact OMB and others are trying to delete or change or 

alter the outcome, Dr. Grifo? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, I think one of the most startling examples of 

that does have to do with mercury and power plants. It has to do 

with the example where the clean air mercury rule. This took place 

in 2005. We have evidence that the White House and utility companies and power companies shaped this rule when in reality it 

should have been based on the science that was coming from the 

scientists at the EPA, and we have significant documentation to 

that effect that I am happy to share, and that is one example, you 

know, of many that we could bring up. 

Mr. MELANCON. And Mr. Stephenson, from your perspective, the 

analogy that you can’t have it both ways, do you feel that that in 

fact is the case or do you feel that the information that you were 

able to obtain and of course obviously not being able to follow the 

paper trail all the way through the process because it disappears 

at points in times, do you feel that there is validity? I have always 

been a believer if there is smoke, there is fire. Do you believe that 

from your review, from, I would assume your interviews with people within the Agency, that in fact there is interference? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We didn’t try to ascribe blame or—what actually transpired. Our problem is with the process itself. No scientific 

process should be deliberative. You have just got to be more organized in these risk assessments than get them done quicker. We 

didn’t try to say there was political influence or anything else. We 

just noted how many times OMB can stop the process at DOD’s direction or anything else, ask for additional research, ask for uncertainty analysis, ask for a lot of things and continue to go back to 

the drawing boards on these assessments. They simply have to be 

done quicker than 10 years if they are going to be effective. We 

can’t leave the public exposed to a dangerous chemical while we 

are waiting for them to complete a risk assessment. 

Mr. MELANCON. So for either or both, where do we get someone 

to give us an objective diagram of how the process works so that 

we take manipulation either from the Congress or from any administration out of the process so that when we are delivered a report, 

we know that report has got all the scientific data right, draw your 

own conclusions if you would, but is there a place or an organization that can help us streamline, as Mr. Shimkus would like to do, 

which I agree with, and to make it so that when the data is there, 

we know that the data is in fact legitimate scientific data? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. In our view, that is the importance of transparency for the science to be done in the sunlight so it would be 

huge to remove the black box. If the Department of Defense or DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
92 

partment of Energy or OMB or any other agency, for that matter, 

has a problem with the scientific assessments that EPA has done 

and has additional research to provide towards that science, it 

should be in the public. Why should that be done in a backroom? 

Mr. MELANCON. I agree with you. I totally agree with you. The 

peer review process, and I think at some point in time they are 

talking about looking at what the science, and I think what happens, my experience has been, scientists just don’t go in a cubicle 

all day long. They come out and they communicate with their counterparts what they are thinking, what they are hearing, what they 

are seeing, what they are feeling, because that is where they get 

the food for thought to go forward. Has there been a hindrance in 

that processing do you believe because of the concern with OMB or 

any other agency or even the Congress coming in and somebody— 

the fear of somebody looking over your shoulder and saying well, 

you are going in the wrong direction? I mean, is there a fear even 

working with your fellow scientists that maybe somebody would 

cause you problems? 

Ms. GRIFO. In fact, we did ask a question in the survey about retaliation and fear of retaliation, and hundreds of scientists reported 

that but I think what is really telling is that 492 felt that they 

could not speak candidly within the Agency. This is not talking to 

the press, this is not talking to colleagues at universities. This is 

simply within the Agency, and 382 felt they could not do so outside 

the Agency, but setting the survey aside for a moment, there are 

also many other examples. If we look at the publication policies, 

the EPA peer review handbook, if we look at several scientists reporting problems with press contacts, if we look at, Dr. Titus, who 

was a project manager, was not—had interference in his desires to 

have an interview with the New York Times and so on and so 

forth. So we also have examples of scientists not being able to go 

to meetings. One colleague at a meeting went so far as to say if 

the scientist doesn’t come, we are going to have 20 minutes of silence in the place where their talk would have been because they 

were so baffled by the fact that this scientist couldn’t come. I think 

as you have rightly said, secrecy is an anathema to the scientific 

process. Scientists move ahead, the entire process moves ahead 

through this very transparent deliberative process, and that I think 

is a really frightening aspect of this closed-door deliberations, of 

these closed-door deliberations. 

Mr. MELANCON. How many scientists do you have at the Agency? 

Ms. GRIFO. We don’t have a number. At the hearing in May, Dr. 

Gray, I think, said 7,000 scientists at the EPA. 

Mr. MELANCON. That is a lot of scientists to be paranoid now. 

Ms. GRIFO. Even one would be too many. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. Barton for questions, please. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to focus most 

of my questions to Dr. Grifo. 

I will just ask a general question to Mr. Stephenson because we 

have, one of the examples before us is the removal of Dr. Rice from 

a peer review panel on the chemical deca because she had stated 

93 

to the Maine Legislature that she thought deca was a hazard, and 

if I understand correctly, should be banned, so they put her on this 

panel and then the industry complained that she was on the panel 

because she had announced, basically, a conclusion before the 

panel did its review. Mr. Stephenson, if you were accused of some 

crime and were on trial, would you want somebody on the jury who 

already had said publicly that you were guilty? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Of course not. 

Mr. BARTON. So there may be a valid reason that Dr. Rice should 

have been on that panel but there also appears to be sufficient reason that she shouldn’t have been. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, there are special rules. The peer review 

panels are large and balanced intentionally so—— 

Mr. BARTON. But you don’t normally—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. One peer reviewer should not theoretically 

make a difference. 

Mr. BARTON. But you wouldn’t put somebody on a peer review 

panel that already had a conclusion about the subject under consideration? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I don’t know the situation but logically it 

doesn’t seem like you would. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Let us go to Dr. Grifo. You say in your written 

testimony down at the bottom on your introduction, and I quote, 

‘‘Our report documents changes in EPA policies regarding risk assessments that allow polluting federal agencies more control over 

the science.’’ What is a polluting federal agency? 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, I think in this instance, we were referring to 

the Department of Defense and the chemical that was already alluded to in the GAO report. 

Mr. BARTON. So you are just stipulating that at least the Department of Defense is a polluting agency and you used the plural 

‘‘agencies.’’ 

Ms. GRIFO. That is one. There are other instances. Department 

of Energy. I can provide you with full documentation of those instances. 

Mr. BARTON. You just assert that these federal agencies are 

themselves polluters. 

Ms. GRIFO. The federal agencies are responsible for chemicals 

that they are releasing in the course of their mission-driven duties 

and releasing a chemical that is potentially dangerous to public 

health into the environment, I think we would have to—that would 

be my definition. 

Mr. BARTON. So you want us to eliminate or shut down the Department of Defense and—— 

Ms. GRIFO. No, I want—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Energy? 

Ms. GRIFO. Sorry, sir. I didn’t mean to interrupt. I think that 

there has been in the past a deliberative process that was more efficient and more transparent by which these things were resolved. 

No one is saying that OMB should not have a coordinating role. I 

think that is a very appropriate role for the Office—— 

Mr. BARTON. I didn’t ask you about OMB yet. When you make 

the assertion that our federal agencies are themselves polluters, 

that does show to me somewhat of a bias, at least by yourself. I 

94 

would hate to know what you think about the House of Representatives. 

Ms. GRIFO. We are all polluters, sir. I will grant you that point. 

We are all certainly not perfect in that regard. But I do think that 

if an agency is using a chemical or putting a chemical into the environment that is potentially damaging to public health, then that 

is a cause for deliberation and concern and we need to have a process that respects that. 

Mr. BARTON. I agree with the last statement. In the second page, 

you say, ‘‘The White House has rewritten EPA’s scientific documents concerning climate change and pressured EPA scientists to 

support predetermined conclusions regarding mercury pollution.’’ 

What predetermined conclusions did the White House pressure 

EPA scientists to adopt? 

Ms. GRIFO. I don’t think you have to take my word on that. EPA 

Inspector General Nicky Tinsley confirmed in February 2005 that 

EPA scientists were pressured to change their analysis—— 

Mr. BARTON. No, no, I want to know what the predetermined 

conclusion is. 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, this particular example was about the level of 

mercury that was allowable under the clean air mercury rule. 

Mr. BARTON. But the level, the parts per billion or parts per million, you are saying that the White House knew beforehand what 

the level should be and forced the EPA to put that level into the 

rule? 

Ms. GRIFO. I am saying that the Inspector General—— 

Mr. BARTON. If you believe that, let us document it, OK? Don’t 

just say it, let us document it. I don’t think that statement can be 

substantiated but I don’t know, but if you know, let us put that in 

the record. That is what the oversight subcommittee is all about. 

Ms. GRIFO. We will be happy to. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, later on on this same page you say, ‘‘Political 

interference has penetrated deeply into the culture and practices of 

federal agencies.’’ Do you believe a president of either political 

party should not have the right to put his or her political appointees at the top of these federal agencies? 

Ms. GRIFO. No, sir, I believe that is entirely appropriate. 

Mr. BARTON. If it is appropriate, and I agree with you on that, 

should not these political appointees have some ability to oversee 

and influence the culture and practice of the federal agency that 

they are the appointee to? 

Ms. GRIFO. They should not have the ability to change the 

science, to manipulate science—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is not my question. 

Ms. GRIFO. And I don’t think they should have the ability to intimidate the scientists. 

Mr. BARTON. You said that—— 

Ms. GRIFO. That is part of the culture, I would say. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Political interference has penetrated 

deeply into the culture and practices of a federal agency, and I 

don’t know how many federal employees we have on the Administration side but it is tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. We have got, I think, 500 presidential appointees. Now, I 

95 

could be wrong on that, and Mr. Stupak or you can show me, but 

it is—— 

Ms. GRIFO. Close enough. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. A small number. Those individuals, 

whoever is fortunate enough to become President of the United 

States, should have the right to appoint his or her appointees and 

they should have some ability to influence the culture and practice 

of that agency. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be there. They should 

not be there. Now, so to make a statement that the fact that they 

are appointees and the fact that they try to manage, that somehow 

political interference is a pejorative term. They shouldn’t be there 

if they don’t try to manage in some way the agencies. Now, on page 

3 of your testimony, and you underlined this with a bullet point, 

you say, ‘‘Interference can take many different forms including falsifying data and fabricating results.’’ Can you give any specific examples where a political appointee has flat falsified the data or fabricated results? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Can you give one off the top of your head? 

Ms. GRIFO. Off the top of my head, I would say this is an example of both the things that we are talking about. I am thinking of 

Assistant Deputy Secretary of Interior, Julie McDonald, calling biologists in the field and bullying them into reaching conclusions 

that—— 

Mr. BARTON. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Making a phone call 

is not—— 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, let me finish. 

Mr. BARTON. Falsifying data is—— 

Ms. GRIFO. We have her changes, track changes—— 

Mr. BARTON. You tell me the data point is 10 parts per million 

and I say no, no, it is not, we are going to put that it is 5 parts 

per million or we are going to put it as 100. That is falsifying data. 

Having a difference of opinion or challenging an assumption or a 

conclusion is one thing, and that may be wrong past a certain point 

in time, but that is not what you say. You said they falsify data 

and they fabricate results. Now, if you all can prove that, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Shimkus and myself and Mr. Dingell, we want to 

know it. I mean, that is fraud. 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir. Can I direct you to our A–Z guide to political 

interference in science? We have nearly 90 examples there of exactly what we mean by political interference. Every single one of 

them is—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, wait a minute. You are changing the terminology. We are not talking about political interference, we are talking about falsifying data. 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, that is one of those kinds of—— 

Mr. BARTON. Fabricating a result, now, that is different. Now, 

my time is just about up, so I want to put something in the record, 

Mr. Chairman, and we will give it to the Majority staff before you 

agree to put it in but I am going to read from it because later on 

in her testimony the doctor talks about climate change and greenhouse gases and how that has been impacted. I haven’t verified 

this but I want to get your take on it. This is a gentleman named 

David Evans. He is an Australian scientist, and he participated in 

96 

the Kyoto Protocol and I am just taking his word so I can’t verify 

under oath this is true. I am going to quote, ‘‘I have been following 

the global warming debate closely for years. When I started the job 

in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming 

seemed pretty good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The evidence wasn’t 

conclusive but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we 

needed to act quickly. Soon the government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs 

were created. But since 1999, the new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global 

warming, and by 2007, the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the 

recent global warming. As Lord Kean famously said, when the facts 

change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir. There hasn’t been 

any public debate about the causes of global warming and most of 

the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic 

facts. Number one, the greenhouse gas signature is missing. We 

have been looking and measuring it for years and cannot find it. 

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern everywhere in the planet the warming occurs. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10 kilometers up in 

the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosons, which are weather balloons 

with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon 

ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot whatsoever. If there is not a hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect 

is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of global warming. If we 

had found the greenhouse signature, then I would be an alarmist 

again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007, after 

the latest IPCC report, the alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radioson thermometers might not be accurate. Maybe 

the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of 

radiosons have given the same answer so statistically it is not possible that they have missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists 

have suggested we ignore the radioson thermometers but instead 

take on radioson wind measurements, apply a theory about wind 

shear and run the results through the computers to estimate the 

temperature. Then they say that the results will show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that, you will 

believe anything.’’ Do you think that the Bush Administration has 

prevented this information from being public? 

Ms. GRIFO. Is that to me? 

Mr. BARTON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GRIFO. No idea. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, do you have an opinion? 

Ms. GRIFO. No, not my issue. Climate change is a complicated debate. 

Mr. BARTON. Not your issue? 

Ms. GRIFO. No, I think—— 

Mr. BARTON. You talk about patterns of abuse. 

Ms. GRIFO. Could I finish? 

Mr. BARTON. Scientists studying what may very well be the most 

profound global change of the century, global warming, are effecVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
97 

tively barred from communicating their findings to the news media 

and the public. 

Ms. GRIFO. Well, that I am happy to discuss. I mean, we do 

have——— 

Mr. BARTON. That is what I am asking about. 

Ms. GRIFO [continuing]. Examples of interference. We do have 

many examples. I think James Hanson achieved great notoriety. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you think that this might be an example of the 

scientific community not wanting to acknowledge an unpleasant 

fact, that in fact you can’t prove that manmade CO2 is a cause of 

global warming and it may be the scientific community whose theory is wrong and so they don’t want to publicize this? You know, 

this isn’t OMB preventing this from becoming public or Dr. Johnson at the EPA or some assistant secretary or something. 

Ms. GRIFO. The IPCC is a very thorough process, very peer reviewed, very well constructed. It is the gold standard for this information. I am sure that they have considered and deliberated that 

gentleman’s opinion and I am sure—— 

Mr. BARTON. And I don’t know that it is—— 

Ms. GRIFO. But I don’t know that it was suppressed. I have no 

evidence of that. If you have evidence of that that you would like 

to—— 

Mr. BARTON. No, ma’am, I am not the one alleging suppression. 

Ms. GRIFO. I am happy to investigate it and add it to our list of 

examples, if you have that documentation. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have abused the privileges of the 

subcommittee in terms of its time commitment. 

Mr. STUPAK. I was going to remind you of that. 

Mr. BARTON. I will submit this for the record if the Majority and 

you determine it is worthy of being included, and I do ask our Dr. 

Grifo to please supply the subcommittee with specific facts and not 

just opinions and we will investigate those facts and see where 

they lead. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure, and as to Dr. Grifo and the facts, their report 

is under tab number 2 and has pretty much very specific examples 

from former EPA Director Christie Todd Whitman and others, so 

I think a lot of the stuff you are asking for is probably there. As 

far as this report on climate change from the Australian newspaper, this really isn’t a hearing on climate change but I have no 

objection if you want to include it in the record. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, if there is no objection, I would like it to be 

in the record, but I cannot verify that what it says is totally true 

but it is something we need to look into. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. Maybe we ought to have Mr. Evans come 

here on a climate change hearing. 

Mr. BARTON. That might be a good idea. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Inslee for questions, please. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes, that author of that report that Mr. Barton is 

quoting could arrive on his UFO that he has told us about as well. 

If the definition of successful political appointees are ones that do 

in fact affect science, then this Administration has been supremely 

successful. There is no question about that, because they have supVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
98 

pressed it every chance they can and it is pretty obvious it has 

gone on. We have seen it on multiple occasions from Julie McDonald on up, and it is perverted science and it has perverted what the 

taxpayers have paid for and I don’t really even think we need a 

study to know that. If you talk to people at the EPA like I do, you 

just simply know that. When I get on the ferry boat and talk to 

my neighbors who work for the EPA, you know that, and you know 

it from the sort of macro view. You know it because in December 

of 2007, the EPA scientists essentially recommended allowing 

States to limit greenhouse gases from cars and trucks and then the 

political appointees deny that and refuse to allow that to happen. 

Now, we know that. There is no dispute about this. The scientists 

made a recommendation. The political appointees denied it. It is 

out in the open, and that is a fraud and that is a travesty and that 

is a rejection of science that is right out in the open. We don’t even 

have to have surveys about it. July 11, 2008, the EPA political appointees decided not to take any steps to regulate greenhouse gases 

despite the fact they have been ordered to do so if it affects human 

health. They have concluded it does, but right out in the open, this 

was a bank robbery out in the open, this wasn’t at night. I mean, 

and I really respect the people who work for the EPA who are trying to do their jobs under these very, very difficult situations, and 

I just want to tip my hat to them. It would be so easy to be totally 

demoralized to do good science, to give it and then have it 

squashed by the Bush Administration must be very difficult for 

them and I want to honor them, and I want to tell you why I am 

so concerned. 

If somebody would put up this picture here, my staff can help 

me, a little picture of what is at stake here. This is a photograph 

of the—actually a graphical representation of satellite information 

of the poles, the Arctic basically showing the summer ice, the September ice in the upper left-hand corner showing September 1979. 

The sort of light blue is what is called the very new ice, the very, 

very thin ice, and the white is the permanent ice, the long-term ice. 

Then you go to down below that to September 1989, you see a very 

significant reduction in the permanent or essentially long-term ice. 

You go up in the right-hand corner, you will see September 1999, 

a continued reduction, and this is what is stunning. September 

2007, the bottom right-hand corner, the only new ice are just basically little tiny vestigial remnants of the white down at the bottom. 

We have had an absolute collapse of the Arctic while we are sitting 

here debating about whether the Administration has suppressed 

science in the EPA or not. It is pretty doggone clear that this Administration has suppressed the single-most important scientific inquiry probably in human history in this issue of how rapidly this 

is happening, and I want to show this because this is grounded in 

the real world. In the Arctic, if people understand how important 

this is, this is the heat shield for the planet. John Glenn, if you 

remember when he came in, he had the heat shield. It shielded 

him. This is the heat shield for the planet earth because it reflects 

massive amount of radiation when there is snow there, but when 

there isn’t ice there, the ocean absorbs the energy, and this is a tipping point potentially that the scientists are so concerned about. 

99 

So to me, I appreciate our two witnesses today but it is so obvious that the Administration has suppressed and ignored scientists 

that it is not a survey that is private, it is a public rejection of 

science that we have witnessed, and it portends potential fairly cataclysmic results, and I am astounded that we are still having these 

discussions, but we are, and I just look forward to January 20, 

2009, when this country can get back to the job of science. If anybody wants to comment on that, go ahead. Anybody want any comment? 

Ms. GRIFO. Touche. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. All right. Mr. Shimkus has a question. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just one follow-up. Dr. Grifo, you mentioned the 

names of the peer reviewers who did your report. Were any of those 

inside of your organization that were not outside? 

Ms. GRIFO. Two. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And can you name the two? 

Ms. GRIFO. I think it was Kathy Rest and Michael Halpern. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Kurt Gottfried. 

Ms. GRIFO. Kurt is not inside. He is on our board but he is a 

physicist—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. He is not just on the board, he is the chairman. 

Ms. GRIFO. He is, but he is also a physicist at Cornell University. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So there are three? 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. Well, about your definition of inside, but I will 

grant you that—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is our problem. Yes, is that typical for peerreviewed scientific reports to be peer reviewed by people within the 

organization? 

Ms. GRIFO. It is very typical for people within an organization to 

comment on a report. They are included in the list—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But to use that as the official peer review? 

Ms. GRIFO. There are other names on that list that are not within the organization that are part of the official peer review. I was 

talking about the review of the documents in general since—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. As you know, we have problems with your presentation today. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask this question, and I will ask either Mr. 

Stephenson or Dr. Grifo. Peer review, explain it, what does it do, 

peer review? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. She is the scientist. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. It is my understanding you gather information. 

You are asked to look at it. You gather information and then you 

do your individual assessment. In this case, it would go, let us say, 

to the EPA and the EPA would draw conclusions based upon the 

peer review. It is not unusual for a peer review panel to have someone who may be in the industry, outside the industry, academia. 

Is that basically a peer review? You get people from all over, some 

whom might come with some preconceived bias on this chemical 

and some who would be just the opposite and academia and they 

look at the unisphere or the universe of information and then they 

make an assessment and they submit it to the Agency. It is the 

Agency that makes the final decision, correct? 

100 

Ms. GRIFO. Yes. I think what is important is to distinguish between scientific advisory committees and scientific review versus a 

stakeholder committee, and I think we have both kinds of committees that are out there considering information and advising agencies. I think on a stakeholder committee, you do in fact have multiple points of view, you know, you do have conflicts of interest. 

People are representing industry, representing different aspects of 

society, but the key is that a stakeholder panel should not make 

scientific judgments. I think the topic that we have been dancing 

around here is that there is a difference between scientific conclusions and a political decision, a policy decision. ‘‘Political’’ may be 

too loaded a word, a policy decision, and I think the root of the 

problem that we have seen at EPA and multiple other agencies is 

the firewall that should be between those decisions has come down. 

You don’t interfere with the science. You take the scientific conclusions, as a policymaker you can ignore them if the statutes will 

allow you. 

Mr. STUPAK. So the peer review would look at the information, 

give it to the policy side and policy decision makers make the decision? 

Ms. GRIFO. Depending on the statute that is governing. But I 

think the other thing is, on a strictly scientific review panel, you 

do want to look at conflict of interest, you want to look at financial 

connections. It is a very different kind of a group of people that is 

convened for a different purpose. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Could I add, from a layman’s point of view, the 

peer reviewer is there to assert to the reasonableness of the scientific approach. There are very specific rules governing the makeup of peer review panels that they must be balanced, so you don’t 

have to be a scientist to understand the rules of peer review. You 

can argue with whom is on the peer review but all agencies and 

all scientific organizations that use peer reviewers are very careful 

about making sure there is a balanced makeup across that, and 

EPA is as well. 

Mr. STUPAK. So a peer review panel would look at this document 

that Mr. Barton put in the record, the Australian, and Mr. David 

Evans, who disagreed with global climate change, if they were looking at climate change, they might include that one or they 

might—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, the IPCC would look into the basis for 

that conclusion, the evidence that he used to draw that conclusion 

and talk about the reasonableness of that. 

Mr. STUPAK. And one person may submit it in their assessment 

where another peer review person may not? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. The peer reviews try to come to consensus. 

They are expected to have divergent views. But in the end, there 

are safeguards that the approach used for the science is in fact reasonable. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Shimkus? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, and some of 

the testimony talked about it, it being public and external, at least 

for the EPA. I would think it would be more accurate to identify 

those peer review people who are internal to the organization 

versus those who are external to the organization, and again, my 

101 

problem with this whole debate is that the accusations that are 

lobbed at the EPA, I would submit are the same accusations that 

can be lobbed at this report that you presented and it is very hard 

for—you just can’t have it both ways. 

Ms. GRIFO. Could I respond? 

Mr. STUPAK. Quickly. 

Ms. GRIFO. One sentence. In the paragraph in the acknowledgements, it talks about how those people provided comment. We do 

not use the words ‘‘peer review’’ in referring to them. That was my 

answer to your question. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Not being specific. I mean, that is the whole point 

of this whole frustration. You called them peer review. You named 

them out and they are part of your organization. 

Ms. GRIFO. You asked me. 

Mr. STUPAK. All right. We have two frustrated people now in the 

room and that is it, it is not getting any bigger, so why don’t we 

do this? Let us dismiss this panel. We have two votes on the floor. 

We will take a break here. Let us go vote and we will come right 

back, or do you want to do the testimony of the next panel? We 

have four people on there. We would never get in. 

All right. Let us adjourn for recess for two votes. Hopefully we 

are back here by 20 after, OK, so 12:20. We stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUPAK. We will reconvene this hearing. I thank everyone 

for your patience while we had a few votes on the floor there. The 

second panel of witnesses that we have now is Dr. Deborah Rice, 

who is the Epidemiologist at the State of Maine’s Department of 

Environmental Protection; Dr. Jennifer Sass, who is Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr. Daniel 

Parshley, who is Project Manager at the Glynn Environmental Coalition in Brunswick, Georgia, and Ms. Sharon H. Kneiss, who is 

Vice President of Products Division at the American Chemistry 

Council. 

It is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under 

oath. Please be advised that you have the right to counsel during 

your testimony. Do any of you wish to be represented by counsel? 

Everyone is shaking their head no. Ms. Kneiss? 

Ms. KNEISS. Chairman, I do have counsel with me. 

Mr. STUPAK. They can advise you but not testify, OK? And if you 

do consult him, we may ask who the name is at that time. All 

right. I am going to ask you to take the oath, so if you able to, raise 

your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have taken 

the oath. They are now under oath. We will hear an opening statement for 5 minutes, please. If you have a longer statement, just 

submit it for the record. It will be made part of the official record. 

Dr. Rice we will start with you, please. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH RICE, PH.D., STATE OF MAINE, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Ms. RICE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name 

is Dr. Deborah Rice. I am a toxicologist with over 30 years of experience in basic research and risk assessment. I am currently emVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
102 

ployed by the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. I 

previously served as a senior risk assessor in the National Center 

for Environmental Assessment at the U.S. Environment Protection 

Agency, which by the way is the home of the IRIS program. 

I am here today to outline the events related to my removal from 

an expert panel reviewing an EPA assessment for four 

polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants, so-called PBDEs, 

and to offer my perspective on the events. To do that, I need to describe my activities as part of my professional duties for the State 

of Maine. In 2004, the Maine Legislature approved a presumptive 

ban on one flame retardant, deca BDE, pending a series of annual 

reports by State professional staff on the health and environmental 

hazards of deca BDE and potential available alternatives. I contributed to three reports in 2005 to 2007 and spoke before the relevant 

legislative committee regarding the Maine bill. In that capacity, I 

conveyed my scientific opinion on the hazards of deca BDE compared to possible alternatives. 

In December 2006, EPA published a draft document for four individual forms of PBDEs, including deca BDE. This document consisted of a scientific review of the health effects and derivation of 

a safe intake level, the so-called reference dose, for each of these 

individual PBDEs. There is no consideration in this type of document of banning a chemical or of its use in specific products. I was 

invited to chair the external panel convened to review this document by the independent contractor responsible for organizing the 

peer review. The panel met in February 2007. My function as chair 

was to ensure that all scientific issues were discussed and all reviewers had an opportunity to express their views. There is no requirement for reviewers to reach consensus. The final comments of 

each peer reviewer were posted on the EPA Web site in March 

2007. 

In May 2007, I received a telephone call from Dr. George Gray 

informing me that EPA had received a letter from the American 

Chemistry Council requesting that I be removed from the panel on 

the grounds that my comments in Maine concerning deca BDE reflected bias. The ACC further argued that they disagreed with the 

results in a scientific research paper that I coauthored published 

subsequent to the EPA review. Dr. Gray questioned me concerning 

my activities in Maine and indicated that he was considering acquiescing to industry’s request. A later phone call informed me of that 

decision. I did not receive any written notification that I was being 

removed from the panel. I was told that only my comments on deca 

BDE would be removed. In fact, my comments for all four chemicals were removed from a revised peer review report published in 

August and my name erased from the document. In September, 

EPA published a third version of the document which added a 

statement requested by the American Chemistry Council that ‘‘one 

reviewer’s comments were excluded from the report due to the perception of a potential conflict of interest,’’ a statement also currently on the EPA IRIS Web site. The final version of the EPA toxicological review included my name as a peer reviewer but does not 

include response to my comments. 

There are several points that I think are relevant to interpreting 

the validity of my removal from the peer review panel by EPA. 

103 

First, my professional activities for the State of Maine were required as part of my duties as the toxicologist charged with providing expert scientific opinion to State legislators. I had no opinion 

on the hazards posed by deca BDE before I started my review. I 

believe that having an informed scientific opinion constitutes neither bias nor conflict of interest. Indeed, if this is the definition of 

bias, then only individuals who are uninformed on a particular 

chemical would be considered suitable to serve as peer reviewers. 

Second, the bill before the Maine Legislature and the EPA document on the derivation of reference doses address different issues. 

The Maine bill dealt with whether safer chemicals were available 

as substitutes for one specific flame-retardant chemical. The EPA 

document addressed derivation of a safe level of ingestion over a 

life span for four of these chemicals. My view that safer chemicals 

were available did not reflect on my ability to follow the EPA protocol for derivation of a reference dose. I am very familiar with the 

process, having worked as a senior risk assessor for EPA. In addition, EPA regards these chemicals as hazardous or it would not 

have derived reference doses for them. 

Third, I believe my comments and recommendations were objective and based on my 30 years of expertise as a toxicologist. To give 

an example, in initial comments I was the only reviewer to be critical of a specific feature of the experimental design of the studies 

upon which the EPA derivations were based. The identical argument was made by the ACC in their comments to EPA. The only 

evidence provided by the ACC that I performed in a biased manner 

with regard to the peer review was that they disagreed that deca 

BDE produces a specific health effect. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rice follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH RICE

My name is Dr. Deborah Rice. I am a toxicologist with over 30 years of experience 

in basic research and risk assessment. I am currently employed by the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. I previously served as a senior risk assessor 

in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

I am here today to outline the events related to my removal from an expert panel 

reviewing an EPA assessment of four polybrominated diphenyl ether flame 

retardants (PBDEs), and to offer my perspective on the events. To do that, I need 

to describe my activities as part of my professional duties for the State of Maine. 

In 2004, the Maine legislature approved a presumptive ban on one flame retardant, 

deca BDE, pending a series of annual reports by state professional staff on the 

health and environmental hazards of deca BDE and potential available alternatives. 

I contributed to three reports in 2005 092007, and spoke before the relevant legislative committee regarding the Maine bill. In that capacity I conveyed my scientific 

opinion on the hazards of deca BDE compared to possible alternatives. 

In December, 2006, EPA published a draft document for four individual forms of 

PBDEs, including deca BDE. This document consisted of a scientific review of the 

health effects and derivation of a safe intake level (reference dose) for each of these 

individual PBDEs. There is no consideration in this type of document of banning 

a chemical or its use in specific products. I was invited to chair the external panel 

convened to review this document by the independent contractor responsible for organizing the peer review. The panel met in February 2007. My function as chair 

was to ensure that all scientific issues were discussed, and all reviewers had an opportunity to express their views. There was no requirement for reviewers to reach 

consensus. The final comments of each reviewer were posted on the EPA Web site 

in March 2007. 

104 

In May 2007, I received a telephone call from Dr. George Gray informing me that 

EPA had received a letter from the American Chemistry Council requesting that I 

be removed from the panel, on the grounds that my comments in Maine concerning 

deca BDE reflected bias. The ACC further argued that they disagreed with results 

in a scientific research paper that I co-authored published subsequent to the EPA 

review. Dr. Gray questioned me concerning my activities in Maine, and indicated 

that he was considering acquiescing to industry’s request. A later phone call informed me of that decision. I did not receive any written notification that I was 

being removed from the panel. I was told that only my comments on deca BDE 

would be removed. In fact my comments for all four chemicals were removed from 

a revised peer review report published in August, and my name erased from the 

document. In September, EPA published a third version of the document, which 

added a statement requested by the American Chemistry Council that ‘‘one reviewer’s comments were excluded from the report . due to the perception of a potential 

conflict of interest,’’ a statement also currently on the EPA IRIS Web site. The final 

version of the EPA toxicological review includes my name as a peer reviewer, but 

does not include response to my comments. 

There are several points that I think are relevant to interpreting the validity of 

my removal from the peer review panel by EPA. 

First, my professional activities for the State of Maine were required as part of 

my duties as the toxicologist charged with providing expert scientific opinion to the 

state legislators. I had no opinion on the hazard poised by deca BDE before I started 

my review. I believe that having an informed scientific opinion constitutes neither 

bias nor conflict of interest. Indeed, if this is the definition of bias, then only individuals who are uninformed on a particular chemical would be considered suitable to 

serve as peer reviewers. 

Second, the bill before the Maine legislature and the EPA document on the derivation of reference doses addressed different issues. The Maine bill dealt with 

whether safer chemicals were available as substitutes for one specific flame retardant chemical. The EPA document addressed derivation of a safe level of ingestion 

over the lifespan for four of these chemicals. My view that safer chemicals were 

available did not reflect on my ability to follow the EPA protocol for derivation of 

a reference dose. I am very familiar with the process, having worked as a senior 

risk assessor for EPA. In addition, EPA regards these chemicals as hazardous, or 

it would not have derived reference doses for them. 

Third, I believe my comments and recommendations were objective and based on 

my 30 years of expertise as a toxicologist. To give an example, in initial comments 

I was the only reviewer to be critical of a specific feature of the experimental design 

of the studies upon which the EPA derivations were based. The identical argument 

was made by the ACC in their comments to EPA. The only evidence provided by 

the ACC that I performed in a biased manner with regard to the peer review was 

that they disagreed that deca BDE produces a specific health effect. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss this issue. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Sass, your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER SASS, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Ms. SASS. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on the failure of the EPA IRIS program to serve the needs 

of the public. My name is Jennifer Sass and I am a Senior Scientist 

in the health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

I worked there for 8 years. I have a scientific background in toxicology, developmental biology, and neurotoxicology, and my task 

with NRDC is primarily to review and assess the science that 

underlies the regulation of hazardous chemicals. 

We commend the subcommittee for its interest in the EPA IRIS 

review process and its oversight of recent changes made to the program. IRIS is a cornerstone program at EPA which provides the 

scientific information necessary to develop our Nation’s air and 

drinking water standards as well as hazardous cleanup levels. It is 

105 

the program that evaluates the scientific evidence available on the 

potential for chemicals to cause harm to human health. 

The Administration’s record of political interference with the 

work of government scientists across a range of environmental 

issues including global warming and endangered species has been 

well documented. Things are no better in the case of analyzing and 

regulating toxic chemicals that pose a risk to human health. In this 

area, the Administration has attempted and in some instances succeeded to block, weaken, or delay health standards for a long list 

of dangerous pollutants including the pesticides atrazine and 

carbofurin, the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, and formaldehyde. 

Not content to simply undermine health hazards for a host of toxic 

chemicals one by one, the Administration officials have now set 

their sights on the foundational process for assessing the risks of 

toxic chemicals, the EPA Integrated Risk Information System, or 

IRIS, that assesses hazardous substances. The new 2008 IRIS process introduces three new opportunities for the White House Office 

of Management and Budget and other non-health agencies such as 

the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to comment on EPA’s health assessments where previously there has 

been only one opportunity. Thus, where the pre-2004 IRIS process 

provided the agencies and OMB with the draft assessment at the 

same time as it was provided to the public, the new process invites 

the other agencies into the assessment process at an earlier stage 

and obligates the IRIS staff to address the queries of the agencies 

and OMB whether or not they are consistent with health-protective 

policies. Following this negotiation, the draft review is then publicly noticed, but then there is a final intervention point provided 

to OMB and the other agencies that requires IRIS staff to resolve 

any outstanding concerns by OMB and the other agencies including 

polluting agencies before the assessment can be finalized. 

While the 2008 process boils down to death by a thousand cuts, 

this ability to have the last word and to potentially axe an assessment at the bitter end may be the deepest cut of all. Although current EPA management argues that the new process was developed 

to provide greater transparency, objectivity, balance, rigor, and predictability to the IRIS assessments, this new process gives the polluting agencies more access and more influence to what has historically been a reasonably objective scientific evaluation process. The 

new process established by the White House invites interference by 

OMB and other agencies at the outset of the process, in the middle, 

and at the end. Importantly, the Administration has sought to classify these newly introduced intervention points as deliberative and 

hence shield them from public view, and alarmingly, the new opportunities are not limited to data critiques. One particularly misguided new feature offers agencies outside of EPA up to 2 years to 

undertake their own studies of mission-critical chemicals, potentially suspending EPA’s evaluation of these contaminants for a very 

substantial period of time. 

The IRIS program has always struggled to keep pace with EPA’s 

regulatory needs and many environmental contaminants lacking 

IRIS assessments are quite important to public health. For instance, there is no IRIS assessment for nearly one-third of the 189 

pollutants listed as hazardous under the Clean Air Act. FurtherVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
106 

more, even when important chemicals are in the IRIS database, the 

risk assessments for many of these are outdated. The average IRIS 

assessment is over 13 years old. The oldest one has not been significantly revised since the mid-1980s. These problems greatly exacerbate the already long period of time required for EPA standard-setting procedures, up to a decade in some cases, and have 

been the focus of criticism for some time. Clearly, constructive reform of the IRIS program would focus on increasing resources 

available to undertake IRIS reviews as well as policy changes that 

would streamline the difficult decisionmaking inherent in the process. Properly managed, the EPA IRIS program provides a critical 

scientific service to the public. Speed is important but scientific 

quality and integrity is paramount. 

Another example of politics trumping science is the recent dismissal by EPA of one of their most respected and credible scientific 

reviewers, Dr. Rice, in response to a written request from the 

Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel of the American 

Chemistry Council. A notice posted on EPA’s Web site states that 

the exclusion is because due to the perception of a potential conflict 

of interest. The way EPA management has applied the peer review 

guidelines and expert scientists like Dr. Rice could be disqualified 

by taking a public position supporting the phase-out of chemicals 

where scientific evidence is mounting that they are persistent, biocumulative, and toxic and in cases where safer alternatives are 

available. This position is not in conflict with the scientific consensus among public health experts and it is not in conflict with 

many State public health agencies where some PBDEs have been 

banned or restricted. The only potential conflict that Dr. Rice 

seems to have is with the American Chemistry Council and their 

member companies that manufacture PBDEs. These groups continue to defend the chemicals and testify against State bans. 

In a book recently issued by David Michaels, former Assistant 

Secretary of Energy, titled ‘‘Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s 

Assault on Science Threatens Your Health,’’ the author emphasizes 

that the failures of EPA to regulate hazardous materials are not 

the fault of most agency scientists or career employees, many of 

whom are heartsick that their work has been so undermined. 

We requested this subcommittee and full committee work with 

colleagues to defend our public servant scientists as the Nation’s 

brain trust. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sass follows:] 

107 


62923.068
108 


62923.069
109 


62923.070
110 


62923.071
111 


62923.072
112 


62923.073
113 


62923.074
114 


62923.075
115 


62923.076
116 


62923.077
117 


62923.078
118 


62923.079
119 


62923.080
120 


62923.081
121 


62923.082
122 


62923.083
123 


62923.084
124 


62923.085
125 


62923.086
126 


62923.087
127 


62923.088
128 


62923.089
129 


62923.090
130 


62923.091
131 


62923.092
132 


62923.093
133 


62923.094
134 


62923.095
135 


62923.096
136 


62923.097
137 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Parshley, your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PARSHLEY, PROJECT MANAGER, 

GLYNN ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION 

Mr. PARSHLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Dingell, Chairman 

Stupak and members of the Committee. My name is Daniel 

Parshley. I am the Project Manager for the Glynn Environmental 

Coalition, a community nonprofit organization ensuring a clean environment and healthy economy for citizens of coastal Georgia. 

The committee’s February 5, 2008, letter to the Weinberg Group 

and its April 2, 2008, letter to the American Chemistry Council 

concerning the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 

was of great interest to the Glynn Environmental Coalition since 

this journal has been used to deny our community the basic protections that most Americans take for granted. Toxaphene, a nowbanned pesticide composed of more than 670 chemicals, was manufactured in Brunswick, Georgia, by the Hercules Corporation from 

1948 to 1980 and disposed of in many landfills and our estuaries. 

Now this toxic waste has spread throughout our community, including two Superfund sites, one of which, the Hercules 009 landfill, is located next to an elementary school. In 1991, EPA Region 

4, the State of Georgia, and the Hercules Corporation, which manufactured the pesticide, met and agreed to use an analytical method 

that only reported a few of the toxaphene chemicals present. The 

EPA Office of Inspector General found this analytical method was 

inappropriate and that it did underreport the amount of chemicals 

present. The Inspector General ordered new and appropriate analytical methods be developed. The Inspector General was joined by 

other federal agencies including the Agency for Toxic Substance 

and Disease Registry and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

In response, EPA Region 4 and the Georgia Environment Protection Division toxicologists published a paper in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology by Drs. Ted Simon and Randall Manning, advocating the reporting of only three of the 670 

chemicals in the toxaphene mixture. The article did not present 

any new data but was rather a creative reinterpretation of existing 

scientific studies that came to a radically different conclusion about 

the toxic and carcinogenic properties of toxaphene. The Inspector 

General noted that the Simon and Manning method would underestimate the amount of toxaphene chemicals present and would exclude the toxaphene chemicals present in the largest amounts in 

our community. Furthermore, the Inspector General accepted the 

report under the condition that the authors produce the calculations used to reach the conclusions. Neither EPA Region 4 nor the 

authors have been able to produce the calculations. The Simon and 

Manning article has been extensively reviewed and commented 

upon by the Glynn Environmental Coalition and numerous outside 

biochemists and toxicologists who found deficiencies and inaccuracies in the journal article as well as the journal’s bias toward industry. 

Scientific standards require transparency and reproducibility. We 

believe that our community’s needs are not being properly met by 

the EPA’s reliance on such questionable science. Our request of 

138 

EPA Region 4 is very simple: test our elementary school and report 

all the chemicals present. For more than 10 years, the Glynn Environmental Coalition has asked EPA Region 4 to retest by an appropriate analytical method Altama Elementary School, which abuts 

the Hercules 009 Superfund site. We want all chemicals present to 

be tested for and appropriately reported. For more than 10 years, 

EPA has been unresponsive. Earlier this year, EPA Region 4 made 

a presentation to our board of education that used the Simon and 

Manning article from Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology to 

conclude that even if toxaphene was present on school property, the 

chemicals are not a health risk to elementary school children. 

There appears to be a scientific consensus in addition to a general 

consensus among federal agencies except EPA that the Simon and 

Manning method is inadequate to test for toxaphene. In addition, 

the Weinberg Group has been hired by Hercules to reassess 

toxaphene’s toxicity. Tactics noted by the Committee in its February 5, 2008, letter have been put in motion including a scientific 

advisory panel to design two studies to determine the toxicity of 

only a few chemicals in the toxaphene mixture. We fear that there 

is a concerted effort by industry and EPA that is opposed to the 

appropriate testing of our community. 

In closing, the Glynn Environmental Coalition is grateful for 

your attention to the abuses being perpetrated under the guide of 

science through the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology and consulting firms such as the Weinberg Group. We have 

tried to briefly outline how EPA has delayed the proper testing of 

toxaphene in our community. I conclude by asking the simple question: do we ask too much when we ask that our elementary school 

be tested by an appropriate method and report all the chemicals 

present? 

Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parshley follows:] 

139 


62923.098
140 


62923.099
141 


62923.100
142 


62923.101
143 


62923.102
144 


62923.103
145 


62923.104
146 


62923.105
147 


62923.106
148 


62923.107
149 


62923.108
150 


62923.109
151 


62923.110
152 


62923.111
153 


62923.112
154 


62923.113
155 


62923.114
156 


62923.115
157 


62923.116
158 


62923.117
159 


62923.118
160 


62923.119
161 


62923.120
162 


62923.121
163 


62923.122
164 


62923.123
165 


62923.124
166 


62923.125
167 


62923.126
168 


62923.127
169 


62923.128
170 


62923.129
171 


62923.130
172 


62923.131
173 


62923.132
174 


62923.133
175 


62923.134
176 


62923.135
177 


62923.136
178 


62923.137
179 


62923.138
180 


62923.139
181 


62923.140
182 


62923.141
183 


62923.142
184 


62923.143
185 


62923.144
186 


62923.145
187 


62923.146
188 


62923.147
189 


62923.148
190 


62923.149
191 


62923.150
192 


62923.151
193 


62923.152
194 


62923.153
195 


62923.154
196 


62923.155
197 


62923.156
198 


62923.157
199 


62923.158
200 


62923.159
201 


62923.160
202 


62923.161
203 


62923.162
204 


62923.163
205 


62923.164
206 


62923.165
207 


62923.166
208 


62923.167
209 


62923.168
210 


62923.169
211 


62923.170
212 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Parshley. 

Ms. Kneiss, your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON H. KNEISS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PRODUCTS DIVISION, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL 

Ms. KNEISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My 

name is Sharon Kneiss and I am the Vice President of the Products 

Division at the American Chemistry Council. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk about a flawed EPA process used 

to revise a very important health effects value for a lifesaving 

chemical. 

The process failings go directly to the integrity of the science at 

EPA. Fundamentally, if you don’t have confidence in the process, 

you can’t have confidence in the result. In this case, EPA’s procedures on paper are appropriate. Had EPA followed them, we 

wouldn’t be here today. This June, EPA revised the oral reference 

dose, or RfD, for deca bromodiphenyl ether, a crucial flame retardant. EPA’s failure to follow its own processes has produced an RfD 

in which EPA itself says it has low confidence. If these shortcomings are widespread, they could seriously undermine the integrity of IRIS. 

ACC represents the leading companies in the business of chemistry. We have worked hard over the last decade to improve the 

quality and reliability of IRIS. Deca BDE is the most studied flame 

retardant and is widely used to help prevent fires and slow their 

spread. A prime example of the difference that flame retardants 

make is the Air France airliner that skidded off the runway and 

burst into flames in Toronto in 2005. Ignition of the seats and 

other fabrics on the plane was delayed for those vital few minutes 

so that all 309 passengers and crew could escape safely. It is important to remember that the reliability of this scientific review is 

not a theoretical or an academic exercise but poses real human consequences. 

Because EPA did not follow its own guidelines for peer review 

processes and study integrity, two major failures occurred in the 

deca assessment. First, EPA used a completely inappropriate study 

to set the reference dose. Second, EPA did not vet the panel properly and appointed a chair who had made numerous public statements indicating she had already made her mind up on the science 

and had taken sides. In relying on the Viberg study to set an RfD, 

EPA failed to uphold its own most important science processes. The 

study did not follow EPA’s Good Laboratory Practices or EPA’s 

study protocols. EPA’s TSCA Office said the study’s methodology 

had a fundamental flaw and its author repeatedly ignored requests 

for the study data. Both EPA and the European Union regulators 

have concluded that the Viberg study is not adequate for quantitative risk assessment, and yet EPA used it even though the National Academies of Science had already derived an RfD using topquality studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program. 

EPA also failed to follow its own peer review handbook which 

ACC and NGOs alike endorse. The handbook is clear that the 

choice of peer reviewers should be based primarily upon the reviewer’s expertise and experience and that reviewers should be sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent a balanced range of 

213 

technical points of view. The handbook also recognizes, however, 

that experts with a stake in the outcome and therefore a conflict 

or appearance issue may be the most knowledgeable and up-to-date 

experts but federal law prohibits EPA from using peer reviewers 

who either have current financial conflicts of interest or appear to 

lack impartiality. It says as a general rule, experts who have clearly taken sides may have an appearance of a lack of impartiality 

and should be avoided. The National Academies and NGO groups 

draw a similar line. 

To ensure that EPA gets this difficult balancing act right, the 

peer review handbook recommends that EPA notify the public before a peer review panel is formed, so interested parties can nominate proposed reviewers and provide the public with the list of proposed reviewers, so interested parties can comment on their qualifications and potential sources of conflict or bias. EPA did neither 

of these things. The peer review panel’s composition did not reflect 

a wide range of expertise and was chaired by an individual who 

had not been adequately vetted and appeared to have made up her 

mind. For example, she told one newspaper that there was no question in her mind that deca should be eliminated because it is a persistent toxin that accumulates in the food chain. She told another, 

we know enough to ban deca, we don’t need to wait another 2 years 

and let it increase in the environment while we nail down every 

possible question we have. 

With all these concerns surrounding the panel and its deliberations, we wrote and met with EPA to express our concerns. We did 

not ask that the chair be removed from the panel or argue that the 

scientific expertise was the basis for the disqualification from the 

peer review board. But at that late date, there really was no satisfactory way to undo the damage caused by these process failures. 

As a result, we were reduced to asking EPA to base its final toxicological review on data, opinions, and conclusions other than the 

chairperson’s. EPA ultimately deleted the chair’s statements from 

the peer review panel’s report but the damage was done. EPA’s attempt to unring the bell thus had no effect on the ultimate result 

and did not benefit ACC. EPA has set an RfD for deca that is three 

orders of magnitude lower than the best available science supports. 

ACC thanks the subcommittee for shedding light on the numerous process failures involved in the deca reassessment. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kneiss follows:] 

214 


62923.171
215 


62923.172
216 


62923.173
217 


62923.174
218 


62923.175
219 


62923.176
220 


62923.177
221 


62923.178
222 


62923.179
223 


62923.180
224 


62923.181
225 


62923.182
226 


62923.183
227 


62923.184
228 


62923.185
229 


62923.186
230 


62923.187
231 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thank you for your testimony. We will start 

with questions. 

Ms. Kneiss, as I read your testimony, I get the impression that 

ACC thinks that the deca peer review process was flawed not just 

because of Dr. Rice’s participation but also because you didn’t have 

a say in the selection of the peer reviewers, and I think in your 

opinion, the peer reviewers relied on a scientific study you don’t 

agree with. Is that correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. Our concern was with the lack of following the process that EPA has in their handbook to follow on how to form a peer 

review panel. 

Mr. STUPAK. But they don’t need your input to do a peer review 

panel. 

Ms. KNEISS. The guidelines do state that they should consider 

putting together a panel and they start by—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, but they don’t—— 

Ms. KNEISS [continuing]. Alerting the public that they are going 

to do a peer review and seeking input on those panels and—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So you wanted input on the panel, who was going 

to be on the panel? 

Ms. KNEISS. We would like them to follow the handbook as they 

have—— 

Mr. STUPAK. That is not what I asked you. ACC wanted input 

on who was going to be on the panel? 

Ms. KNEISS. We wanted input on an open and transparent process, open to the public. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if you have input, then how can the panel be 

said it is not biased then, if you put your people on it? Don’t they 

come with preconceived ideas then or biases, as you said? 

Ms. KNEISS. The key with a peer review panel is that it is broadly constructed, first of all, that I have the—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. There are five people on this panel, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. Correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. So they represent different views, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. I would assume so. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. And some of them might agree with your view 

and others might not, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is possible. 

Mr. STUPAK. And a peer review panel analyzes everything including that Viberg report that you mentioned. They can take that into 

consideration. They can take all kinds of information and they 

make an assessment and give it to the EPA, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. Correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. And then there is time for public comment, correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. So why would you have Dr. Rice, why would you 

want Dr. Rice removed then? 

Ms. KNEISS. It goes to the open process, the transparency of the 

process, the need to form a panel—— 

Mr. STUPAK. What was not transparent in this process? 

Ms. KNEISS. We had no idea who was on the panel until the 

panel actually met and deliberated. We had no opportunity—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Then why didn’t you ask all five people on the panel 

be removed then? Why just Dr. Rice? 

232 

Ms. KNEISS. Because the process was so flawed and it was so late 

in the process, we felt that our opportunities, quite frankly, were 

limited on how we could rectify the many problems with the process. 

Mr. STUPAK. So why do you pick on one of the peer reviewers, 

why not all five of them then? 

Ms. KNEISS. There were clear indications in the media and I 

might note that the EPA handbook clearly says that while you 

need knowledgeable experts as a general rule, those who have 

taken sides should not be put on the peer review panel because 

there is—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Were these statements of Dr. Rice before or after 

she was on the panel? 

Ms. KNEISS. It is both. 

Mr. STUPAK. Both? OK. Well, on page 4 of your testimony you 

state that deca was subject to an extensive 10-year study by the 

European Union as well as other major studies and has been found 

to present no significant risk to human health or the environment. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. Didn’t EU ban deca in 2002? 

Ms. KNEISS. No, not deca. 

Mr. STUPAK. They didn’t? 

Ms. KNEISS. It was other brominated flame retardants. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Did they just ban it this year, deca? 

Ms. KNEISS. No, it is still in use—oh, excuse me. I am sorry. I 

am confused. But they do have a risk assessment that had found 

that it is safe for use. 

Mr. STUPAK. That is safe for use? 

Ms. KNEISS. Yes. There is a risk assessment that took 10 years 

to complete and looked at 580 studies. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Has deca been banned in Maine and Washington? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is my understanding. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. On page 8 of your testimony, you state very 

strongly that transparency about data and methods is an indispensable element of influential scientific information such as the IRIS 

file, correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. So I gather you would agree with the GAO, who testified earlier, and I noticed you were in the room at the time, that 

comments made on IRIS assessment by OMB and other federal 

agencies should be part of the public record. Do you agree with 

that? 

Ms. KNEISS. We have supported improvements in the IRIS process for many years, improvements that would—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So you would agree with the GAO testimony earlier 

today then? 

Ms. KNEISS. We agree with many of the recommendations from 

GAO that—— 

Mr. STUPAK. No, I am asking about their testimony today about 

the IRIS and transparency. Would you agree or disagree? 

Ms. KNEISS. We agree with IRIS and the need for transparency. 

233 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. You allege that Dr. Rice—this is on page 12 

now—testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a report 

specifically advocating that the State mandate a phase-out of deca 

BDE. Isn’t it true that what Dr. Rice really testified on was the 

issue of whether there were safer chemicals available as substitutes? Isn’t that what she testified? 

Ms. KNEISS. My understanding is one of the statements was that 

there should be a phase-out of deca BDE. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you have a copy of her—— 

Ms. KNEISS. She did address other—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you have a copy of her testimony or anything 

where you could point to that? 

Ms. KNEISS. I do have it, but not with me. We can get it to you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Isn’t it true that she did not testify before the 

Maine Legislature to recommend the phase-out of deca? She never 

recommended a phase-out of deca to Maine, did she? 

Ms. KNEISS. She supported a report that recommended a phaseout. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, but my question was, she never testified before the Maine Legislature the phase-out, did she? 

Ms. KNEISS. Part of her testimony was the support of a report 

that recommended a phase-out. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you have that report? 

Ms. KNEISS. Yes, we will submit it to the Committee. 

Mr. STUPAK. So let me ask you this. The role of the peer review 

panel is to receive an array of opinions on the safety of the chemical in question, and this one is deca, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. Correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. And isn’t it the opinion of your organization, ACC, 

that only likeminded individuals should be on that panel then? 

Ms. KNEISS. Oh, absolutely not. We believe that it is important 

to the credibility of the process that it be broadly constructed, that 

it reflect all of the technically legitimate beliefs. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, on this review panel, there are five people. 

Did they all submit their comments to the EPA on this deca? 

Ms. KNEISS. As part of the process? 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. 

Ms. KNEISS. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. And did they all reach the same conclusion as Dr. 

Rice, all five of them? 

Ms. KNEISS. I can’t speak directly to—they all commented on different aspects. 

Mr. STUPAK. And they all basically came to the same conclusion, 

did they not? 

Ms. KNEISS. On certain aspects. 

Mr. STUPAK. So they all agreed? 

Ms. KNEISS. I guess so. 

Mr. STUPAK. So if you are concerned about the makeup of this 

panel and Dr. Rice, it sounds like the other four people agreed with 

Dr. Rice, correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. We have concerns that go far beyond Dr. Rice. It 

goes to the process and how the process was conducted and the 

failed process that resulted in the result that it did. It had many 

failings. 

234 

Mr. STUPAK. But these other four people gave the same conclusion as Dr. Rice so they are all wrong? 

Ms. KNEISS. What we were saying was, the appropriate response 

would have been to reconstruct the entire panel to make sure that 

it reflected the broad range of views and we didn’t have that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Why didn’t you object to the other four? Because 

they did exactly what you wanted. They got Dr. Rice off and the 

other four agreed with Dr. Rice so the report should really be that 

we should ban deca. 

Ms. KNEISS. This was a process in our view that was conducted 

in the early stages in secret. We had no idea who the peer reviewers were. We had no idea what their credentials were or what their 

potential conflicts of interest were. By the time we found out, we 

were so far into the process, we felt that our options were very limited. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Rice, let me ask you this. What were you asked 

to do in this panel? What were you tasked to do, this peer review 

panel on deca? 

Ms. RICE. A peer review panel, the chair of a peer review panel, 

really, their only obligation or their obligation is to hear all of the 

scientific opinions. We are presented with a series of charge questions by the Environmental Protection Agency. We can address 

other questions as well if we want to. But what I did in the peer 

review meeting was, I basically went around the table for each 

charge question and made sure that the opinions of all of the scientists, all four of the other scientists as well as myself, were heard 

and I think it is important to understand that these peer review 

panels, unlike some other panels that EPA convenes, there is no 

requirement for consensus. We don’t have to reach a conclusion. 

We really submit our individual comments to EPA and then EPA 

responds to those. 

Mr. STUPAK. And when all five people entered their comments to 

the EPA, were they similar to your comments? 

Ms. RICE. I think that all of the comments for the most part were 

very similar. The bottom line, the whole purpose of this is to derive 

a so-called safe level, and the comments of all of us really came 

down in just ultimately just about the same place, so my comments 

were not outliers. 

Mr. STUPAK. And one of the panel members had ties to industry? 

Ms. RICE. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. And they reached the same conclusion you did? 

Ms. RICE. Yes. He was a perfectly reasonable scientific member 

of the panel. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you know, did ACC ask for the removal of any 

other member other than yourself? 

Ms. RICE. To my knowledge, no, not from the correspondence I 

have seen. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. My time is up. We will come back for a second 

round. I will go to Mr. Shimkus for questions right now. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because Greg Walden 

was so gracious in helping me out, I am going to defer and let him 

take it. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you to our ranking member. 

235 

Ms. Kneiss, I want to go back to what you were saying. It sounds 

to me like the EPA didn’t follow its own guidelines. That is your 

argument? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. And the part of the guidelines they didn’t follow 

was how you impanel and make sure the public whether you are 

for or against, in between has a right under their own guidelines 

to understand that a panel is going to be created and to have some 

ability to have input into how that panel is structured. 

Ms. KNEISS. Correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. Or who is on it. Is that right? 

Ms. KNEISS. Correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so our friend Dr. Sass at NRDC, has your organization ever weighed in on the creation of a panel? Has your organization ever weighed in on any particular panel member? 

Ms. SASS. I have been there 8 years, and one of my primary 

tasks is to look at these kinds of issues, and I have never commented on a peer reviewer. I have never contested a peer reviewer 

and I didn’t contest any of the peer reviewers on this panel. 

Mr. WALDEN. So your testimony is, NRDC has never done that 

in any case? 

Ms. SASS. Not on a peer review panel. 

Mr. WALDEN. Not on Dr. Bull? 

Ms. SASS. Not on a peer review panel. Dr. Bull, when I contested 

him, was on a National Academies panel, very different from this 

peer review panel. They draft the document in a single consensus 

report as the final outcome, and at that point I showed evidence 

that he was on the payroll to Lockheed Martin on an issue in litigation on a pollutant that Lockheed Martin would be responsible 

for. 

Mr. WALDEN. And you wrote that to EPA? 

Ms. SASS. It was not an EPA panel. It was National Academies 

and it was a panel that would write a consensus report on that 

chemical. 

Mr. WALDEN. But did you raise that issue, that information with 

EPA at any time? 

Ms. SASS. To try and contest Dr. Bull’s—— 

Mr. WALDEN. No, did you present any information to EPA relative to Dr. Bull that concerns you on the deca panel? 

Ms. SASS. The letter that I wrote said why should someone like 

Dr. Rice be removed from a panel when there are other people that 

have actual biases that weren’t removed, but I never—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So you never specifically referenced Dr. Bull then 

in your correspondence? 

Ms. SASS. In that letter I did but I never opposed his—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Could you provide that letter to us? 

Ms. SASS. Sure. Also you might want to look at the peer review 

handbook guidelines, page 61, because it refers to the specific panel 

as actually put together by a contractor. But for the contract mechanism, the contractor may have its own pool of scientific and technical experts that it chooses from and EPA is actually not permitted to direct the prime contractor or the subcontractor in that 

process. 

236 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. So is there a process ahead of that though that 

EPA is supposed to follow in selecting the contractor or—so what 

you are reading overrides the other EPA guidelines? Is that what 

you are testifying to? 

Ms. SASS. No. There is a real confusion about panels and committees here. But there is basically three different types. This committee was a peer review and there is not a consensus report that 

comes from it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Correct. I understand. 

Ms. SASS. And every opinion counts, so I agree that it is important to have a wide variety of opinions coming in as long as they 

are scientific criticisms. That is what EPA would want to collect. 

For a federal advisory committee, they have a single report and 

then for the National Academies also a single report and consensus. They write the report. 

Mr. WALDEN. So what impact, Dr. Sass, did removing Dr. Rice’s 

comments have on the substance of the peer review? Are you aware 

of, did it affect the substance in the end? 

Ms. SASS. As much as I am aware, it didn’t change the outcome 

very much at all. Essentially most of the peer reviewers had basic 

agreement. So there was really no reason to contest—I would not 

contest a peer reviewer at all. 

Mr. WALDEN. I understand. 

Ms. Kneiss, if I could go back to you, because the question has 

been raised, why did you pick on Dr. Rice. I mean, that is the substance of the question here, and what you have testified is, there 

were public comments attributed to her that indicated from your 

perspective that she had a bias going in. 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. Were there public comments attributed to other 

members on that peer review panel that showed bias either for or 

against—— 

Ms. KNEISS. We weren’t aware of any. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is she the only one then that you had public information on that indicated—— 

Ms. KNEISS. In terms of public comments, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And is that why your organization—— 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. At that late point in the process, 

from our perspective and according to the guidelines, this should 

have all been resolved before the panel was put in place. There was 

not the opportunity to do that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, what about this issue Dr. Sass just raised, 

that this was a different type of panel that was created under a 

contractor and therefore, I assume you are saying, not subject to 

that rule. Is that your understanding of it? 

Ms. KNEISS. Our understanding is that the guidelines are still 

important to that process and there is a lot of requirements in 

there that suggest that it be open and it be an open and transparent process. 

Mr. WALDEN. Personally, I think that is the way they all should 

be, regardless of the side of the issue you are on. I know we had 

a situation in my district where an organization that was on the 

GAO approved list to simply take data that had been accumulated 

and transcribe it. No scientific input whatsoever. And an environVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
237 

mental organization objected and there was quite a stir raised including a full investigator IG report done because the allegation 

was this group was biased because they also were certified to do 

consulting work with mining organizations. At the end of the day, 

the IG said it was all bogus, this group did what they were supposed to do, it was all legitimate but not before it was a page 1 

story and all that. So there is a lot of give and take when it comes 

to areas of dispute and especially when it comes to this type of 

science because there are a lot of high emotions. If you have bad 

chemicals running around a school, you want to make sure your 

kids are safe. So I guess the question is, how do we fix this? How 

do we fix this? And Dr. Rice, does something need to be changed 

here? If there was somebody—let us say—sorry, I will let you answer. Let us say somebody had the opposite view you held or allegedly hold, which is that this is a wonderful chemical and there are 

no problems to it, should somebody be able to object to that person 

being on a peer review panel? 

Ms. RICE. Yes, I think that people should be able to object before 

the fact. I agree with that. EPA personnel can also challenge the— 

I mean, when I was at EPA, EPA people could also challenge the 

choices of the contractors for conflict of interest or for lack of the 

appropriate expertise, which is the only two things that really 

should matter. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you don’t have an objection to—I mean, personally you might, I understand and respect that—either Dr. Sass or 

Ms. Kneiss being part of that public process to weigh in for or 

against somebody being on one of these panels but then it is ultimately up to the—— 

Ms. RICE. Ultimately it is up to the contractor to respond to that 

or not. That is the level at which it should have happened. After 

a panel is held to go back to EPA, which was the only thing that 

they could do at that point, is not—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Was there an opportunity to object to the contractor? 

Ms. KNEISS. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. So that was the issue here at the core? 

Ms. KNEISS. We were not—we had no idea what this process was, 

what it looked like, what the panel looked like, until their first 

meeting. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you concur with that, Dr. Sass, in this case? 

Ms. SASS. Yes, and I think that we agree too that transparency 

is really paramount, because even if there is not a real problem, 

if you don’t have transparency, the perception of the problem could 

be the problem. So I agree that EPA needs to be left to do its work 

and I also agree that anybody should be able to comment or write 

letters and provide information if they think it is relevant and that 

EPA should weigh the scientific comments appropriately and as 

much transparency as you can put in that process means you don’t 

have to have a problem later. 

Ms. KNEISS. Again, if you don’t have confidence in the process, 

you don’t have confidence in the result. 

Mr. WALDEN. And the irony is, even with this dispute, those who 

don’t like this chemical, actually the report seems to back up their 

238 

view over what your organization would like to see come out of this 

whole process, right? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is the result of the report, correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to my colleague 

from Illinois the final 57 seconds on my clock. 

Thank you all for your testimony today. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Shimkus for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rice, first of all, for everyone here, I have calmed down a little bit. So that should be good news. But you worked for EPA from 

1993 to 2003. In fact, you received a level I scientific and technological achievement award from EPA for the high quality of your 

research, and I wanted to put that into the record and just thank 

you for your service. I thought about the first panel, I thought this 

is scientists playing politics or politicians playing scientists. I was 

trying to figure out. But that is part of this basic debate of peer 

review, whether they have—can they be objective if they come to 

the panel with already preconceived statements. So I am learning 

a lot, so I appreciate the first panel and this one, and I apologize 

for not being here for opening statements. 

Dr. Rice, we have already had some discussions about Richard 

Bull as a member of the peer advisory panel and we all know that. 

Dr. Sass has obviously raised the issue. In your experience with 

the panel, do you believe Mr. Bull was impartial when reviewing 

the literature? 

Ms. RICE. Yes, I believe that all five of us were impartial. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I mean, that is just part of this whole debate 

on both sides. So do you think it is possible to have ties or an affiliation with an advocacy group or industry and still be able to objectively interpret the data? 

Ms. RICE. It is possible, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If so, how can the EPA determine when someone’s 

ties would make them impartial? What should the test be and how 

could it be implemented before a peer review panel is selected? 

Ms. RICE. Well, I think one litmus test is whether a person has 

financial ties. I think that would delete them from the panel right 

from the get-go. But then after that, I think it gets a little bit 

murkier and I think that you have to look to whether the particular person is speaking from the science and certainly reasonable people, reasonable scientists can disagree on the interpretation of the science and that is OK. I mean, that is the way it works. 

But if there is a perception that the person is going beyond the 

science to talk about policy and that that is coming from some special interest, financial or otherwise, then that should disqualify 

them from the panel. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But in Bull’s case, he had a financial tie. 

Ms. RICE. Excuse me? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Bull’s case, or was this another case? 

Ms. RICE. It was another case that you are thinking of, yes. For 

this panel, he did not. I don’t think he was in conflict. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So when these scientists are all in this room, five 

of you, if someone, and you are going on the scientific data, you all 

are professionals so you could probably tell if someone is way off 

the deep end on their analysis? 

239 

Ms. RICE. I think so. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. You went to Maine and of course we have covered the testimony and you reported to the Maine Legislature. How 

do you characterize your testimony before the Maine Legislature? 

We have heard what was asked. How would you, give us in your 

own words. 

Ms. RICE. Well, the Maine bill was very specific, and the question 

before me, the question before the legislature was, were there safer 

alternatives to deca, and so, to do my job as a toxicologist, I had 

to look at the properties of deca and then the properties of the alternatives, and I have to say that my main concern with regard to 

deca was not really the toxicity. I think we know less about the 

toxicity than I would like to know. My concern really was that it 

is persistent in the environment, that it bioaccumulates up the food 

chain. It is found in breast milk. Most of us are carrying body burdens of deca. It breaks down in our bodies, into the environment 

to some of the chemicals, some of the PBDEs that had already been 

banned by Maine. You know, so that was the framework. That was 

the context. And in fact, the ACC has a quote from me in a newspaper where I say that there are hints about the toxicity, and it 

is important to understand that the EPA peer review panel was 

about toxicity. It didn’t include at all anything about persistence, 

bioaccumulation, breakdown, to other forms of these PBDEs which 

I am on record as saying that those were my main concerns, and 

when I testified from Maine, the real problem that I had was determining, trying to determine whether the alternatives were safer, 

and the reason for that was because we know less about the alternatives than we do about deca or many of the alternatives than we 

do about deca. The toxicity data in particular aren’t there and I 

ended up going to the European industry and getting some toxicity 

data from them for some of these alternatives because, you know, 

as a person advising the legislature, I really didn’t want it on my 

conscience that I said there are safer alternatives when it turned 

out that there weren’t. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Why would the—again, we are laymen so you are 

kind of saying there are two separate issues here. Why would the 

ACC say they are not, they are linked? 

Ms. RICE. I personally think it is a mischaracterization because— 

in my testimony I said that the peer review of the EPA document 

and my work for the State of Maine were really two entirely different things. I feel that I am perfectly capable of being very objective about following EPA guidelines on how to set a reference dose. 

In fact, I did that for the Agency. I had no preconceived ideas about 

what the reference dose should be at all and I don’t even think 

about the final number. I mean, I never do. I just follow the process and whatever it ends up being is whatever it ends up being. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Ms. Kneiss, the ACC raised a concern. Why did you all concur 

that there is a connection? Do you know? 

Ms. KNEISS. It all goes to the flawed process to begin with. We 

had no information about how this process was going to move 

along, who was on it, what the credentials for the panelists even 

were. We had to FOIA that to find out the credentials of the panelists. And so it was a process in which we had very little confidence 

240 

to begin with because it wasn’t open and transparent. And then we 

had concerns with how the Agency took on studies and looked at 

studies which didn’t follow their own scientific guidelines. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. 

Dr. Rice, do you think this qualified as, in essence, the public 

pronouncement issue that the EPA uses to say oh, maybe she 

shouldn’t be on the board, your testimony as a public pronouncement? 

Ms. RICE. No, I don’t at all because I really think that they are 

different issues, and I am perfectly capable of being objective in following the process to set a reference dose. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I really appreciate these testimonies and this 

hearing. 

Dr. Rice, having worked in the EPA, say going back to the last 

panel, did you as a scientist ever feel that you were bullied or 

pushed into making a scientific judgment based upon the political 

hacks that were appointed at the EPA? 

Ms. RICE. Well, I left in 2003, and that was just beginning to 

happen, and I didn’t leave because of that. A lot of people have 

asked me that, and I didn’t. That was not the reason I left. But 

I really personally didn’t. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I am done. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me just clarify a couple things. Dr. Rice, when 

you worked with the Maine Legislature at the time when you were 

talking to the Maine Legislature about deca, your work had already been done on this peer review panel, correct? 

Ms. RICE. I think they overlapped. I think—I have handouts that 

are dated in April. The peer review met in February. I think I had 

testified before that once but I am not—I have to say that I am not 

really clear on the timeline because to me, these were completely 

separate events that really had nothing to do with each other. 

Mr. STUPAK. And you are the State toxicologist so it would be 

normal for you to talk to the legislature about chemicals and on 

legislation they are proposing, things like that? 

Ms. RICE. Yes. Their committee meetings are called work groups 

and I think—— 

Mr. STUPAK. It was a work group? 

Ms. RICE. It was a work group and they asked me questions for 

an hour, and I was charged as the toxicologist to do this for the 

legislature. 

Mr. STUPAK. And when you were put on this peer review, they 

knew you were the toxicologist for the State of Maine? 

Ms. RICE. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this, Ms. Kneiss. You are familiar 

with the Peer Review Handbook, 3rd edition? 

Ms. KNEISS. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. These are only guidelines. 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. There is nothing in there that requires industry to 

be consulted or to be made known of who is on peer review panels. 

Ms. KNEISS. But it does recommend it. 

241 

Mr. STUPAK. Recommendation. It is a guideline. They are not required to get your approval before they do a peer review panel, correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. That is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. You have talked an awful lot about transparency, and you were here at the last panel so the new IRIS process doesn’t allow for much transparency when OMB is involved, 

correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. Well, what we believe—we have been supporters of 

an improved IRIS process for many years. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you don’t think—— 

Ms. KNEISS. And we believe transparency is very important in 

that process. 

Mr. STUPAK. So in the IRIS process, OMB should open up their 

deliberations and their reports from Department of Energy, Department of Defense so we have this transparency you want, correct? 

Ms. KNEISS. I can tell you, we haven’t taken—we haven’t looked 

specifically at that aspect of it. I can tell you—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, but—— 

Ms. KNEISS. From the broader point of view, we—— 

Mr. STUPAK. I am asking you, from your passionate concern for 

transparency, shouldn’t we have transparency then in IRIS, including OMB, DOD, and DOE? 

Ms. KNEISS. We should have transparency in the process. I do 

not know the specific issues surrounding that to make a statement 

on that particular aspect. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Dr. Rice, in our exhibits here, in our exhibit 

book right there if you want to look at it, Exhibit #10, there is a 

letter from the governor of Maine, Governor Baldacci, to the EPA 

protesting your removal from the panel. Did you have anything to 

do with the governor writing that letter? Did you ask the governor 

to write the letter? 

Ms. RICE. No, I found out about it after the fact actually. I appreciated it but I found out about it after the fact. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And Mr. Chairman, he is a former colleague of 

ours and I think we all hold him in high regard. I know I do. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Sass, can you say a little bit more about the increased secrecy under the new process of IRIS that undermines the 

scientific method and the public’s right to know? Could you say a 

little bit more about that? You seem pretty familiar with it. 

Ms. SASS. Right. I will comment on it but also I think I can’t 

refer the whole group but at least in my written testimony that is 

being submitted because it has a table on page 9 and 10 where I 

really struggled to clarify the old and the new because, as you 

know, the new is far more complicated. But in essence, there was 

always an opportunity for interagency review and of course, the 

agencies are allowed to call each other any time they want, so that 

hasn’t changed and they always had that opportunity under the old 

process, and also of course these always go to OMB for review. 

That was always done. The difference is that at this point they 

have inserted a number of new opportunities. They have obligated 

the IRIS process to incorporate new opportunities for interagency 

and OMB review, both early but also a final one at the end, and 

242 

that the public doesn’t have an opportunity during those times to 

comment. So they haven’t increased public transparency or participation at all but they have increased the interagencies. 

Mr. STUPAK. So with OMB at the end there, the public doesn’t 

really have any input until the final rule comes out then so they 

don’t know what happened between OMB and the final decision? 

Ms. SASS. Right, which is very concerning to us, but the new 

rules do obligate the IRIS staff to have to respond and resolve 

those OMB concerns and our concerns are that they may not all 

be scientific so that there is agencies like DOD and DOE that are 

not public health agencies and we are concerned that comments 

that are not scientific comments may derail or alter the process. 

Mr. STUPAK. Since you are the scientist familiar with this, Mr. 

Parshley mentioned this journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology as not being very credible in the eyes of some people but 

having a bias towards industry. Your opinion on that? Is Mr. 

Parshley right in his testimony? 

Ms. SASS. This is a journal that has a number of industry-affiliated people on its editorial board and associate editorial boards and 

it is shown, has a tendency, a pattern of publishing articles that 

are very friendly to the industry perspective and they are specifically targeting regulatory decisions or chemicals that are undergoing regulatory review. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask Mr. Parshley, if I may. You take the mic 

there, if you would. You talked about toxaphene, and how does 

toxaphene damage your health? Do you know? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. I am a project manager, and my job is really to 

get that information from the experts, and so I avoid trying to be 

the expert but when people ask me those type of questions, in my 

community when they come to me and ask those questions, I very 

often refer to ATSDR’s toxicological profile for toxaphene, and then 

depending on whether it is adults or children, they get more specific about the different threats. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, do you have some understanding of the health 

risks of toxaphene? I mean, you are concerned about it being next 

to an elementary school. Why are you concerned? What are the 

health effects you are concerned about? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. I am familiar with the issue. You know, my concerns are more than just with the elementary school, but at the elementary school itself, toxaphene is shown to have some developmental delays and so the very early years in school are important 

for children. Children’s immune systems are not as robust, are not 

fully developed. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Well, let me ask this question. Why are you 

after the EPA to do more studies then, your Glynn Environmental 

Coalition there? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. We are not asking for more studies actually. 

Mr. STUPAK. What are you asking the EPA to do then? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. A process for measuring toxaphene that was developed it was only used in our community that did not report all 

the chemicals present. The Office of Inspector General found, 

agreed with us, and it was appropriate, particularly—we are not 

just dealing with toxaphene. We are dealing with toxaphene manufacturing waste, and so, you know, the argument of what is and 

243 

what isn’t toxaphene has gotten very convoluted but what we want 

is very simple, test, report all the chemicals present. Then the toxicologists can look at it and tell what we need to protect our children and our families. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, what chemicals do you think aren’t being reported? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. The Office of Inspector General was very specific. 

The previous method looked at only one part of the chromatogram 

and eliminated everything else. Well, in that part that they eliminated, there was chemicals in the toxaphene mixture that have six 

and seven chlorines, it is a whole group, and that is what is mostly 

in our community and it is the stable form and what is going to 

hang around for a long time. And he said, gee, you know, you are 

not reporting the chemicals that are present in the most amounts 

in the community. So other—why we need the data, we need to 

know, can public works clean out the drainage ditch and not recontaminate the school? When the life of the school is gone, does 

our community have an encumbered piece of property? These are 

other questions in addition to, are our children safe. 

Mr. STUPAK. So what you are basically saying, you don’t believe 

the EPA has adequately tested for toxaphene or the breakdown 

chemicals that come from toxaphene in the landfill near the school 

and in your community. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. Yes, but if I could clarify, there has been technical toxaphene, weathered toxaphene, breakdown toxaphene, I 

will tell you the definition we use. We went to the Hercules patent 

and they said, well, this is what we patent-protected and that is 

what we call toxaphene. All these different definitions all fall in 

there. It is all toxaphene. What has happened is, the different 

amounts or ratios of the individual chemicals have changed but it 

is all still toxaphene, so that is a good clarification. Over time, the 

ratio of the different chemicals has changed, how much the different chemicals are there, but it is still there. But what we need 

for our community, not only for protection of our children, we have 

an estuary where 2 to 3 million pounds were released. We need to 

be looking at what disciplines are going to use this data, the actual 

resource managers, people that are going to be looking at fisheries, 

not only protecting people from contaminated fish but what is the 

effect on wildlife and the recovery of our natural resources. 

Mr. STUPAK. Have you asked EPA to do these studies? 

Mr. PARSHLEY. Well, a study is built off of good, sound data. We 

need to know what is there is the first step and that is what we 

are asking is why I came here today is, we have a very simple request: test and report all the chemicals that are there. There is no 

reason on this earth to test and not report the chemicals that are 

there. 

Mr. STUPAK. Very good. 

Questions? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and I will be brief. First of all, I was 

thinking about these rules of guidelines and I was thinking about 

Pirates of the Caribbean, are they rules or are they guidelines. 

That is part of the legislative challenges we have, the pirate rule. 

244 

I was interested in this magazine, Regulatory Toxicology and 

Pharmacology Journal, which now, Dr. Rice, are they a credible 

magazine, would you feel? 

Ms. RICE. I agree with Dr. Sass that they tend to be biased toward industry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So in your letter to the editor in 2004, titled ‘‘Critical Effect of Perchlorate on Neonates in Iodine Uptake Inhibition,’’ 

why did you send the letter? 

Ms. RICE. Because perchlorate is something that industry as well 

as government and various states are very concerned with. It was 

an appropriate place to put it. It was an appropriate audience for 

it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Did you place it elsewhere? 

Ms. RICE. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So they are credible enough for you to write a letter to inform the scientific community of this issue? 

Ms. RICE. Yes, I am not saying that nothing is published in the 

journal that isn’t reasonable and I am not saying that everything 

in the journal is biased. I am saying that when you take the body 

of studies as a whole, there tends to be a bias toward the industry 

point of view. But it is not an industry publication. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. I appreciate it. I was just trying to clarify. 

And I am not going to go long into this. On the next panel we have 

George Gray, who is the EPA director now. Dr. Sass, you have laid 

some pretty serious charges against him, a former member of the 

faculty of Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Instead of just going 

into the excitable debate, can you provide for us e-mail, documents, 

memos, or anything that substantiates some of these touch charges 

you have laid up against Dr. Gray? 

Ms. SASS. I don’t think I have made any charges that would require e-mails to substantiate. I think what I—you would have to 

tell me but I believe what we have said is about the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis is that it takes money and it gets support 

from a number of industries. I mean, I can give you documentation 

for that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You specifically cite the IRIS review of perc in the 

example showing Dr. Gray’s interference with the IRIS process. 

Ms. SASS. That was reported by a reporter in the trade press and 

I can provide that for you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is what we are asking. Do you have anything 

other than the trade press? 

Ms. SASS. You have to go case by case and I will tell you what 

I have as evidence and provide it for you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And I will end there. Thank you, Dr. Sass. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me thank this panel for their attendance 

here today. I am going to dismiss you. We have votes on the floor. 

Dr. Sass, Mr. Shimkus, all members have a right to follow-up questions in writing, and I would urge the ranking member to do that 

if he so wishes to get more detailed information and we may do the 

same thing, Ms. Kneiss. So I thank you all for being here. Thank 

you for your testimony. We are going to be in recess for the next 

half-hour. We have four votes on the floor, so we are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

245 

Mr. STUPAK. The hearing will come back to order. Sorry about 

the delay. We had an extra vote you guys threw in there we didn’t 

know about, so we had a couple extra ones there. Let us get our 

last panel here and hear from them. On our third panel, we have 

the Hon. Marcus Peacock, who is Deputy Administrator of the U.S. 

EPA, and Dr. George Gray, who is the Assistant Administrator for 

the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Gentlemen, as you know, it is the policy of this 

subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be advised 

that you have the right under the rules of the House to be advised 

by counsel during your testimony. Do you wish to be represented 

by counsel, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Gray? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No. 

Mr. GRAY. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Then I am going to ask you to please rise and 

raise your right hand to take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect our witnesses replied in the 

affirmative. They are under oath. We will start with opening statements for 5 minutes. Your full statement will be part of the record. 

Mr. Peacock, should we start with you, sir? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I don’t have an opening statement, Chairman. I 

am here to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Gray? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. GRAY, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GRAY. Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Stupak, 

members of the committee. I am George Gray, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before the subcommittee to discuss two important things: 

first, our ongoing efforts to maintain the highest levels of scientific 

integrity and research assessment and analyses at the U.S. EPA 

and our recent improvements to the Integrated Risk Information 

System, or IRIS. 

First, research that is conducted by our scientists and grantees 

provides the scientific and technical information that we need to 

protect human health and the environment. During the past several years, EPA has taken a number of steps to maintain a program of sound scientific research to inform agency decisions without allowing regulatory objectives to guide or distort scientific findings or analyses. These steps include open, transparent, and peerreviewed research planning and competitively awarded extramural 

research grants. It includes independent peer review of our science 

studies, publications, and assessments and rigorous independent 

evaluations of EPA’s research laboratories and centers. 

Science informs and provides a foundation for EPA’s regulatory 

decisions. At the same time, it is very important to recognize that 

many scientific questions or assessments generally involve both 

science and science policy considerations. Similar to other federal 

agencies that are required to produce scientific assessments and 

also make regulatory decisions, EPA views the relationship beVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
246 

tween science, science policy, and decisionmaking as a continuum. 

To start, science is conducted by individuals or teams working in 

our laboratories, out in the field, or in academic institutions across 

the country. Their work is reviewed by subject matter experts in 

accordance with EPA’s highly regarded peer review process and our 

information quality guidelines. Our scientists are encouraged to 

publish and otherwise communicate their findings. Our scientists 

and grantees published over 1,000 EPA scientific studies last year. 

But by their very nature, scientific studies involve varying degrees of uncertainty so there is rarely a single best study or a single best answer that we can use in decisionmaking. Therefore, we 

rely on science policy and we need to synthesize and assess and 

make choices when we have a wide range of scientific opinions and 

data points. The science policy process may involve: filling in 

knowledge gaps with default assumptions; using weight of evidence 

approaches to make scientific inferences; or making specific choices. 

Science policy work draws on expert insight from multiple scientific 

disciplines and is further strengthened by agency, interagency, and 

public review. 

In the mid-1980s, EPA program offices sometimes published very 

different toxicity values for the same chemical in spite of having access to the same scientific data. The original data was the product 

of science whereas the Agency toxicity values were a product of 

science policy as they included inferences, assumptions, and 

choices. EPA developed IRIS, the Integrated Risk Information System, exactly to help standardize the science policy process that is 

inherent in risk assessment. IRIS was originally intended to be an 

internal EPA system that provided EPA risk assessors and managers with an agency position on the potential human health risks 

of toxic substances. But to meet the growing public demand, the 

IRIS process has evolved over time. Examples of components that 

have changed include the setting of the annual IRIS agenda, levels 

of external peer review, and opportunities for public and interagency review. 

In 2005, EPA initiated a formal process to document the steps 

in the IRIS process including formalizing recent improvements. On 

April 10, 2008, EPA announced the revised IRIS process, the first 

time that EPA has documented the entire process and made it 

available to the public. Prior to the release, the IRIS process had 

often been viewed as a black box, both within and outside of the 

Agency. It was unclear what steps compromised the process and 

what the timing was for each step or where opportunities existed 

for internal and external involvement. Our improvements in the 

IRIS process helped define the appropriate roles for public, agency 

and interagency comments and they also helped promote greater 

communication and sharing of information between all interested 

parties and EPA. This revised IRIS process is designed to provide 

greater transparency, objectivity, rigor, and predictability in IRIS 

assessments. 

So in conclusion, EPA has a proud history of producing science 

that has informed decisions to help protect human health and the 

environment. We are committed to using the best available science 

and constantly evaluating our science policy choices to achieve our 

strategic goals and fulfill our mission. From the lab bench to the 

247 

administrator’s desk, we follow a science-to-decisionmaking continuum that is in common with other federal agencies that rely on 

both science and science policy considerations in their decision 

making. 

So thank you, Chairman Stupak and members of this committee 

for this opportunity to describe EPA’s critical scientific work, and 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:] 

248 


62923.188
249 


62923.189
250 


62923.190
251 


62923.191
252 


62923.192
253 


62923.193
254 


62923.194
255 


62923.195
256 


62923.196
257 


62923.197
258 


62923.198
259 


62923.199
260 


62923.200
261 


62923.201
262 


62923.202
263 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you for your testimony. Let me ask you this. 

Page, it looks like 5, on your testimony, you say once an EPA scientific product meets scientific standards, you go on, you say note 

these independent—I am trying to find the part here where you 

said about they get to communicate. You said something about you 

hope that they communicate their findings, right? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Once an EPA scientific product meets scientific— 

scientists are encouraged to publish or otherwise communicate 

their findings. So why would you remove Dr. Rice then if she is 

communicating her findings to the Maine Legislature? 

Mr. GRAY. Well, I was here for a large part of the last panel and 

it is clear to me that there is a lot of confusion about the situation 

with Dr. Rice. What I would like to do—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, you removed her, right? 

Mr. GRAY. No, she was not removed. The peer review had already taken place. What I would like to do is to—— 

Mr. STUPAK. The peer review had already taken place. OK. So 

why did you redact her testimony and take it offline? 

Mr. GRAY. That is why I would like to call your attention to a 

letter that was sent by the Agency, signed by Chris Bliley, who is 

the director of our Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental 

Relations, to the chairman of the full committee in response to several of his questions, and it lays out the situation with Dr. Rice. 

The first thing that I want to say is that we have a great deal of 

respect for Dr. Rice and for the work that she does and her scientific expertise. It is why she was chosen as or was a potential 

member of one of our peer reviews. But we have very specific rules 

that we follow in our peer review. As—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Now wait. Do you have rules or do you have guidelines? What are we talking about here? Or is this the pirate code? 

Mr. GRAY. This is back to our discussion of the arm’s-length relationship that we have with contractors who do our peer reviews. 

Those contractors do have a series of questions that are asked of 

each of the members of the peer review panel, partially to establish 

things like conflict of interest, to establish expertise, and things 

like that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. So the independent contractor didn’t find any 

conflict of interest of Dr. Rice because they put her on the panel, 

right? 

Mr. GRAY. The potential peer reviewers are asked to answer a series of questions and then just before they get together again as a 

peer review panel, they are asked the questions again. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Was that done in this case? 

Mr. GRAY. This is about—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Was that done in this case? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, it was. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. GRAY. And disclosure is a very important part here. We look 

for expertise, and if there are potential conflicts, we want them to 

be disclosed. The Agency does not make a determination about potential conflicts, the contractor does, but they need good information to do that. 

264 

Mr. STUPAK. So the contractor made the decision to seat Dr. 

Rice? 

Mr. GRAY. In this particular case—— 

Mr. STUPAK. I don’t want you to filibuster me. I am trying to ask 

a question. 

Mr. GRAY. OK. In this particular case, let us come to the crux 

of this issue. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let us get right to it. 

Mr. GRAY. Dr. Rice was asked just before the peer review panel 

got together, ‘‘have you made any public statements or taken positions on this or other subjects closely related to the chemical or 

topic under review?’’ She was asked this question on February 16 

and said no. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. GRAY. And February 15 was one of her testimonies before 

the Maine Legislature, so we were in a situation in which our contractor did not have the full disclosure to be able to make their 

judgments—— 

Mr. STUPAK. And did you realize that what she testified on the 

day before was not about deca? 

Mr. GRAY. ‘‘Have you made any public statements or taken positions on or closely related to the subject chemical or topic underway?’’ 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. And the day before, what did she testify to 

or talk to the working group in Maine on? 

Mr. GRAY. She talked about exactly the chemical that was the 

topic under review. 

Mr. STUPAK. You are sure of that? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. GRAY. Our judgment in this case, and this was a judgment 

that was made by the staff-level folks who run our National Center 

for Environment Assessment. They are the ones who made the 

judgment that—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So what did she testify to on February 15 about 

deca before the Maine working group? 

Mr. GRAY. The subject of her testimony is not what is important 

here. What is important is the fact that it wasn’t disclosed to us 

so that we could not make an appropriate decision—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Wait a minute. Did she testify about deca on the 

15th? If so, what is it she said that would violate that standard? 

Mr. GRAY. According to our letter to the chairman, Dr. Rice had 

testified on February 15 before the Maine Legislature in support of 

a state ban of deca bromodiphenyl ether, or PBDE. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. And I think Dr. Rice testified at the last panel 

that is not what she testified to. They talked about a safer substitute. She never reached—— 

Mr. GRAY. You have to have a substitute for something. 

Mr. STUPAK. Pardon? If her testimony is talking to a working 

group of the Maine Legislature and they are asking about deca and 

they are talking about are there safer substitutes, how is that a 

conflict? 

Mr. GRAY. This is not about a conflict. This is about non-disclosure of having made public statements or taken positions on this 

265 

or other closely related subjects, and in this case, when this came 

to light, the decision was made by the director of our National Center for Environmental Assessment—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, Dr. Rice is still here. Dr. Rice, do you mind 

coming back up and I will ask you testify on this? Because I think 

there is a lot of confusion. I want to get this cleared up. 

Ms. RICE. I kind of wish I had left. 

Mr. STUPAK. First of all, I have to remind you, you are still under 

oath, Dr. Rice, still under oath. 

Ms. RICE. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. So on February 15, did you testify before the Maine 

Legislature about deca? 

Ms. RICE. I testified to one of the committees. 

Mr. STUPAK. Pardon? 

Ms. RICE. I testified to one of the committees of the Maine Legislature. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Testified on what? 

Ms. RICE. On the Maine bill, which had a presumptive ban for 

deca BDE on the provision that safer alternatives were available. 

Mr. STUPAK. And was it about safer alternatives or was it about 

deca and if it was bad or good or should be banned? 

Ms. RICE. It was really about both in that my concern was 

whether I could really say that the safer alternatives were better, 

whether the potential alternatives were safer than deca. So I really 

had to in some ways compare and contrast, and what I indicated 

to the committee was that we didn’t know enough about the toxicity of the alternatives. We had limited information on the toxicity 

of deca, which was the subject of the peer review, but we did know 

a lot about the persistence and biocumulative properties of deca. 

Mr. STUPAK. So when you answered the question the next day, 

did you feel it was wrong, that you failed to disclose? 

Ms. RICE. Well, in retrospect, I probably should have said that 

I had testified to the Maine Legislature, but in my mind, the two 

exercises, the two topics were completely separate because derivation of a reference dose is a very limited exercise and it talks only 

about the hazards, it talks only about the toxicity and not about 

the other properties, and really I was talking about the other properties, so I considered that I hadn’t said—I certainly never said 

anything about my opinion about what the reference dose of deca 

should be or—and we keep talking about deca but in fact there 

were four chemicals and I never talked about the other three 

chemicals at all, and so in my mind at that time, the two things 

didn’t have anything to do with each other. In retrospect, I would 

have put it on the form. 

Mr. STUPAK. Before they pulled down your statement on the Web 

site, did they inform you why they were taking down your testimony and your findings? 

Ms. RICE. Well, I got a telephone call from Dr. Gray and didn’t 

take notes, so it is hard to remember a year-and-a-half later exactly what was discussed. But he told me that they had gotten this 

letter from the ACC and he asked me questions about the form 

and—well, not the form specifically but the timeline, when I had 

testified and what had happened when, and then he indicated to 

me that he was actually thinking about removing me from the 

266 

panel, and I have to say that I was so surprised by that that a lot 

of the rest of the conversation just went out the window. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Gray, page 5, you go and you say, ‘‘Because the 

scientific method encourages critical thinking and professional disagreement, it does not commonly lend itself to a bright line that 

decision makers can use as a reliable reference point.’’ It seems to 

me you are using a rather bright line here to exclude Dr. Rice. 

Mr. GRAY. No, sir, I am not. The decision was made on Dr. Rice, 

it was made by our National Center for Environmental Assessment, and I did support it, was that because the disclosure rules 

had not been followed, it was inappropriate for her comments to be 

part of that record simply because our contractor did not have the 

information they needed to make an appropriate judgment. If she 

would have disclosed this, I am guessing that she probably—the 

contractor would not have changed the situation, would not have 

had anything to say about her position on that board. 

Mr. STUPAK. So even though the other four people on this peer 

group agreed with Dr. Rice or they all came basically to the same 

conclusion, that is not the issue here in your mind, it was just that 

she didn’t disclose this meeting with the Maine Legislature? 

Mr. GRAY. I am glad that you have really exactly identified the 

issue. This is not a situation about—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, I did, and I can’t believe you would disqualify 

her on that. 

Mr. GRAY. This is about process. If we have a process that cannot 

be trusted, when we tell people, we ask all of these conflict of interest questions and we don’t have—we can’t tell them that we have 

confidence that those are being answered—— 

Mr. STUPAK. A process that can’t be trusted with this IRIS program where you have OMB and things are done in secret, there is 

no transparency, that is a process that cannot be trusted. 

Mr. GRAY. No, that process, remember, comes back to the peer 

review that we both support very much. There is no way for other 

federal agencies or anyone to play scientific shenanigans with the 

IRIS process when it has to go through a peer review process by 

independent expert peer reviewers at the end. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you want to put up the last one? 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. So where is the—I am looking at the IRIS process, 

the latest one, post April 10. I am on 12A. OMB interagency review 

and approval. I don’t see anywhere in there where there is a public 

review of that, goes right to the EPA and final rule is made, so 

where is the transparency, where is the peer review of the OMB 

interagency review and approval in 12A of your IRIS process? 

Mr. GRAY. In this case, this is simply the end of the process. It 

has been through peer review, and this is the final—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, and that is done in secret. OMB stuff isn’t 

disclosed. I think the record has very clearly been established. 

Mr. GRAY. No, it is very much like the way we do our internal 

agency reviews where we don’t share the comments that we get 

from other parts of EPA either, and here you will notice the very 

last line of section 12 is of course that the final decision on IRIS 

rests with EPA. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is already done by then. 

267 

Mr. GRAY. We make the final decisions. 

Mr. STUPAK. Based on what you heard from the Administration, 

which is OMB, which deliberations are in secret, we have established, right? 

Mr. GRAY. I am sorry. 

Mr. STUPAK. Your final decision is based upon recommendations 

from OMB, which is the Administration, and that is a secretive deliberation. 

Mr. GRAY. It is EPA’s decision. That is the important point. 

Mr. STUPAK. My time is up. Mr. Shimkus for questions. We will 

come back to this panel. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don’t come back up to 

the table, Dr. Rice. Again, I think, I know I have been caught in 

a bureaucratic, legalistic period of time and I just apologize for 

this, and unfortunately, people end up getting caught up in messes 

like this because of our rules and regulations and the like. You 

know, the hearing is trying to prove political attacks on the scientific community within the EPA and I understand the intent of 

what we are trying to do. I don’t think there is going to be success. 

There is frustration and I share the frustration of the handling of 

your case, and the reality is, I had an ethics issue, and I got called 

in for 3 hours with attorneys going over what I said, what I didn’t 

say and all this other stuff, and you just can’t win. They start splitting hairs so much that people get hurt. So again, I just do it to 

apologize and that is sometimes what happens here in a legalistic 

environment. That is why I am not a lawyer and I am never going 

to be one. 

The issue is more clarity. Let me talk about how do we—here is 

another example from politics is, there will be times when a reporter will ask us, can we get you to speak not for attribution. That 

means can you speak clearly, and we are not going to attribute 

that to you so we can get the truth. We have reporters back there. 

They know. They like us to do that sometimes. So my sense is, 

sometimes in this process, you want to have scientists in a room 

where they can speak not for attribution, so they can fully say 

what they want to say in this analysis and then put it together and 

share that. Dr. Gray, is that along the same lines? 

Mr. GRAY. That is a very, very good description of the situation 

that we go through, not just within the Agency where we have 

those same kinds of discussions and they are not always just holding hands and agreeing but also in the interagency process, and we 

believe that that ultimately makes our product stronger. We are 

getting scientific input, scientific expertise from a variety of different experts that we think makes our product better, and then 

at the end, the important thing again is that that product has to 

go through an independent peer review and pass muster with the 

scientific community. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is how really how—because the followup question is, how do you balance, and so you would say you balance it by the independent peer review? 

Mr. GRAY. And we get independent peer reviews and not infrequently that will come back and tell us we don’t think you did this 

right, go back and do it again, so that even with the best process 

that we can come up with, there is still often scientific disagreeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:26 Jan 10, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS\110-149 CHRIS
268 

ment and it is what makes this process strong. We can go back, 

do it again, and learn from the scientific input. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now, based upon the other panels and stuff, when 

we are talking about peer reviews, either internal peer reviews or 

other agencies’ reviews and if there are other agencies, are you able 

to see—there is always a great receptivity to transparency. Politicians use it all the time, bring the sunlight on, it sanitizes the system. Of course, we know that we don’t always use that, an example 

again with the media. You want to have confidential discourse so 

you can fully lay out the case. Talk about the peer review, internal 

and external. 

Mr. GRAY. OK. Well, we think that the process, this new IRIS 

process really does allow greater opportunity for broader participation by all stakeholders, not just at other federal agencies. We have 

more opportunities for the public to be involved, more opportunities 

for the rest of EPA to be involved when we are developing IRIS 

profiles. We go through that process with articulated time frames, 

which has never been in the IRIS process before that says how long 

steps are going to take and then we go into these various forms of 

review. We have review within the Agency. This is followed by 

interagency review followed by public review and peer review. All 

of those are ways in which we strengthen our process. If there is 

some specific things about the peer review process that I can answer—— 

Mr. PEACOCK. So for clarity, the internal review and the interagency review is confidential. You can call it secret or black box but 

the fact is, it is confidential just like a peer review at a scientific 

journal is confidential so that you can have a free flow of ideas and 

exchange within the scientific community, make sure the product 

at the end is as strong as possible. It is not an unusual idea. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right, but then of course the other flip side would 

be, how do we ensure that the public has confidence in the product? 

Mr. PEACOCK. And my answer there then comes back to that 

independent peer review. When EPA is done with its process, we 

have talked to our agency, other agencies, we have comments from 

the public. We give that to independent peer reviewers who are 

again arm’s length, not chosen by us, and ask them to review the 

work that we have done. If there is funny business that is being 

tried, if there are interpretations that are not scientifically tenable, 

if there are decisions that are being made that don’t have scientific 

support, we will hear that back and the public can be confident in 

fact because of this independent scientific peer review. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just add two comments. One, the time 

frame thing sounds good, but the record on our ability to move does 

not support the fact that this is an efficient system that gives a 

timely response, and you are going to find me defending that. Do 

you want to comment on that? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes, I would like to comment on that. One of the 

things I focused on as the chief operating officer is making sure 

people can see how EPA is performing. We are the first agency to 

have quarterly performance measures we make available to the 

public. We are going to put on this report how quickly we are now 

doing IRIS reviews compared to how quickly we have done them 

in the past, so everybody, every 3 months is going to be able to see 

269 

whether or not we are going to deliver on what we have said we 

are going to deliver on, which is faster IRIS reviews and keep the 

quality up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are going to tell me that this system is 

going to be quicker than this system? 

Mr. GRAY. Well, sir, I think—well, if you look right now at the 

average of the IRIS assessments currently underway is 51⁄2 years, 

and we have some that have been going on for 10 years, 15 years, 

because we have never before had a process written down with 

timelines that hold our agency accountable, that hold other agencies accountable, that hold the peer review process accountable. 

That is what we have written down there and that is what the deputy administrator has asked us to find a way to report out to the 

public to demonstrate how we are doing meeting our goals, if there 

are problems, where they are, are they coming from the interagency process or are they coming from the public process, are they 

coming from our own work. We are trying to open this up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We would love to see that. We would love to see 

these reports so that we can then say, hey, the system is really 

working. 

Mr. GRAY. Or if not, why not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, which right now we are not assured, but 

hopefully we will be. The backlog, will it be prioritized? 

Mr. GRAY. We are working through a number of ways in which 

we identify the best—how we set our agenda for each year and out 

the people and the resources that we have in the IRIS program to 

work. We are consulting more broadly than we have before with 

the public, with other federal agencies, and with others to find out 

what are the highest priority compounds and we will move those 

forward. We have put significant increases in resources both people 

and money into the IRIS program over the last 4 or 5 years and 

we are trying to make it work. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am not going to be silly, but is that open for public comment? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes, it is. Step one, we publish an IRIS agenda in the 

Federal Register every year and you are very welcome to tell us 

what you think are the highest priority chemicals for us to work 

on and that goes into part of our process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If that is the case, then that is great because hopefully we get the worst ones first, I would assume. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thanks. I have a few more questions. 

Kyle, put up that flow chart again, the post April 10. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Gray, you said that, I think I quoted you right, 

you have independent scientific peer review in this process. The 

only place I can find that is number 9 way up there in the top, and 

then right there, 10A, independent. OK. But then OMB comes back 

in at 12A. So the independent peer review and comment, when the 

Agency, EPA, makes its final decision after it gets its input from 

OMB, there is no review of that decision. You do it and then you 

go back into secretive or your closed interagency review. 

270 

Mr. GRAY. Well, you will notice that in fact that splits there. 

There is something we do to maintain the value of our peer review 

process. 

Mr. STUPAK. Don’t tell me you have another box you want to put 

in there. 

Mr. GRAY. It is a new step that we have put in there where we 

send our response to their comments and a revised document back 

to the peer reviewers and we ask them to comment, how have we 

done—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So at 12A, you send it back to 10A? 

Mr. GRAY. No, you can see that it splits. In parallel, we are asking our peer reviewers to say how we did with your advice because 

we have had a lot of concern that though we do this internal peer 

review, we don’t take their advice. This way these advisors do not 

have an opportunity to—— 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, it splits there, 12A and 12C, that is what you 

are talking about the split, right? Are you trying to tell me you bypass OMB? If you don’t go 12B, you go 12C, right? 

Mr. GRAY. I am saying that our revised final document also goes 

out for scientific review as well to ensure that the way in which 

we have addressed—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, but the order is already done. 

Mr. GRAY. What is that? 

Mr. STUPAK. The order is done. Your final EPA clearance, you 

have already issued the order. Sure, the science community can 

comment on it then, but it is a little bit too late, the horse is out 

of the barn by the time you get a chance to review it one more 

time. Go ahead. 

Mr. GRAY. The idea here is that when we have taken all of these 

comments into advisement, we have revised our document. We 

have written another document that says here is the comment we 

got and here is why we either took or didn’t. We send that as part 

of the final document that is going back to the interagency process. 

We also send that out to the peer reviewers, and we are asking 

them, how did we do on our science. 

Mr. STUPAK. So that is 12C, right? That is 12C is what you are 

talking about? 

Mr. GRAY. No, that is when it goes to the EPA group to look at 

as well. One of the things that—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Give me the number. Where does this occur in your 

flow chart here? After the last time the OMB gets their hands on 

it, when does it go back for this independent scientific peer review? 

Tell me that on this flow chart. 

Mr. GRAY. Well, it is another peer review. It is another opportunity for the peer reviewers to comment on how we have done 

with their scientific expertise. 

Mr. STUPAK. Where does that occur on this goofy flow chart? 

Mr. GRAY. That occurs—well, these flow charts are something 

that I can’t endorse. I did not put these together so I am not sure 

how those work. 

Mr. STUPAK. Neither do we. That is why we are asking the questions. I don’t think anyone understands how this thing works. This 

came from you. This came from the EPA. 

271 

Mr. GRAY. No, but that—well, the document that was part of the 

memo that came out announcing this is the place that to me gives 

us the best review of the process, and it is in step 11. 

Mr. STUPAK. Step 11. OK, 11, there we go, but see 12A now, you 

have OMB back in there, and if you want to split it like you said, 

go to 12E, you get OMB in there again. OMB gets about four bites 

of the apple for secretive deliberations that we don’t get to know 

about. Let me ask you this though. You mentioned timelines. If I 

start request for chemical nominations for IRIS, until I get to 13D, 

post final assessment on IRIS, what is my timeline? How is it going 

to take me? 

Mr. GRAY. Depending on, because all of these are ranges, somewhere between 3 and 41⁄2 years. 

Mr. STUPAK. Three and 41⁄2 years? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. The current average is 51⁄2. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. GAO says it is 6 to 8, so your average would 

be 7. 

Mr. GRAY. They might want to check their math. 

Mr. STUPAK. Or is that the new revised one since post April 10? 

Mr. GRAY. There is nothing revised since April 10. 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, your revised process, IRIS process. 

Mr. GRAY. No, that was the process that was released on April 

10. 

Mr. STUPAK. All right. So dioxin, we have been waiting since 

1991. When can we expect that one to be done? 

Mr. GRAY. Dioxin is a terrific example of both why we need a better process. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, we are on our third draft of this process. 

Mr. GRAY. You know why? Because we went to the National 

Academies of Science with our last draft and they said you have 

not done your science right. That is a problem. You need a process 

to make sure we are doing the science correctly—— 

Mr. STUPAK. With your new revised process, which has all the 

science so great, when can we see something on dioxin? We have 

been waiting since 1991. 

Mr. GRAY. Dioxin is entering into a process and the amount of 

time it will take we are hoping is in that 3 to 41⁄2-year process. 

Mr. STUPAK. So another 3 to 4 years? 

Mr. GRAY. I am afraid so. We were told by the National Academies that we had a lot of work to do. 

Mr. STUPAK. Has National Academy approved this flow chart? 

Mr. GRAY. Oh, no, no, they are occasionally used as one of our 

peer reviewers on very high-profile chemicals—— 

Mr. STUPAK. How about TCE? 

Mr. GRAY. There is another one. We went to the National Academies and they told us that they didn’t agree with our interpretation of the science. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, and they took 2 years, they came back with 

a report so now—— 

Mr. GRAY. We are now expecting to have the draft report ready 

by the end of this year. 

Mr. STUPAK. Draft report. Then how long are you going to sit on 

it before it is a final report? 

272 

Mr. GRAY. Our expectation is to meet the timelines that are 

within the new process. 

Mr. STUPAK. So what is the timeline after you get a draft report? 

How much time do you have then to issue a final report? 

Mr. GRAY. I haven’t done the math from individual parts in this 

process but it will then go through this process—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So there is not a timeline like 60 days, 90 days, 180 

days, is there? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, why can’t you tell me the time then? 

Mr. GRAY. The document here that was released describing the 

process has timelines for each step. Again, that is something that 

didn’t exist in the past and that we have put down to keep accountability both for our work and for the other parts of the process. 

Mr. STUPAK. I agree, and I don’t think anyone can understand 

it. Let me ask you this. Has there ever been an instance where 

someone forgot to disclose something on the disclosure form but 

were not removed from the peer panel? 

Mr. GRAY. Not to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. STUPAK. How many other instances have you removed someone for an oversight on the disclosure form? Did you ever do that 

before? 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t—not to the best of my knowledge, and again, 

this was a decision that was—this was made by our IRIS staff and 

I supported it, but this was—— 

Mr. PEACOCK. Chairman, that is probably something we can research and get back to you on. 

Mr. STUPAK. All right. Well, after you redacted Dr. Rice’s name 

and comments from the deca peer review panel comments, you 

later posted a version with her redactions, but you also put a disclaimer on indicating she was removed due to a potential conflict 

of interest. It is Exhibit #14 right there in the binder. Why would 

you do this disclaimer? Why not just redact it? Don’t you think you 

cast aspersions on Dr. Rice by saying she had a conflict of interest 

that wasn’t disclosed? 

Mr. GRAY. And Mr. Chairman, you are right, and Mr. Shimkus 

was right on this too. This is a situation that was very, very difficult for us. As I said, we have great respect within the Agency 

for Dr. Rice and for the work that she has done. She is serving a 

very valuable service to the Agency, but we also have a situation 

in which we have got one of our very specific rules and steps that 

hasn’t been followed. And I may not have described that in the best 

way. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if you have so much respect for Dr. Rice, and 

I believe you do, so she made an oversight and her conclusions 

were supported by the other four people on this peer review, they 

all reached the same conclusion, including the industry person who 

was on there who was pro-industry, why did you go through all 

this then? Why didn’t you just say to ACC, we are sorry that there 

was this oversight but you know, we have known her for 30-some 

years, she worked at the EPA, she is the toxicologist for the State 

of Maine, I can see why she talked to the legislature, the conclusions are the same. Isn’t that what is important in this thing, the 

conclusions that this panel came up with? 

273 

Mr. GRAY. It is also important to have a process with integrity 

that people can trust, and as I said, this was a very, very difficult 

situation and a very difficult call but we believed that having a situation in which we knew some of the important rules for disclosure, which are important to us being able to have our peer review 

process hadn’t been followed made it—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Were you here when Ms. Kneiss testified on behalf 

of the American Chemical Council? 

Mr. GRAY. No, I was not here for her testimony. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, she said the whole process was flawed. She 

said their concern was that whole process was flawed. So why 

wouldn’t you just take down the whole peer review and not have 

them on the Web site? 

Mr. GRAY. Because we didn’t want to start over. We felt that this 

was a way to continue to move our timelines forward, to do the 

work the right way so that it was an appropriate response in the 

middle of this process. 

Mr. STUPAK. As you are selecting these peer review panels, do 

you need ACC’s permission or approval of the people who are going 

to be the peer reviewers on these panels? 

Mr. GRAY. Well, first of all, we don’t select the peer reviewers. 

Mr. STUPAK. I know. You have the—— 

Mr. GRAY. No, our contractor doing that at arm’s length is a very 

important thing to the integrity of the process. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you need the industry’s approval before you do 

this? Does that independent contractor who picks the peer reviewers, do they need industry’s approval? 

Mr. GRAY. No, they make these decisions independently. 

Mr. STUPAK. Exhibit 6 in the book there is ACC’s letter to EPA 

asking for Dr. Rice’s removal. Prior to this letter, has EPA ever received a letter from industry calling for removal of a peer review 

panelist? Is this the first time you have ever seen one of these 

where industry comes and says remove this person? 

Mr. GRAY. In my experience, I believe this was the first one I had 

seen. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Do you believe that the science, there is uncertainty related to individual studies and a judgment call to be made 

with regard to the weight of the evidence given to that science? 

Mr. GRAY. I am not quite sure of the question, but of course, 

there is always uncertainty in science in the way that we want to 

apply it, yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. OK. I have no further questions. Mr. 

Shimkus? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. 

Dr. Gray, do you know if Dr. Rice is on a panel right now? 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are you? Sorry. 

Ms. RICE. That is OK. Subsequent to serving on the PBDE panel, 

it really wasn’t just a deca panel, I later served on a peer review 

panel for thallium. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thanks. Again, I think this has been educational for a lot of us who aren’t in the scientific community. Dr. 

Gray, in your long scientific career, you have had disagreements 

274 

with scientists who have worked with you in the past, I am assuming. Is that correct? 

Mr. GRAY. It is unusual to find unanimity among any group of 

scientists larger than one. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So how does a supervisor walk the fine line between engaging in scientific debate with staff who disagree and 

who may think that the debate is an attempt to influence them? 

Mr. GRAY. One of the things that we really encourage and one 

of the strongest core values of EPA and especially the Office of Research and Development in our science and technology arm is that 

this open debate and open sharing of scientific information is the 

best way to serve the Agency, to serve the public. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is it important for supervisors to challenge staff? 

Mr. GRAY. I think that it is important for—in many ways, it may 

not be the role of the supervisor although supervisors are there to 

make sure that people are doing the work they are supposed to be 

doing in the appropriate ways and then that work has to go 

through, as our products do at EPA, through some sort of peer review to check on their scientific quality. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. On the flip side, is it important for staff to challenge supervisors? 

Mr. GRAY. I think what you learn in science school is, it is important to ask questions no matter who you are asking them of. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and I would agree, and I know sometimes we 

don’t like to get in those debates and discussions. I think that is 

all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thanks. 

Mr. STUPAK. Just a couple for Mr. Peacock. Mr. Peacock, the report there by the Union of Concerned Scientists, you must have 

seen the report, right? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. What did you think of the report? You had 800 and 

some scientists, 500 and some said they felt political pressure. 

Mr. PEACOCK. I have three things to say about the report. First 

of all, I was concerned about it. We don’t tolerate political interference with science at the Agency, just like we don’t tolerate manipulation of peer review panels. So I took a serious look at it. The 

second thing I would say about it is, it didn’t take too long for me 

to find what I thought were a number of fatal flaws in the report 

and I am sure they are not complete, and some of them I think 

have been mentioned today, including the response rate. Most of 

the—over a third of the respondents do not do scientific duties as 

the main part of their job so I don’t know why we are calling them 

all scientists. There are issues regarding the wording of the questions themselves. Undue delays in a Web site or a press release 

being released is automatically considered political interference, so 

I didn’t put a lot of faith in the report. It still concerned me, so 

then I thought, well, what other signs would I see if there was political interference, and I just don’t see those signs. I do all-hands 

meetings as the administrator does with almost all the offices in 

EPA every year. This is not an issue that comes up frequently. 

Rarely, if at all, I would say. EPA is one of the top 10 places to 

work, has resulted in that way due to surveys consistently year 

after year, so I don’t get the sense—and we have a lot of scientists. 

I don’t get the sense that people are actually seeing that. 

275 

Mr. STUPAK. In these yearly surveys, do you ask about political 

pressure? 

Mr. PEACOCK. It is a survey done by OPM and they ask a lot of 

questions about how people feel about the workplace, about their 

supervisors, about benefits, and it is not an issue that comes up. 

Mr. STUPAK. Is it just yes and no on these surveys? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I don’t know. I am only familiar with the results 

where they rank the agencies and we are always in the top 10. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you don’t know anything about the survey, if 

they even ask about pressure from supervisors or—— 

Mr. PEACOCK. They ask about the relationships with supervisors, 

and I don’t—they certainly don’t go over the specificity of political 

interference on questions of science. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this. Dr. Gray says in his testimony 

on page 4 about the risk assessment process that, and I am quoting 

now, ‘‘The criteria for transparency were written to ensure that the 

public‘‘—I am talking about IRIS now—‘‘that the public would understand all the steps, logic, key assumptions, limitations, and decisions and the assessment process and also comprehend the supporting rationale that led to a particular decision or outcome.’’ 

Now, to accomplish these lofty goals, don’t you agree that the Agency comments provided to OMB then should be made public along 

with OMB’s comments? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No, I don’t, and it goes—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Aren’t you contradicting that testimony then? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, I go back to Mr. Shimkus’s point. There is 

a balance here, and you see this throughout science of people having the ability to have a fair and honest discourse about a scientific 

product which involves policy judgment and then also at some 

point having them come into the light of day and have to withstand 

the crucible of public review, and to me, this process strikes a balance. 

Mr. STUPAK. So what is more important, OMB or public review 

and comment? 

Mr. PEACOCK. They are both important. The reason IRIS exists 

is because there is disagreements between agencies on what the 

right level—FDA may want to set one level and EPA another. We 

have to speak with one voice and OMB has the responsibility to 

bring those agencies together and find what that one voice is. 

Mr. STUPAK. Kyle, go to the first IRIS one, the pre-2004, the simple one. OK. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. OMB had one input in that one, and that was, they 

were involved one time. Under the new process, OMB gets involved 

on three separate times. Kyle, go to the last one there, the postApril 10 one. 

[Chart shown.] 

Mr. STUPAK. So what special scientific knowledge does OMB 

bring to the process that EPA, its advisors, and peer reviews don’t 

have that they go from one time into the process, now they are in 

three times and they have the last say on it. So what special 

knowledge does OMB bring that EPA and its advisors and peer reviewers don’t have? 

276 

Mr. PEACOCK. It is OMB’s responsibility to bring the federal 

agencies together to come up with one answer, and that is the deal 

with IRIS. You have to have one answer. So scientists from whatever agency—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Was OMB failing to do that prior to 2004, bringing 

it together? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No, the problem with this process, which I think 

the GAO report certainly highlights and that you have highlighted, 

is, we don’t get these—there was never a process laid out and we 

don’t get these reviews done very quickly. In fact, they are done 

very late. They are very slow. So for the first time, and I give Dr. 

Gray a lot of credit for this, we laid out what the process looked 

like and said how can we improve this process to make sure that 

it is going to work faster. 

Mr. STUPAK. So if you are trying to improve the process, and my 

question was, what special expertise does OMB have that you don’t 

have? 

Mr. PEACOCK. You need to have one entity in the government, 

which is going to bring together diverse scientific views. That is 

OMB’s responsibility. I don’t know who else would do it. 

Mr. STUPAK. So during this process, they have to do it three 

times? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, I have to tell you, this reminds me of a 

project my daughter did. She was supposed to do a diagram of how 

you make breakfast in the morning and she did one of me making 

waffles, and it looked something like that, and I got to tell you, I 

make pretty good waffles and it seems pretty simple to me and she 

does eat breakfast, so you can make anything look pretty complicated depending on how much specificity you go to. I am not familiar with these diagrams. 

Mr. STUPAK. This is your chart. We didn’t make it up. We can’t 

understand it. 

Mr. PEACOCK. I am familiar with the process that I signed out 

in the memorandum which lays out the steps which Dr. Gray was 

referring to. This to me is a logical process and each step of the 

process has a certain number of days assigned to it. 

Mr. STUPAK. What is this then? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I have no idea. The first time I have seen that 

chart is today in this hearing room. 

Mr. STUPAK. Your staff briefed us with this chart. They gave us 

these charts and tried to get us to understand your process. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, I would just suggest the subcommittee stay 

with what I sent out in my memorandum, which I think is pretty 

clear. 

Mr. STUPAK. Who do we believe in the EPA then, you or the people who—— 

Mr. PEACOCK. I am not saying that chart is inaccurate. I am saying I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. STUPAK. So do you think OMB should be involved three 

times in the IRIS process? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I don’t see how you keep OMB out of any process 

where you have to bring interagency comments in. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, but three times? I can see them getting everyone together like they did in 2004, before 2004. 

277 

Mr. PEACOCK. When we do a rulemaking, for instance, they are 

involved twice. So once again—— 

Mr. STUPAK. And do you think their deliberations should be open 

to the public? 

Mr. PEACOCK. No, I don’t think. I think you have two effects if 

you do that. One is to chill the discussion that you need in order 

to get good science and good policymaking, and the second is, you 

confuse the public sometimes. 

Mr. STUPAK. And also if no one is watching you, you can do 

whatever you want with the proposed science. 

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, that is a cynical view and there are certainly 

examples where that has happened. I am not convinced that it is 

happening right now. I don’t see the evidence for it. 

Mr. STUPAK. I have no further questions. Mr. Shimkus? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I don’t have any questions either, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thank you. Thank you for coming, and this 

panel is dismissed. 

That concludes all questioning. I want to thank all the witnesses 

for coming today and for their testimony. I ask unanimous consent 

that the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for additional 

questions for the record. Without objection, the record will remain 

open. I ask unanimous consent that the contents of our document 

binder be entered into the record. Without objection, the documents 

will be entered the record. 

That concludes our hearing, and without objection, this meeting 

of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the integrity of EPA science, 

an important issue of mutual interest to our two Subcommittees. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has done a valuable and important job this Congress is identifying and investigating issues that require legislative follow-up by our legislative Subcommittees. 

As the new Chairman, I would like to assure everyone that the Subcommittee on 

the Environment and Hazardous Materials is following these proceedings and investigations closely. 

Chairman Stupak is a persistent investigator and legislator and I know this Subcommittee will follow the trail wherever it leads. 

If these investigations determine that legislative follow-up is needed to ensure the 

integrity of EPA science for the public, then the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee will stand ready to develop whatever legislative changes may be 

necessary. 

Risk assessment is a critical component in the protection of public health and the 

environment. Without adequate risk assessment, legislators and regulators cannot 

make informed and wise decisions about risk management. 

The testimony of John Stephenson from the Government Accountability Office is 

not encouraging on this point. 

EPA has a responsibility to manage the Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) to inform the public, industry, and policy-makers with the strongest and best 

available science on a variety of potentially hazardous materials. 

I am particularly concerned that EPA has not been able to complete an IRIS assessment for dioxin, a compound that we know is very dangerous and is far to prevalent in and around my district along the Houston Ship Channel. 

Just outside our district we have the San Jacinto Waste Pits Superfund site, 

which consists of submerged waste pits from an old paper mill that were recently 

discovered to be leaching high levels of dioxin out into the San Jacinto River, and 

from there possibly to Galveston Bay. 

278 

Fish advisories have been extended to larger and larger areas, creating a threat 

both to people who fish for food and for the large sport fishing industry in the area. 

Dioxin’s status as a toxic compound should not be controversial, so the lack of a 

complete its risk assessment is very discouraging. Apparently only four risk assessments have been completed this year, with a backlog of 70 more waiting behind 

them. 

Twelve of these backlogged risk assessments have been in process for more than 

9 years. EPA is taking as long to complete a risk assessment as Congress takes to 

rewrite the Clean Air Act. 

While EPA appears to make little progress on the backlog of 70 assessments, 

GAO’s testimony indicates that nearly half of the 540 existing assessments may be 

out of date. 

Making matters worse, hundreds of requested assessments on additional chemicals have not yet made their way into the IRIS database. 

With the recent public attention to chemicals such as Thah-Lates (pthalates), 

BPA, and flame retardants, it seems that our chemical regulatory system is lurching 

from one public flash-point to another, while systematic risk assessment and risk 

management are stuck in neutral. 

If the wheels are just spinning over at EPA, Congress will be forced move on its 

own in response to a public outcry for protection from potentially hazardous chemicals. 

We need to restore public confidence in EPA’s risk assessment and chemical regulatory system, and the first step must be to ensure the integrity of EPA’s scientific 

information and practices. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials looks forward to working with this Subcommittee on 

any and all issues that you identify involving problems with EPA science. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for testifying before this committee on scientific integrity at the EPA. 

Some members in this committee and witnesses on these panels believe the current administration has significantly interfered with science review and policy in 

the EPA over the past 8 years. 

Yet there is also evidence of staff and scientists within EPA either interfering or 

not complying with the peer review process 

These actions severely undermine the credibility of EPA to objectively regulate environmental pollutants. 

One recent example is EPA’s reliance on NOAA’s ‘‘Unified Synthesis Product’’ to 

support its proposed greenhouse gas regulations. 

This document was made to look like real science. It was touted as a highly influential scientific assessment. 

But in fact there was no actual research, and the scientific method was thrown 

to the wayside. 

A proper peer review would have excluded this document from consideration. 

Another example is the recent comments made at the December 2007 meeting of 

the Board of Scientific Counselors Computational Toxicology Subcommittee. 

These comments revealed how EPA investigators are cheating on their results for 

suitable data and the lack of any evidentiary support for EPA’s current use of linear 

modeling for low dose toxic claims. 

Has a proper peer review been conducted on these issues? It appears not. 

Mr. Chairman, scientific integrity is a commitment to truthfulness, personal accountability, and adherence to standards of professional conduct. 

But conflicts of interest can threaten scientific integrity and improperly influence 

decision makers who must rely on the assessments for public policy. 

And the conflicts need not be financial. They may stem from personal views or 

desire for more power in a position. 

Or, in some cases, the conflicts can come from dependence upon a source that 

funds the research—industry, government, and even NGOs. 

I urge my colleagues to look at the issue on a broad basis and not merely focus 

on one side of the equation. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

279 


62923.203
280 


62923.204
281 


62923.205
282 


62923.206
283 


62923.207
284 


62923.208
285 


62923.209
286 


62923.210
287 


62923.211
288 


62923.212
289 


62923.213
290 


62923.214
291 


62923.215
292 


62923.216
293 


62923.217
294 


62923.218
295 


62923.219
296 


62923.220
297 


62923.221
298 


62923.222
299 


62923.223
300 


62923.224
301 


62923.225
302 


62923.226
303 


62923.227
304 


62923.228
305 


62923.229
306 


62923.230
307 


62923.231
308 


62923.232
309 


62923.233
310 


62923.234
311 


62923.235
312 


62923.236
313 


62923.237
314 


62923.238
315 


62923.239
316 


62923.240
317 


62923.241
318 


62923.242
319 


62923.243
320 


62923.244
321 


62923.245
322 


62923.246
323 


62923.247
324 


62923.248
325 


62923.249
326 


62923.250
327 


62923.251
328 


62923.252
329 


62923.253
330 


62923.254
331 


62923.255
332 


62923.256
333 


62923.257
334 


62923.258
335 


62923.259
336 


62923.260
337 


62923.261
338 


62923.262
339 


62923.263
340 


62923.264
341 


62923.265
342 


62923.266
343 


62923.267
344 


62923.268
345 


62923.269
346 


62923.270
347 


62923.271
348 


62923.272
349 


62923.273
350 


62923.274
351 


62923.275
352 


62923.276
353 


62923.277
354 


62923.278
355 


62923.279
356 


62923.280
357 


62923.281
358 


62923.282
359 


62923.283
360 


62923.284
361 


62923.285
362 


62923.286
363 


62923.287
364 


62923.288
365 


62923.289
366 


62923.290
367 


62923.291
368 


62923.292
369 


62923.293
370 


62923.294
371 


62923.295
372 


62923.296
373 


62923.297
374 


62923.298
375 


62923.299
376 


62923.300
377 


62923.301
378 


62923.302
379 


62923.303
380 


62923.304
381 


62923.305
382 


62923.306
383 


62923.307
384 


62923.308
385 


62923.309
386 


62923.310
387 


62923.311
388 


62923.312
389 


62923.313
390 


62923.314
391 


62923.315
392 


62923.316
393 


62923.317
394 


62923.318
395 


62923.319
396 


62923.320
397 


62923.321
398 


62923.322
399 


62923.323
400 


62923.324
401 


62923.325
402 


62923.326
403 


62923.327
404 


62923.328
405 


62923.329
406 


62923.330
407 


62923.331
408 


62923.332
409 


62923.333
410 


62923.334
411 


62923.335
412 


62923.336
413 


62923.337
414 


62923.338
415 


62923.339
416 


62923.340
417 


62923.341
418 


62923.342
419 


62923.343
420 


62923.344
421 


62923.345
422 


62923.346
423 


62923.347
424 


62923.348
425 


62923.349
426 


62923.350
427 


62923.351
428 


62923.352
429 


62923.353
430 


62923.354
431 


62923.355
432 


62923.356
433 


62923.357
434 


62923.358
435 


62923.359
436 


62923.360
437 


62923.361
438 


62923.362
439 


62923.363
440 


62923.364
441 


62923.365
442 


62923.366
443 


62923.367
444 


62923.368
445 


62923.369
446 


62923.370
447 


62923.371
448 


62923.372
449 


62923.373
450 


62923.374
451 


62923.375
452 


62923.376
453 


62923.377
454 


62923.378
455 


62923.379
456 


62923.380
457 


62923.381
458 


62923.382
459 


62923.383
460 


62923.384
461 


62923.385
462 


62923.386
463 


62923.387
464 


62923.388
465 


62923.389
466 


62923.390
467 


62923.391
468 


62923.392
469 


62923.393
470 


62923.394
471 


62923.395
472 


62923.396
473 


62923.397
474 


62923.398
475 


62923.399
476 


62923.400
477 


62923.401
478 


62923.402
479 


62923.403
480 


62923.404
481 


62923.405
482 


62923.406
483 


62923.407
484 


62923.408
485 


62923.409
486 


62923.410
487 


62923.411
488 


62923.412
489 


62923.413
490 


62923.414
491 


62923.415
492 


62923.416
493 


62923.417
494 


62923.418
495 


62923.419
496 


62923.420
497 


62923.421
498 


62923.422
499 


62923.423
500 


62923.424
501 


62923.425
502 


62923.426
503 


62923.427
504 


62923.428
505 


62923.429
506 


62923.430
507 


62923.431
508 


62923.432
509 


62923.433
510 


62923.434
511 


62923.435
512 


62923.436
513 


62923.437
514 


62923.438
515 


62923.439
516 


62923.440
517 


62923.441
518 


62923.442
519 


62923.443
520 


62923.444
521 


62923.445
522 


62923.446
523 


62923.447
524 


62923.448
525 


62923.449
526 


62923.450
527 


62923.451
528 


62923.452
529 


62923.453
530 


62923.454
531 


62923.455
532 


62923.456
533 


62923.457
534 


62923.458
535 


62923.459
536 


62923.460
537 


62923.461
538 


62923.462
539 


62923.463
540 


62923.464
541 


62923.465
542 


62923.466
543 


62923.467
544 


62923.468
545 


62923.469
546 


62923.470
547 


62923.471
548 


62923.472
549 


62923.473
550 


62923.474
551 


62923.475
552 


62923.476
553 


62923.477
554 


62923.478
555 


62923.479
556 


62923.480
557 


62923.481
558 


62923.482
559 


62923.483
560 


62923.484
561 


62923.485
562 


62923.486
563 


62923.487
564 


62923.488
565 


62923.489
566 


62923.490
567 


62923.491
568 


62923.492
569 


62923.493
570 


62923.494
571 


62923.495
572 


62923.496
573 


62923.497
574 


62923.498
575 


62923.499
576 


62923.500
577 


62923.501
578 


62923.502
579 


62923.503
580 


62923.504
581 


62923.505
582 


62923.506
583 


62923.507
584 


62923.508
585 


62923.509
586 


62923.510
587 


62923.511
588 


62923.512
589 


62923.513
590 


62923.514
591 


62923.515
592 


62923.516
593 


62923.517
594 


62923.518
595 


62923.519
596 


62923.520
597 


62923.521
598 


62923.522
599 


62923.523
600 


62923.524
601 


62923.525
602 


62923.526
603 


62923.527
604 


62923.528
605 


62923.529
606 


62923.530
607 


62923.531
608 


62923.532
609 


62923.533
610 


62923.534
611 


62923.535
612 


62923.536
613 


62923.537
614 


62923.538
615 


62923.539
616 


62923.540
617 


62923.541
618 


62923.542
619 


62923.543
620 


62923.544
621 


62923.545
622 


62923.546
623 


62923.547
624 


62923.548
625 


62923.549
626 


62923.550
627 


62923.551
628 


62923.552
629 


62923.553
630 


62923.554
631 


62923.555
632 


62923.556
633 


62923.557
634 


62923.558
635 


62923.559
636 


62923.560
637 


62923.561
638 


62923.562
639 


62923.563
640 


62923.564
641 


62923.565
642 


62923.566
643 


62923.567
644 


62923.568
645 


62923.569
646 


62923.570
647 


62923.571
648 


62923.572
649 


62923.573
650 


62923.574
651 


62923.575
652 


62923.576
653 


62923.577
654 


62923.578
655 


62923.579
656 


62923.580
657 


62923.581
658 


62923.582
659 


62923.583
660 


62923.584
661 


62923.585
662 


62923.586
663 


62923.587
664 


62923.588
665 


62923.589
666 


62923.590
667 


62923.591
668 


62923.592
669 


62923.593
670 


62923.594
671 


62923.595
672 


62923.596
673 


62923.597
674 


62923.598
675 


62923.599
676 


62923.600
677 


62923.601
678 


62923.602
679 


62923.603
680 


62923.604
681 


62923.605
682 


62923.606
683 


62923.607
684 


62923.608
685 


62923.609
686 


62923.610
687 


62923.611
688 


62923.612
689 


62923.613
690 


62923.614
691 


62923.615
692 


62923.616
693 


62923.617
694 


62923.618
695 


62923.619
696 


62923.620
697 


62923.621
698 


62923.622
699 


62923.623
700 


62923.624
701 


62923.625
702 


62923.626
703 


62923.627
704 


62923.628
705 


62923.629
706 


62923.630
707 


62923.631
708 


62923.632
709 


62923.633
710 


62923.634
711 


62923.635
712 


62923.636
713 


62923.637
714 


62923.638
715 


62923.639
716 


62923.640
717 


62923.641
718 


62923.642
719 


62923.643
720 


62923.644
721 


62923.645
722 


62923.646
723 


62923.647
724 


62923.648
725 


62923.649
726 


62923.650
727 


62923.651
728 


62923.652
729 


62923.653
730 


62923.654
731 


62923.655
732 


62923.656
733 


62923.657
734 


62923.658
735 


62923.659
736 


62923.660
737 


62923.661
738 


62923.662
739 


62923.663
740 


62923.664
741 


62923.665
742 


62923.666
743 


62923.667
744 


62923.668
745 


62923.669
746 


62923.670
747 


62923.671
748 


62923.672
749 


62923.673
750 


62923.674
751 


62923.675
752 


62923.676
753 


62923.677
754 


62923.678
755 


62923.679
756 


62923.680
757 


62923.681
758 


62923.682
759 


62923.683
760 


62923.684
761 


62923.685
762 


62923.686
763 


62923.687
764 


62923.688
765 


62923.689
766 


62923.690
767 


62923.691
768 


62923.692
769 


62923.693
770 


62923.694
771 


62923.695
772 


62923.696
773 


62923.697
774 


62923.698
775 


62923.699
776 


62923.700
777 


62923.701
778 


62923.702
779 


62923.703
780 


62923.704
781 


62923.705
782 


62923.706
783 


62923.707
784 


62923.708
785 


62923.709
786 


62923.710
787 


62923.711
788 


62923.712
789 


62923.713
790 


62923.714
791 


62923.715
792 


62923.716
793 


62923.717
794 


62923.718
795 


62923.719
796 


62923.720
797 


62923.721
798 


62923.722
799 


62923.723
800 


62923.724
801 


62923.725
802 


62923.726
803 


62923.727
804 


62923.728
805 


62923.729
806 


62923.730
807 


62923.731
808 


62923.732
809 


62923.733
810 


62923.734
811 


62923.735
812 


62923.736
813 


62923.737
814 


62923.738
815 


62923.739
816 


62923.740
817 


62923.741
818 


62923.742
819 


62923.743
820 


62923.744
821 


62923.745
822 


62923.746
823 


62923.747
824 


62923.748
825 


62923.749
826 


62923.750
827 


62923.751
828 


62923.752
829 


62923.753
830 


62923.754
831 


62923.755
832 


62923.756
833 


62923.757
834 


62923.758
835 


62923.759
836 


62923.760
837 


62923.761
838 


62923.762
839 


62923.763
840 


62923.764
841 


62923.765
842 


62923.766
843 


62923.767
844 


62923.768
845 


62923.769
846 


62923.770
847 


62923.771
848 


62923.772
849 


62923.773
850 


62923.774
851 


62923.775
852 


62923.776
853 


62923.777
854 


62923.778
855 


62923.779
856 


62923.780
857 


62923.781
858 


62923.782
859 


62923.783
860 


62923.784
861 


62923.785
862 


62923.786
863 


62923.787
864 


62923.788
865 


62923.789
866 


62923.790
867 


62923.791
868 


62923.792
869 


62923.793
870 


62923.794
871 


62923.795
872 


62923.796
873 


62923.797
874 


62923.798
875 


62923.799
876 


62923.800
877 


62923.801
878 


62923.802
879 


62923.803
880 


62923.804
881 


62923.805
882 


62923.806
883 


62923.807
884 


62923.808
885 


62923.809
886 


62923.810
887 


62923.811
888 


62923.812
889 


62923.813
890 


62923.814
891 


62923.815
892 


62923.816
893 


62923.817
894 


62923.818
895 


62923.819
896 


62923.820
897 


62923.821
898 


62923.822
899 


62923.823
900 


62923.824
901 


62923.825
902 


62923.826
903 


62923.827
904 


62923.828
905 


62923.829
906 


62923.830
907 


62923.831
908 


62923.832
909 


62923.833
910 


62923.834
911 


62923.835
912 


62923.836
913 


62923.837
914 


62923.838
915 


62923.839
916 


62923.840
917 


62923.841
918 


62923.842
919 


62923.843
920 


62923.844
921 


62923.845
922 


62923.846
923 


62923.847
924 


62923.848
925 


62923.849
926 


62923.850
927 


62923.851
928 


62923.852
929 


62923.853
930 


62923.854
931 


62923.855
932 


62923.856
933 


62923.857
934 


62923.858
935 


62923.859
936 


62923.860
937 


62923.861
938 


62923.862
939 


62923.863
940 


62923.864
941 


62923.865
942 


62923.866
943 


62923.867
944 


62923.868
945 


62923.869
946 


62923.870
947 


62923.871
948 


62923.872
949 


62923.873
950 


62923.874
951 


62923.875
952 


62923.876
953 


62923.877
954 


62923.878
955 


62923.879
956 


62923.880
957 


62923.881
958 


62923.882
959 


62923.883
960 


62923.884
961 


62923.885
962 


62923.886
963 


62923.887
964 


62923.888
965 


62923.889
966 


62923.890
967 


62923.891
968 


62923.892
969 


62923.893
970 


62923.894
971 


62923.895
972 


62923.896
973 


62923.897
974 


62923.898
975 


62923.899
976 


62923.900
977 


62923.901
978 


62923.902
979 


62923.903
980 


62923.904
981 


62923.905
982 


62923.906
983 


62923.907
984 


62923.908
985 


62923.909
986 

Æ 


62923.910