EPA Shorts Public on Disclosure

What is an acceptable level for clean air, clean water or toxic cleanups, which are required by the nation's environmental laws? To make those determinations, the Environmental Protection Agency must first determine what level of pollution harms public health, and then make a policy decision as to what level of protection is technically feasible. In theory, the cost of protection isn't supposed to enter into the equation, although as a practical matter it always does.

Weighing the science is key as researchers learn new facts about the relationship between various pollutants and disease. With the nation's children in the grip of a growing asthma epidemic, it should come as no surprise that researchers are finding new evidence that air pollution is a major culprit.

Last week, the EPA announced the candidates for a new outside advisory panel to help the agency sift through this evolving scientific landscape. This subcommittee of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee will make recommendations as to what level of particulate matter -- fine particles of soot -- is acceptable. The EPA has a fairly open process for setting up its advisory committees. It first invites the public to submit nominations. It then publishes a "short list" of candidates and invites public comment on their credentials. And, finally, it publishes its final roster before it gets down to work.

Sounds fair, right? But what good is a transparent process if the information the EPA discloses to the public about the nominees falls short of full disclosure? How can the public, which includes the interested community of fellow scientists, environmental activists and affected industries, comment intelligently on a list of candidates that does not include key elements of their biographies?

For instance, the EPA's short list for the particulate matter panel contained 55 experts, most with sterling biographies outlining long lists of published studies for various government agencies and non-profit institutes. Take Robert Phalen, the University of California at Irvine Professor of Community and Environmental Medicine, for instance. He's conducted research in the field for over 30 years, we're assured. He's received grants from various government agencies and foundations.

What we're not told is that he has also written a book questioning the link between particulate air pollution and adverse health effects and arguing that tighter air pollution standards are premature. His short bio also ignores the fact, disclosed in that book, that he received research funding from the Southern California Edison Company and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the research arm of the utility industry.

Another example: the short biographical sketch about Peter Valberg mentions that he is an employee of Gradient Corporation, a private consulting firm. But it doesn't disclose that his clients include Carbon Black Manufacturers and an undisclosed mining company, and that he has penned critiques of EPA findings on health risks of air pollution for the Engine Manufacturers Association.

These are flagrant conflicts of interests that, by law, should exclude them from participating on this advisory panel. No doubt environmental groups will criticize these and many other scientists on the short list during the public comment period. But without publishing the full bios of its proposed candidates, the EPA has denied the public what it needs to make informed comment. In this case, partial disclosure is worse than no disclosure at all.

Posted by gooznews at July 2, 2007 11:01 AM