The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday streamlined the way it updates regulations for the nation's worst air pollutants, a move that drew immediate charges that officials are trying to quash scientific review to benefit industry at the expense of public health.
The changes, some of which closely mirror requests by the American Petroleum Institute and Battery Council International industry groups, include shortening what is now an exhaustive scientific review, and replacing recommendations prepared by career scientists and reviewed by independent advisors with a "policy paper" crafted by senior White House appointees at the agency.
[....]
"EPA is bringing air rule-making into the 21st century … with a timely and transparent process that uses the most up-to-date science," said Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock, who approved the new procedures. "Everyone has found the current process is inefficient, and current delays are unacceptable."
[....]
[The] announcement came two days after the agency announced it would study whether lead should be taken off the list of the most serious pollutants.
It also follows controversial decisions this fall by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in which critics said he had ignored scientific counsel on tightening standards for deadly soot.
For 30 years under the Clean Air Act, agency scientists have reviewed and recommended health standards for six major air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and lead.
The standards, which limit amounts of the pollutants that can be released into the air, are designed to protect children, the elderly and other "sensitive" populations, and curtail damage to animals, crops, vegetation, views and buildings.
Congress members, environmentalists and past EPA staff from Republican and Democratic administrations swiftly condemned this week's actions, saying they could undermine public health protections.
"EPA is downgrading the role of its own career experts and making sure that political appointees are running the show from the beginning," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch in Washington. "It is little wonder that the oil industry pushed for exactly this sort of 'reform' to the process."
O'Donnell called the lead assessment "a political gift to the lead-smelting lobby…. It could threaten thousands of children who breathe toxic lead fumes."
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), incoming chairman of the Government Reform Committee, said in a statement Thursday, "EPA's efforts to roll back … the most fundamental provisions in the Clean Air Act make no sense, and fly in the face of last month's elections."
It makes perfect sense for the Bush administration. First, you pull out the scientific data and recommendations and replace it with political hack written by White House flunkies--all in the interest of giving corporate interests, such as the American Petroleum Institute and Battery Council International, the legal right to pollute indiscriminately. The oil and gas industry gave over $25 million in campaign contributions in the 2004 presidential elections. Eighty percent of those contributions went to the Republicans, with President Bush receiving over $2.6 million in campaign contributions. I don't have any information as to whether the Battery Council International gave any political campaign contributions to President Bush. Continuing with the LA Times article:
The Chicago-based Battery Council International asked the EPA in July to delete lead from the list of "criteria" pollutants, which are subject to tough health standards. The council said other existing regulations would preserve protection.
Emissions of lead have declined by 96% since its use in gasoline was banned. Agency staff this year found only two sites in the country where lead emissions still exceeded limits, both near smelting facilities used as part of battery manufacturing.
Recent studies have suggested that lead is more harmful than previously thought. But EPA staffers said in a draft paper this week that they would assess whether tough health standards could be revoked.
The ban on leaded gasoline will continue no matter what, agency staff said, as will other rules.
[....]
The American Petroleum Institute this year wrote the EPA saying the long-established staff paper on each key pollutant should not be a science-based document but "is a policy document, and as such should have input from senior EPA management."
On Thursday, the agency eliminated the staff papers and replaced them with a separate science assessment that will no longer include policy recommendations, and a "policy assessment" to be prepared by senior EPA managers.
Neither the battery council nor the petroleum institute returned phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.
It is interesting how the Battery Council International wants the lead standards lowered near the two lead smelting plants. In fact, the Battery Council's entire goal for increasing the amount of lead in gasoline is to take the two lead smelting facilities off the list where lead emissions exceeds the EPA limits. It is an end-run around a health and environmental cost that the Battery Council International doesn't want to pay.
And of course, you've got to love the American Petroleum Institute’s ideas on policy papers--take the science out of the staff papers, while playing up these "policy assessment" papers "prepared by senior EPA managers." Senior EPA managers--not scientists! EPA managers who are appointed by the Bush administration, and will certainly not take the time to read scientific data on these pollutants, but rather will make their decisions on policy recommendations bought and paid for by corporate interests.
Sickening--isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment