Inspector General’s Report on EPA’s GHG Endangerment Finding Questions Process

The EPA’s Office of the Inspector General, on September 28th, criticized the way the EPA reviewed scientific data to support its finding that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Inspector General’s report suggests the Obama administration cut corners before concluding that climate-change pollution can endanger human health.

The report said EPA should have followed a more extensive review process for a technical paper supporting its determination that greenhouse gases pose dangers to human health and welfare, a finding that ultimately compelled the EPA to issue regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time.

Specifically, “[t]his review did not meet all [Office of Management and Budget] requirements for peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPA employee,” the report concluded.

In response, the EPA released this statement:

“We appreciate the important role played by the Inspector General’s Office and will give the recommendations in this report the utmost consideration.

Most importantly, the report does not question or even address the science used or the conclusions reached – by EPA under this and the previous administration – that greenhouse gas pollution poses a threat to the health and welfare of the American people. Instead, the report is focused on questions of process and procedure. While EPA will consider the specific recommendations, we disagree strongly with the Inspector General’s findings and followed all the appropriate guidance in preparing this finding.

EPA undertook a thorough and deliberate process in the development of this finding, including a careful review of the wide range of peer-reviewed science. Since EPA finalized the endangerment finding in December of 2009, the vast body of peer reviewed science that EPA relied on to make its determination has undergone further examination by a wide range of independent scientific bodies. All of those reviews have upheld the validity of the science.”

Questioning the process, but not the science, means the EPA’s endangerment finding is likely to stand, but this report will likely be used in the multitude of lawsuits challenging various EPA regulations.

This post was authored by GLLF staff attorney Emily Kelchen.