By Emily Schilling
In a September 28 report titled “Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment, Finding Data Quality Processes,” EPA’s Inspector General (“IG”) raised questions about the process followed by EPA in making its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases (“GHG”). Although the IG concluded that the agency met statutory requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act, the IG found that EPA’s process for peer reviewing the Technical Support Document (“TSD”) supporting the endangerment finding did not comply with the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review requirements.
The IG Report states that because the IG concluded that the endangerment finding qualified as a “highly influential scientific assessment,” EPA was obligated to review the assessment through an independent review panel without EPA employees and to publish its response to the peer review results. EPA asserts that the finding was not a highly influential scientific assessment because it consisted only of science that was previously peer reviewed in accordance with the Agency’s policy. EPA acknowledged that the Administrator’s endangerment finding “primarily relied upon assessments conducted by other organizations rather than the TSD, which summarizes the conclusions and findings of these other assessments.” Report at 13. EPA indicated in a press release that it is crafting a formal response by “strongly disagrees” with the IG Report’s conclusions.
This finding bolsters assertions made by Plaintiffs in the Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA case challenging the endangerment finding, who argue that the Administrator abdicated her responsibility by relying exclusively on third-party literature. Critics in Congress also are seizing on the IG’s findings to assert that the endangerment finding was flawed.
Comments