{"id":29629,"date":"2021-08-06T00:01:39","date_gmt":"2021-08-06T04:01:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=29629"},"modified":"2021-08-10T20:48:59","modified_gmt":"2021-08-11T00:48:59","slug":"whistleblowers-say-epa-managers-engaged-in-corrupt-and-unethical-practices-removed-findings-and-revised-conclusions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2021\/08\/whistleblowers-say-epa-managers-engaged-in-corrupt-and-unethical-practices-removed-findings-and-revised-conclusions\/","title":{"rendered":"Whistleblowers Say EPA Managers Engaged in Corrupt and Unethical Practices, Removed Findings and Revised Conclusions"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, August 6, 2021) The organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has filed complaints with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA\u2019s) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on behalf of four EPA whistleblower scientists. The scientists maintain that during the Trump administration, risk assessments for both new and existing chemicals were improperly changed by agency managers to eliminate or reduce calculations of risks; further, they assert that some of this behavior at EPA is ongoing. Beyond Pesticides recently covered<\/a> a report in The Intercept<\/em><\/a>, written by Sharon Lerner, that examined the multiple aspects of undue industry influence on the regulation of pesticide chemicals. The PEER complaints address regulation of other kinds of toxic chemicals, but Beyond Pesticides maintains that some of the problems the whistleblowers identify hold true for EPA\u2019s Office of Pesticide Programs, as well.<\/p>\r\n

Appropriately enough, the nation again recognized National Whistleblower Appreciation Day<\/a> on July 30. In 1989, Congress established the Whistleblower Protection Act<\/a> (WPA) to protect federal employees who report lawbreaking or other violations of rules or regulations; waste of funds; abuses of authority; gross mismanagement; or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. In 2012, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act<\/a> (WPEA) to expand and strengthen such protections. Despite these protections, these four have been subjected to reprisals for their multiple expressions of concern about dysfunction at EPA, and in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in particular.<\/p>\r\n

Ms. Lerner\u2019s coverage of the whistleblowers\u2019 charges, in The Intercept\u2019s<\/em> July 2 piece, \u201cWhistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office<\/a>,\u201d reports that the four \u201csaid that they told colleagues and supervisors within the agency about the interference with their work. Each of the scientists also filed complaints with either the EPA\u2019s Inspector General or the Office of Science Integrity, which has pledged to\u00a0investigate corruption<\/a>\u00a0within the agency. But because most of their concerns remained unaddressed months after they disclosed them \u2014 and because, in each case, the altering of the record presented a potential risk to human health \u2014 the scientists said they felt compelled to make their complaints public.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

EPA is tasked broadly with protection of human and environmental health; this mission flows to its subordinate divisions, as well. In 1976, Congress created the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to protect the public from \u201cunreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment\u201d by regulating the manufacture and commercial sale of chemicals. Several categories of chemicals were exempted from regulation through the law, such as those in tobacco products, pesticides (regulated by the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA), food, and cosmetics.<\/p>\r\n

Because TSCA had proven relatively ineffective at protecting the public from chemicals in myriad consumer products, an update to it, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, was adopted in 2016.<\/a> It sought to strengthen protections by mandating safety reviews, including for chemicals new to the market; increase transparency about information on subject chemicals; enhance EPA authority to require testing; reduce companies\u2019 ability to claim chemical information as propriety or confidential and thus, withhold it from regulators; and explicitly protect vulnerable parts of the population, such as pregnant people and children, among other features.<\/p>\r\n

The law gave rise to a new division within EPA: the New Chemicals Division (NCD), which operates within the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). OPPT functions under the aegis of EPA\u2019s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), as does the OPP (Office of Pesticide Programs), which is responsible for evaluating and registering all pesticides. (See the organizational chart here<\/a>.)<\/p>\r\n

The four whistleblowers worked under OCSPP (and NCD), which are supposed to evaluate risk assessment studies to gauge a new (or existing) chemical\u2019s potential risk to humans. Such assessments can lead the agency to place limits on a chemical\u2019s use or to ban it entirely.\u00a0The four have reported that civil service managers at EPA, during the term of the Trump administration and continuing to today, have engaged in corrupt and unethical practices, such as regularly accessing risk assessments completed by staff scientists in order to, variously:<\/p>\r\n