UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REPSONSIBILITY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-cv-2219 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) uses an Integrated Risk Information System (“IRIS”) program to analyze selected chemicals found in the environment to identify and characterize hazards to human health, with the results of this analysis released in final public assessments to guide EPA policymaking and inform the general public. In January 2018, in testimony before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made comments construed as confirming EPA’s preparation of a new version of a long-delayed IRIS formaldehyde assessment, which, while not final, was ready to be publicly released for comment and peer review, but was being “held up” and therefore had not yet been released. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. Prompted by this congressional testimony, plaintiff Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”), “a non-profit organization dedicated to research and public education concerning the activities of federal, state, and local governments,” id. ¶ 2, submitted a request, pursuant the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to EPA for, inter alia, this public-ready version of the formaldehyde assessment referenced by then-Administrator Pruitt, and subsequently filed the instant lawsuit to obtain this 1 agency record. EPA has withheld in full the version of the IRIS formaldehyde assessment referenced in the congressional testimony—the only document remaining at issue in this lawsuit—as protected by the deliberative process privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA’s Exemption 5, id. § 552(b)(5). Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 21; Pl.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, EPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. I. BACKGROUND Pertinent background underlying plaintiff’s FOIA request is described, followed by review of the FOIA request and the initiation of the instant lawsuit.1 A. EPA’s IRIS Program EPA’s IRIS program “analyzes selected chemicals found in the environment to identify and characterize hazards to human health.” Def.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 1, ECF No. 21. According to EPA, the program’s primary purpose is to produce assessments, which are documents that “[identify] relevant studies” and “synthesi[ze] . . . evidence from identified studies across human, animal, and mechanistic lines of information” to identify human health hazards. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 2, Decl. of Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta (“1st Orme-Zavaleta Decl.”) ¶¶ 1, 15, ECF No. 21-2. By “identifying the human health hazard of a chemical, and the 1 In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, EPA has submitted three separate declarations of Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who has worked at EPA for more than 38 years and, since 2017, served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science in EPA’s Office of Research and Development responsible for administering the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals