LAT: EPA Panel Advises Agency Chief to Think Again (scientists revolt!)

[DeepModem Mom]

EPA Panel Advises Agency Chief to Think Again
Irate scientists say the administrator ignored or misconstrued their recommendations in proposed new rules on soot and dust pollution.

By Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer


In an unprecedented action, the Environmental Protection Agency's own scientific panel on Friday challenged the agency's proposed public health standards governing soot and dust.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, mandated by Congress to review such proposals, asserted Friday that the standards put forward by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson ignored most of the committee's earlier recommendations and could lead to additional heart attacks, lung cancer and respiratory ailments....

***

In December, Johnson proposed to slightly tighten the health standards that state and local governments must meet in regulating industries and other sources of pollution. But those standards, governing the smallest and most hazardous particles of soot, were substantially weaker than the scientists' recommendations.

Johnson also proposed to exempt rural areas and mining and agriculture industries from standards governing larger coarse particles, and he declined to adopt the panel's proposed haze reduction standards....

***

Some panel members called the administrator's actions "egregious" and said his proposals "twisted" or "misrepresented" their recommendations....


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa4feb04,0,3876829.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[phoebe]

1. same guy who wanted human/child test subjects for pesticides

wonder if the LA Times writer was forced to leave that part out of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Johnson

snip

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson was criticized for his professed support for using human subjects in pesticide testing. In April, a hold was placed on his confirmation vote after he refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated testing the effects of pesticides on children from infancy to age 3. On April 8, Johnson canceled the study. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 29.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks for this info, Phoebe! nt

[depakid]

9. Yep- same guy

and I bet you're right. The editors wouldn't allow that into the copy.

Might have been a different story is the Dems hadn't punted away that issue, too.

and they wonder why they lose.

[rodeodance]

3. looky--Johnson put in WH opinions and edits!

EPA's air pollution epidemiology chief, Bart Ostro, charged during the teleconference that the EPA had incorporated "last-minute opinions and edits" by the White House Office of Management and Budget that "circumvented the entire peer review process."

He said research that he and others had conducted also had been misrepresented in the EPA's lengthy justification for the proposed new standards.

In an interview later, Ostro said he was referring to marked-up drafts of Johnson's proposals that showed changes by the White House budget office and language that was "very close to some of the letters written by some of the trade associations."

He said the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's seven-year review of data on health risks of particulate matter had been replaced with inaccurate conclusions about the science that could lead to "thousands more deaths," especially from fine particulates that lodge deep in the lungs.

[rodeodance]

4. Barbra Boxer is involved:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wrote to Johnson on Friday afternoon requesting that the EPA provide her with documents related to the EPA's proposed standards, including material showing the agency's contacts with the Office of Management and Budget and with representatives of the mining and agricultural industries.

"These changes benefit mining and agricultural interests at the expense of public health," she wrote.

In a public statement, she added: "The revelation that the OMB has intervened to gut the scientific recommendations is an outrage, but not surprising."

[JudyM]

7. "... an outrage, but not surprising." About sums up the * administration.

[rodeodance]

5. you would think the EPA would be a bit cautious given the lawsuit

involving TWT going on. geech.

[druidity33]

6. another...

"could be big" story. Maybe CTWhitman can help clear this matter up. I'd love to see her principles take over her party loyalty.

keep diggin' DMM...

[Trillo]

8. study more science and math -- we need more scientists! n/t

[Zhade]

10. Good for the dissenters!

NT!

[KittyWampus]

11. He wanted MINING industries exempt? Isn't that what leads to explosions?

Coal dust is combustable, is'nt it?