Document Qg3LyqGeBBN6RdM0Dn2r27qo4

Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph.D. Professor Emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs http:/hhh.umn.edu Professor Emerita, Environmental Health Sciences http://en.hs.umii.edu email: dswaek@umn.edu Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph.D. Professor Emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs httphhhh.umn.edu Professor Emerita, Environmental Health Sciences http://en.hs.umii.edu email: dswaek@umn.edu 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004968-00006 House Subcommittee on the Environment Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, IJ.S. House of Representatives `TApamitng the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking" Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building May 23, 20 17 Written Testimony submitted by Deborah L, Swackhamer, Ph.D. Professor Emerita, University of Minnesota Mv luiiH' is Deborah Swackhamer, and I am a Professor Emerita from the University of Minnesota where 1 held appointments in Science, Technology, and Public Policy in the Humphrey School of Public Adairs, and also m Environmental Health Sciences in the School ot Public Health at tin* University of Minnesota. 1 also eo-direeted the Water Resources Center m Minnesota. 1 am trained as an environmental chemist, with an emphasis on understanding exposures of toxic chemicals in the environment. 1 also have worked on developing water resources policy lor the State of Minnesota. I served as Chair of the IPS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisoi y Hoard from LRHlH-W) I 2, ami currently serve as Chair of Hie El'A's Board of Scientific Counselm s. I speak to you today as an environmental sciences and police (expert, ami not on behalf of the U,,S. EPA oi the State ol Minnesota. My perspectives ami statements are mine alone, Key Points, Pus irunmeiital protection nnisi address pie fact that pollution docs not recognize political boundaries there is a role lor both States and the fvdciai go\crmneiil. I*ns is* tniitciiial protect ion is fundamentally about protecting the health of citizens, which rep'iiivs protecting the i|ualitv ol our air and water. Robust science, not politics, should form the bedrock upon which decision makers develop cm in mmcnial regulations and polieies. In general, the capacity to produce and wdtale robust scientific c\ idcnce is found a! the Icdcru! lew!, and imi ;j the hate lewl Piogiess in cm iroiimeiital protection has been adhered, but there is still much to be done to protect public health. Continued inwxtmcni in HPA science is iieedeil to mliicre t.he piotcajon oi public health, The future health and well-being of our communities, and of our children and graitdchildieit. is at stake. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production 1 ED 001523 00004969-00001 States vs. EPA in Miileni,iking. The hearing today is to explore the tension between .Stab's and id1 A regarding environmental regulation, My statements lo lids Subcommittee arc- to underscore the critically important role ot .science in environmental tier isinn-mnking, regardless of whether it takes place at the State or the Federal level. There is a reason anti rich history as to whv environmental protection is structured tin,* uay it is in our country. Our Federal statutes, passed with overwhelming bipartisan -support by the Gmgivss in the 1 P70s, set up a regulatory framework that also honors and empowers the role ol Slates. The Federal role is to ensure consistency u< ross mullijurisdictinnal watersheds and airsheds, and to establish a minimum bar ol environnti ntal quality that allows our citizens to safely drink our water, eat our fish, and breathe our air. The States' role is to implement the framework to moot those minimum criteria, because they know their state's better than Washington l)G does, '1 his framework is a robust and balanced one, and has worked well over tin* last -17 \ ears lor a number of reasons: scale ot the problems, involvement ot science, and cost efficiencies. Geographic Scale of Pollution. We all at e well aware that air and water do not respect or follow political botuuliries. In lack many state boundaries were established along shared river courses, setting up the need to manage air and water in a multijut isdictional, regional manner. Hl'A delegates the responsibility ol implementing th<* federal statutes to the Stales, but maintains some control over setting the national .standards, 1 laving Ft) states set of) di tie rent standards lor a given water pollutant umild be highly disruptive ciiuotk, and exceedingly expensive1 to the regulated community, to say nothing ol living ineffective. Role of Science. Environmental protection is at its essence the protection of our citizens' health. To protect public health, you must have clean air and safe drinking water - in other words, you must have a dean environment. To achieve this, one 2 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004969-00002 must establish acceptable exposures of pollutants - to lower the risk of adverse health outcomes - using the best: scientific evidence available. Thus science is the bedrock, the foundation, of human health and environmental protection. Science-based evidence informs but tines not dictate policy in the United States, Policy emerges through consideration of many factors including economic factors, technical teasihilitv, and social and political acceptability. However, all pood environmental policy lias a firm scientific foundation. The scientific foundation must be independent of puli! its, ami must be robust. In environmental science, this means it must be based on a collection of evidence, which is then reviewed and critiqued by oilier independent scientists. When it comes to environmental regulations, given no litigious society, the tegulution that survives a court challenge is one that is based on the best available scienee. So: our Federal HPA and our state environmental agencies must be able to have the best science available to them, or they v. ill not be protecting public health. Without science supporting environmental policy making, public heaith lores. Regulatory Science Must lie Robust. Hie science that is used to support environmental regulations is a compilation ol evidence from many sources. I)<:<* ns it not hundreds ol publications from federal and international agency research progi a ms, academic publications, and private sector studies are reviewed to produce a consensus regarding a hazard, a source ol' a pollutant, or the type and degree of ,m adverse outcome. In HPA, these assessments arc* usually reviewed by the Science Advisory Hoard or in some cases the National Academe ol Sciences, where an independent assessment of the science and cumiusioti.s is conducted. Tilt* HI'A t HI ice of Research and I tewlupinent (OKI) | conducts research that others do not, to fill in gaps in otu understanding of environment and health. Their research is directed by the needs and requests made from the Ih ngratn Offices within HPA (such as the Of! ice of Water and Wastewater, the Office ol Air and Radiation) and hum the Regional Offices. Tie- requests I rum the Regions are 3 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004969-00003 because the staffs within those rations have identified certain needs and du not have the sck-ntilic capacity to address them. This reseatrIt coiulurteci in OKI) is tevieuvd lor its quality and integrity by tin' Board ul Scientific Knunsolors (BOSK), which is an independent < heck on whether I lie s( jence being done at KBA is consistent with its strategic plan and mission, and is state-of-the-art This thirdparty advice prmidos critical feedback and guidance to the Assistant Administrator of ORD. A hmdamenhtl principle of robust science is that it is reviewed by an indepemient set of peer scientists, who have no personal or professional stake in the outcome of the ivvh'w. Alls eseaix !i Unit is published in top scientific journals is peer-reviewed. KBA has wholeic-artedly embraced this principle for the s< ience that it conducts ongoing research ts reviewed by BUSK (and others when published] and constructive eritk ism and recommendations are provided to the Assistant Administrator. KBA Administrator Pruitt has recently not renewed half of tlv IB BOSK Kvcrutive Committee members for a second term, stating through a spokesman that more representation from the regulated coiunuinitv is needed on tfte committee. This may lead to the perception that science is being politicized and luaiyinalized within KBA. BOSK does not review regulations or the scientific evidence that is compiled to support regulations, it reviews science that is filling, in information gaps that may or may not be used in regulations. Thus BOSK members appointed from the r-'gulated conimunitv must be esteemed scientists with no conflict of interest, or the independence and objective review the BOSK offers may become biased by special interests. The Mature otY.nvironmenlal Science. KuviromnmUal issues are complex, anti thus the wience to addiess them ieqmres approaches that are interdisciplinary (for uistam e a cell biologist and a genwir biologist), null!klisriplinarv {lor instance, a pathogen microbiologist and a water treatment engineer), and tramsdisciplinarv (for instance, natural science experts working with economists and behavioral scientists). This involvement ol nunv disciplines and perspectives makes it 4 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004969-00004 expensive, both in ul hum.in resources unci research costs. Simply put, Stole agem H'S hove limited capacity to do this bresuitli or quality o| science, In addition, is nukes no sense to decentralize the .science - Shut would be inellicient and emote redundancies somethin}' that is wasteful and the Longres.x generally does not like, idnch of the scientific evidence that is needed to protec t public health is best done at the Frdeiu! level, where they can take lull advantage of capital resotn ces such as laboratories, scientific capacity its attack la rye problems (such as the dancer Moon Shot), and collate scientific evidence from across the national and international scientific communities. States have excellent scientilic resources, hut these are appropriately focused on using science to implement police through risk assessments or permit calf illations. It should also lie noted I hat when a city or a slat*1 has an environmental trisis, the states often turn to Id'A for the science needed to address the issue. KI 'A serves as the backstop for the states when there is an emergency, and as you know, crises are non-partisan. Fxjsnple.s where FI'A scientists stepped in anil responded to large scale srieiH e crews include the rapid assessment of the oil dispersant that was used nftw the Iteep Water Horizon spill; the < lean up levels of soils in the vardx of homes inundated bv I tiirrirune Katrina; and more recently, the challenge of preventing toxic algae blooms hum shutting down drinking water supplies tor Toledo and other Lake Erie cities. Who Will Provide the Needed Science? The President's proposed FY201H budget reduces investment in FI'A's science programs, an ominous indication that the toumfntion ot science to support policy is being marginalized and less valued by the current administration. It not HPA, then who? There is no indication <! how this sdentific rapacity would ho replaced - in tat l, pass-through programmatic dollars to the states are also cut in the proposed budget. Cutting environmental protection funds to the states will tun her decjrsi.se science-based policy ami slates' capacity to produce sound pnlii v. My own state o! Minnesota is well-regarded for its progressive stance on environmental protection. Pad even there, the Legislature lias 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004969-00005 proposed significant cuts to the budget of the state environmental protection agency. Thus the1 Federal cuts would be compounded by state cuts - a double loselose for the health and environment of Minnesota citizens. States will not be able to make up the difference in Federal cuts. Federal Science Works. An example of the need lor science in regulatory decision making is the National Center lor Computational Toxicology. This research collaborative is part ol the HI'A Olhiv of Research and Development, and has spent the last several years producing, computerized models and high capacity cel I-based approaches to predicting whether.! chemical is polentially toxic. Tins precludes 11 it* eiioi mous expense of animal bused toxicity studies, and allows many more chemicals io be assessed in far less lime. In collations!imt with other federal agencies, they have assessed over OiHM) chemicals, allowing policy makers in focus on the chemicals of higher risk and eliminate the focus on those with little or no risk. This research, seen In' many as the world-wide gold-standard, could not be done at the slate level - it inquired the scale of iedwal invest meat and resources. Without it, we would be regulating the wrong chemicals oi not regulating the right ones well again, imperiling public health. HI'A's Job is Not Finished. The proposed nits in science support and the marginalization of science in environmental protection lias been justified by some in part by .statements that we have done enough, these investments are no longer as necessary. Nothing could be lurther (nun the truth. We have nude tremendous progress in the improvement of our environment and in i educing illness ami premature deaths through our environmental regulation, bid it is a myth that we can t oast on these successes. Four out of ten ofour nation's lakes and rivers still do not meei basic water quality standards, liven in the great state of Minnesota, Hand of I tUMJi) hakes, over -ItHHi water bodies are listed as not meeting water quality standards. It is esthunted that more than 200,001) people die prematurelv each year in the (I.S, as a result ol air pollution exposures. These premature deaths, and hospital illnesses caused bv air pollution, cost tin* US economy over S 100 Million 6 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004969-00006 dollars per year. Marginalizing science* will reverse the trend in improvements to these numbers, and cause them to worsen again. What is at Stake? The path laid mil portends a decline in support of science at the federal and stale levels. Should v.'e follow tins path, it will lead to a dec line in public health, a decline in our communities' health, and put our country at a competitive disadvantage. It erodes the future health and well-being ofmir children am! our grandchildren, investing in and maintaining, our pre-eminence in environmental sciem e, and ensuring its use in sound environmental policy, will put us on a much better path. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production 7 ED 001523 00004969-00007