On April 19, I wrote concerning the
abusive controls on industry imposed by the EPA, and particularly the use of its
Scientific Advisory Board in rubberstamping those operations. My point was that
the members of the Scientific Advisory Board are hand-chosen from universities,
which receive substantial federal grants. Those board members then knowing where
their bread is buttered are much inclined to vote favorably on any EPA proposed
actions.
My last sentence in that April 19 essay was as follows: "The EPA is using the SAB is a charade to augment its power and impose unnecessary regulations as dictated by the President. It is up to Congress to investigate this matter and take corrective action. (Ref. C&E News 4/1/13)).
We now have some good news on the subject.
Rep. Christopher Stewart (Utah) has proposed a bill which he says will bring more balance and expertise to the EPA's science advice. The bill (H.R.1422) has already been approved by the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, which also voted to send it for a full House Vote.
The major part of the bill is to allow unlimited public comment at SAB meetings. Previous commenters were allowed 5 to 7 minutes to speak their piece. Public commenters include representatives from industry, including scientists, research institutions, consultancies, universities, environmental, and health groups. There have been various objections to increasing the presentation time, but it should be noted that EPA operations are intended to be in the public interest, and the public should have unlimited time in which to show that interest. An analogy is the presence of filibuster policy in the Senate, wherein a Senator may speak as long as he likes in the public interest.
In addition, the bill would also expand industry representation on the SAB. Scientists with substantial and relevant expertise could serve as advisers even if they have a potential financial interest in the boards advisory activities - as long as that interest is fully disclosed. This is really not a basic change, since as I have previously indicated, the previous practice has been to include university scientists, who have a fundamental financial interest.
The House bill needs Senate approval, which is a limited likelihood, but as the Chemical and Engineering News reporter says, it could be tacked onto a larger bill with broad political support, and could include Pres. Obama's signature.
My last sentence in that April 19 essay was as follows: "The EPA is using the SAB is a charade to augment its power and impose unnecessary regulations as dictated by the President. It is up to Congress to investigate this matter and take corrective action. (Ref. C&E News 4/1/13)).
We now have some good news on the subject.
Rep. Christopher Stewart (Utah) has proposed a bill which he says will bring more balance and expertise to the EPA's science advice. The bill (H.R.1422) has already been approved by the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, which also voted to send it for a full House Vote.
The major part of the bill is to allow unlimited public comment at SAB meetings. Previous commenters were allowed 5 to 7 minutes to speak their piece. Public commenters include representatives from industry, including scientists, research institutions, consultancies, universities, environmental, and health groups. There have been various objections to increasing the presentation time, but it should be noted that EPA operations are intended to be in the public interest, and the public should have unlimited time in which to show that interest. An analogy is the presence of filibuster policy in the Senate, wherein a Senator may speak as long as he likes in the public interest.
In addition, the bill would also expand industry representation on the SAB. Scientists with substantial and relevant expertise could serve as advisers even if they have a potential financial interest in the boards advisory activities - as long as that interest is fully disclosed. This is really not a basic change, since as I have previously indicated, the previous practice has been to include university scientists, who have a fundamental financial interest.
The House bill needs Senate approval, which is a limited likelihood, but as the Chemical and Engineering News reporter says, it could be tacked onto a larger bill with broad political support, and could include Pres. Obama's signature.
No comments:
Post a Comment