Subject: RE: Question for 21 September: Can we trust the EPA?
I have two sets of responses to this question, one to Tom and Glenn, and one to Rich and Darcey (funny how the internet leads you to refer to strangers by their first name - hope nobody minds).
Re Tom & Glenn:
I agree with you that it's not fair to talk about whether EPA as a unitary body can be trusted or not -- it's simply too big and decentralized to generalize about. I think most EPA employees are trustworthy. The system makes the agency itself somewhat unreliable, in that assurances made by one level can be overruled by another, putting the original person in the awkward position of having to support management.
Tom has really identified a huge problem with information at EPA, unrelated to trust, which is that the agency's information systems and web pages are all fragmented, due to the stovepiped nature of the agency -- 10 or so program offices and another 10 regions. Every program office gets its own projects, which can lead to a bunch of pet ideas drawing money and people into divergent efforts, rather than usefully integrated work.
I also very strongly support Tom's point that EPA should be much more active in posting peer reviewed environmental research and information. We've made the same suggestion to EPA's IRIS staff -- since the IRIS database is so incredibly out of date (average: 10 years) and can't keep up with the scientists, simply let people post references for others to see -- the Agency doesn't have to endorse them. The IRIS staff floated this idea to the rest of the Agency and it was vetoed -- people might be confused. On this point, at least, I start agreeing with Rich and Darcey.
Re Rich & Darcey:
These postings really demonstrate that what things look like depend on where you sit. From the perspective of industry, it seems obvious that environmental groups hold far more sway over EPA (and Congress and the public) than we do. No matter how many suits troop into a hearing saying X, they can and often are all discredited as merely being shills for polluters, whereas a single environmentalist can claim to speak for the public at large -- and being outnumbered only plays to his or her advantage. But I suppose years in the trenches may give you a different perspective.
I have a harder time understanding the hostility to the Office of Environmental Information. Do folks really prefer EPA's databases to contain wrong information, or not to include any sort of contextual explanations or disclaimers? Mechanisms exist to fix errors that reporters make, but until recently no mechanisms existed to fix errors EPA made. Kind of Orwellian from our perspective. OEI does need to get on the stick, but that's an issue of bureaucracy, not politics.
I was pretty close to the creation of OEI (for an outsider, that is), and I can report that moving the TRI office was EPA's idea -- industry was pretty split, since people felt that the office largely worked pretty well and could be disrupted by being moved, especially in the middle of adding several new industries and chemicals.
Re EPA's shutdown of its website, read GAO's report -- it's really scorching. GAO was able to completely take over EPA's website. Hackers had set up chatrooms in Region 5's site. You don't have to be Mr. Bliley to think there were big problems that were known and ignored for years.
Re pesticides, I think EPA does a pretty good job of erring on the side of safety and sounding the alarm. I'd like to see some public opinion surveying on whether people are eating more or fewer fruits and vegetables as a result, given the overwhelming evidence that this is the best single way to prevent cancer. Especially in inner cities where there are no or few grocery stores. Not everybody can easily get to or afford Freshfields.
Date
|