Not to be outdone by Alberto Gonzales, Stephen Johnson appeared before the Senate yesterday and achieved new levels of obstinacy.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee questioned Johnson, the administrator of EPA, about the Supreme Court's recent ruling affirming the agency can regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The legislation instructs EPA to regulate harmful air pollutants.

The hearing started as a back and forth about the speed with which EPA would pursue regulation. Democrats want swift action and urged Johnson not to wait for potential greenhouse gas legislation. Johnson refused to commit to a timetable preferring to move with the Bush administration's usual sloth.

Things could have stymied there, but Johnson chose to antagonize the committee further by abandoning reasonable thought. Since the Clean Air Act only requires the regulation of emissions harmful to the public, EPA would not have to regulate if it determined carbon not to be harmful. But that would be a ludicrous notion, wouldn't it? The LA Times reports:

As to whether the EPA will regulate carbon emissions nationwide, Johnson said the agency must first determine whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare.

That remark drew criticism.

"Surely, you acknowledge that global warming does endanger public health," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said.

Johnson refused to say whether he considered global warming the No. 1 environmental problem. That rankled Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

"You astonish me," Whitehouse said.

Amen to that, Mr. Whitehouse.

Democrats want swifter EPA action on emissions standards [LA Times]

The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is supposed to be a group of scientists who independently analyze standards for the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Those standards are integral in ensuring progressive air pollution limitations that embody the latest scientific and technological breakthroughs.

As Reg•Watch has reported, CASAC recently recommended tighter standards for smog, much to the chagrin of industry and EPA brass.

As though determined not to let that happen again, EPA has appointed to CASAC two members with industry ties. The new members will serve on the panel for nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOx and SOx). The Center for Science in the Public Interest sums it up:

Ignoring protests from consumer watchdog groups, the EPA has appointed two conflicted scientists to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee primary advisory panel that will evaluate NOx and SOx pollution. In January, CSPI wrote to the EPA opposing the nomination of Richard B. Schlesinger, who has received financial support from the American Petroleum Institute, and Christian Seigneur, who works for Air Quality Division at Atmospheric & Environmental Research (AER) Inc., which is funded by three organizations (API, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Health Effects Institute) that receive money from industries that have a direct financial interest in the committee's decisions. The final roster did exclude Roger McClellan, the New Mexico-based industry consultant whom clean air advocates also protested.

Advisors with ties to the power industry are grossly inappropriate for a panel charged with scientific recommendations on two greenhouse gases. It is not EPA's duty to include the views of industry in enforcing the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act is one of our country's greatest environmental achievements in part because it was designed to stay one step ahead of pollutants and polluters. Standards are to be improved every five years and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Whitman v. American Trucking Association, cost and achievability are not to be considered. CASAC should be a place for unpolluted scientific thought.

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

Recess Appointment Makes Dudley Head of White House Regulatory Policy Office

Courts Rebuke Bush Administration's Forest Actions

EPA Issues another Delay in Contaminant Regulation

EPA has once again delayed developing a standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel, can detrimentally effect the human hormonal system even in low doses.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose support for perchlorate regulation is unimpeachable, is perturbed with EPA's decision, or lack thereof. In a statement, Boxer said, "I am outraged that EPA has yet again refused to do its duty to protect the health of our families and communities from perchlorate pollution." For more info on the EPA decision, read NRDC's press release.

OMB Watch often criticizes the regulatory process for being too slow in responding to the public's needs. The process is muddied and subject to political interference. Perchlorate testing is a prime example of what we mean.

• 1998: EPA assesses perchlorate. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
• 1999 — 2002 : EPA assessment is peer reviewed. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
• 1999: EPA issues toothless interim guidance on perchlorate exposure.
• 2002: EPA's peer-reviewed assessment is reviewed by the Pentagon and EPA, allowing the agency to reach new heights in redundancy.
• 2003: EPA issues interim guidance about the 1999 interim guidance. (Again with the redundancy.)
• 2004: White House and Pentagon spend their time interfering in an upcoming NAS study on perchlorate.
• 2005: NAS releases study on perchlorate. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
• Yesterday: EPA decides not to regulate perchlorate citing the need for "additional investigation."

Sam•Fox (sam' foks') vt. 1. To install by recess appointment shortly after pretending to be cooperative by withdrawing a nomination.

Yesterday, the White House withdrew the names of two controversial officials nominated for posts in the EPA. Environmentalists criticized the nominations of both William Wehrum and Alex A. Beehler, and neither nominee appeared to enjoy support among Senate Democrats.

Under normal circumstances, this would be good news. But with President Bush circumstances are rarely normal. Bush recently showed false signs of cooperation by withdrawing the nomination of Sam Fox, only to appoint him during the following recess. The recess appointment of Susan Dudley was equally deceitful. With that in mind, who knows what the future holds for Wehrum and Beehler. The LA Times reports:

Congressional sources and industry lobbyists said they were not sure whether Bush intended to use the same tactic for Wehrum and Beehler.

"That was the plan all along," said a lobbyist with ties to the administration. Wehrum's post expires July 7, and Congress takes its summer break in August. But anger in Congress over last week's recess appointments may have changed the equation, several said.

Stay tuned to see if Bush will SamFox Wehrum or Beehler into the EPA.

Once every five years, EPA is required by law to revise the national standards for ground-level ozone, a.k.a. smog. As the agency prepares its revisions, another scientific body has urged EPA to tighten the standard.

In a letter to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, a group of 111 medical scientists called for tighter rules on smog, according to BNA news service (subscription). The scientists point out the current standard allows exposures which can cause serious adverse health effects.

This group of scientists joins two EPA science panels — the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee — in recommending tighter standards. Considering the obvious consensus, EPA should revise the national smog standards to reflect the scientific recommendations. EPA's final decision is due in early 2008.

Susan Dudley's recess appointment is the subject of editorials in this morning's Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Let's compare and contrast.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted by Matt Madia, 10:54:30 AM

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

OMB Manipulated Climate Science, Report Says

Miners Detail MSHA's Failings in Emotional Testimony

FDA Issues New Conflict of Interest Guidelines

Monday, April 02, 2007