[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING EPA'S SCIENTIFIC
ADVISORY PROCESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-348 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota VACANCY
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Wisconsin JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia MARK TAKANO, California
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk
Analysis
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow,
Union of Concerned Scientists
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Discussion....................................................... 52
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 70
Dr. Roger McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk
Analysis....................................................... 75
Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow,
Union of Concerned Scientists.................................. 78
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals
expressing their concerns about the provisions in the bill
submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici................... 80
Congressional Research Service Memorandum on EPA Grants to
Members of Selected EPA Advisory Committees submitted by
Representative Dana Rohrabacher................................ 82
Thank you letter and Questions sent to Dr. Grifo from the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing on October
13, 2011, for the hearing titled, ``The Endangered Species Act:
Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy,'' submitted by
Representative Paul Bourn...................................... 92
George T. Wolff, The Changing NAAQS Review Process, submitted by
Dr. Michael Honeycutt.......................................... 96
EPA Evalualion Report submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt......... 108
GSA Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan submitted
by Dr. Michael Honeycutt....................................... 130
IMPROVING EPA'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PROCESSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris
Stewart [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.007
Chairman Stewart. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Environment will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Improving EPA's
Scientific Advisory Processes.'' In front of you are packets
containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-
testimony disclosures of today's witnesses. I would now like to
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Welcome once again to this morning's hearing on the
Environmental Subcommittee entitled ``EPA's Scientific Advisory
Processes.'' Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that
``the government's view of the economy should be summed up in a
few short phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,
regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.'' The EPA's
agency needs no introduction as a primary executor of the
regulatory part of this formula.
Whether it is fostering air-quality regulations that could
shut down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled
attacks on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-
killing climate regulations that will have no impact on the
climate, EPA's reputation as a lightning rod for controversy is
well known here in Washington and throughout the country.
Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying
regulatory science and scientific advisory mechanisms that the
Agency uses to justify its aggressive regulatory approach. The
purpose of today's hearing is to examine these processes with a
particular focus on draft legislation to reform the EPA's
Science Advisory Board, or SAB. Established by Congress in
1978, the SAB is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and
independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the
Agency. Unfortunately, this vision often goes unrealized in
actual practice. I would like to note just a few examples here.
Despite a statutory requirement that EPA's advisory panels
be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,''
the Agency routinely excludes private sector expertise while
stacking these panels with individuals likely to support EPA's
perspective. It is no surprise that EPA finalized a regulation
on power plants in late 2011 that even the Agency admitted
would cost $11 billion a year. EPA had prevented virtually all
industry scientists from participating in the review of the
underlying science.
Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating that,
in the case of an SAB panel asked to examine EPA's hydraulic
fracking research, all 22 members had ``no experience in
hydraulic fracturing and no understanding of current industry
practices,'' this in an industry whose technology is rapidly
changing with significant improvements incorporated into their
processes nearly every day. Even worse, the Agency appears
ready to double-down on this anti-business attitude I summarily
dismissing on the ground private sector experts in the next
fracking science review.
Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA
selects its supposedly independent advisers. According to the
Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the
members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, also known as CASAC, have directly received
grants from the Agency since 2000. These advisors served as
principal and co-investigators in EPA grant totaling roughly
$140 million.
EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly
or indirectly under review. During a recent review of EPA air-
quality science, 21 of the 25 panelists had their work cited by
the EPA and the Chair of the panel was footnoted more than 80
times.
Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides are made
public pronouncements on issues they advise about. For example,
a lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracking study published in
anti-fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.''
This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced
examination. Yet EPA routinely touts the work of its
independent science advisors in promoting and defending its
controversial regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB
is ripe for improvement.
Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would
address these concerns--the EPA Science Advisory Board Perform
Act of 2013. This language is similar to the bill introduced in
the 112 Congress by then-Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill
would reform the SAB and its subpanels by expanding
transparency requirements, improving the process for selecting
expert advisers, strengthening public participation, and
limiting non-scientific policy advice.
The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not
arise out of thin air; rather, they are principles that came
from the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National
Academies' Conflict-of-Interest Policy, existing Federal ethics
requirements on Special Government Employees, and
recommendations from past Science Committee testimony and other
outside groups.
Let me conclude by making this important point: if the EPA
scientific process is viewed as being biased less or than
willing to consider every point of view, their credibility
suffers. This serves neither the EPA, American businesses, nor
American citizens. Independent, balanced, and transparent
review of EPA science offers a critical check on the Agency
that frequently views the world through its regulatory lens.
Commonsense reforms that improve scientific advice should make
EPA's regulatory end-products more credible, and I look forward
to our witnesses' unique perspective on these issues.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart
Welcome to this morning's hearing of the Environment Subcommittee
entitled Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory Processes.
Former President Ronald Reagan famously said that ``government's
view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it
moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it.'' The Environmental Protection Agency needs no
introduction as the primary executor of the regulatory part of this
formula.
Whether it is promulgating air quality regulations that could shut
down large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks on the
safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-killing climate
regulations that will have no impact on the climate, EPA's reputation
as a lightning rod for controversy is well known here in Washington and
throughout the country.
Less well known and understood, however, is the underlying
regulatory science and scientific advisory mechanisms that the Agency
uses to justify its aggressive regulatory approach. The purpose of
today's hearing is to examine those processes, with a particular focus
on draft legislation to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or
SAB.
Established by Congress in 1978, the SAB is intended to provide
meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted
and used by the Agency. Unfortunately, this vision often goes
unrealized in practice. I would like to note just a few examples:
Despite a statutory requirement that EPA's advisory
panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented'' the
Agency routinely excludes private sector expertise while stacking these
panels with individuals likely to support EPA's perspective. It is no
surprise that EPA finalized a regulation on power plants in late 2011
that even the Agency admitted would cost $11 billion a year; EPA had
prevented virtually all industry scientists from participating in the
review of the underlying science.
Similarly, this Committee received testimony stating
that, in the case of an SAB panel asked to examine EPA's hydraulic
fracturing research, all 22 members had ``no experience in hydraulic
fracturing and no understanding of current industry practices.'' This,
in an industry whose technology is rapidly changing, with significant
improvements incorporated into their process nearly every day. Even
worse, the Agency appears ready to double-down on this anti-business
attitude by summarily dismissing on-the-ground private sector experts
in its next fracking science review.
Meanwhile, there are unsettling Agency trends about how EPA selects its
supposedly-independent advisors:
According to the Congressional Research Service, almost
60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (also known as ``CASAC'') have directly
received grants from the Agency since 2000. These advisors served as
principal or co-investigators for EPA grants totaling roughly $140
million dollars.
EPA frequently chooses panelists whose research is
directly or indirectly under review. During a recent review of EPA air
quality science, 21 of the 25 panelists had their work cited by EPA and
the Chair of the panel was footnoted more than 80 times.
Many of the panelists have clearly taken sides or made
public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, a
lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan published an
anti-fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.''
This hardly sounds like a recipe for a critical or balanced
examination. Yet EPA routinely touts the work of its ``independent
science advisors'' in promoting and defending its controversial
regulatory agenda. The record is clear: the SAB is ripe for
improvement.
Accordingly, we will discuss draft legislation that would address
these concerns-the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013. This
language is similar to a bill introduced in the 112th Congress by then-
Chairman Ralph Hall. The draft bill would reform the SAB and its sub-
panels by expanding transparency requirements, improving the process
for selecting expert advisors, strengthening public participation, and
limiting non-scientific policy advice.
The concepts contained in this proposed legislation did not arise
out of thin air; rather, they are principles that come from EPA's own
Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' Conflict-Of-Interest
Policy, existing federal ethics requirements on Special Government
Employees, and recommendations from past Science Committee testimony
and other outside groups.
Let me conclude by making this important point: If the EPA
scientific process is viewed as being biased, or less than willing to
consider every point of view, their credibility suffers. This serves
neither the EPA, American businesses nor American citizens.
Independent, balanced, and transparent review of EPA science offers
a critical check for an Agency that frequently views the world through
its regulatory lenses. Common sense reforms that improve scientific
advice should make EPA's regulatory end-products more credible, and I
look forward to our witnesses unique perspectives on these issues.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today, the Subcommittee meets for a hearing on the quality
of the science being used by the Environmental Protection
Agency. When I first read the title of the hearing, ``Improving
EPA's Scientific Advisory Process,'' I felt encouraged that
this would be an opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan
agreement on how to improve an important Federal agency. I am
sure that my colleagues agree that if and when there are
problems in a government entity for which the mission is to
protect public health and the environment, we should be
steadfast in identifying any problem and work together to find
meaningful solutions.
According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this
hearing is to receive independent scientific advice and
testimony on draft legislation that seeks to strengthen public
participation, improve the process for selecting expert
advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit
nonscientific policy advice within the EPA's scientific
advisory process. All of these are good government principles
that I support.
Like many of my colleagues on the panel, I have heard from
constituents who are frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA
processes, or both. Many of those constituents tell me that
what they need from the EPA is consistency and efficiency. On
closer examination of the discussion draft of the bill,
however, I noted that the provisions will not improve the
Science Advisory Board structure or operation but instead would
likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives.
These provisions appear to tie the EPA's hands by denying the
Agency access to a vast pool of our country's most expert
scientists and researchers in environmental science and health.
Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced,
only the prior version contained a provision that would have
resulted in many, if not most, scientists from academic
institutions being eliminated from the EPA's Science Advisory
Boards and being replaced by industry-funded experts. I am glad
to see that my colleagues in the majority have eliminated that
provision in this current draft.
Although that provision is no longer there, other parts of
the draft bill appear to do the same thing. By eroding
requirements that are in place under the Ethics in Government
Act and by creating an unnecessary legal conundrum because of
inconsistencies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA,
under which thousands of Boards, including EPA's Science
Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since inception.
To be clear on one point--and I trust that this is an area
where my Republican colleagues and I agree--I am not opposed to
industry-funded experts participating on Scientific Advisory
Boards or in the peer-review process at the EPA. Their expert
insight into processes and industry conduct can provide
valuable guidance to an advisory body. That said, the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives
should not be putting forth legislation that undermines ethics
requirements and other requirements that have governed
thousands of advisory boards through the Executive Branch since
1972 with the end result being an overrepresentation of
industry voices on the Science Advisory Boards.
EPA's science is tied to a mission, a mission to protect
public health through environmental regulation. Scientific
research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to
EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions. That need
for expertise is exactly why Congress created advisory boards
such as the Science Advisory Board, to provide independent
advice on the science, which in turn allows the EPA
Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.
I hope that instead of undermining the scientific advice
EPA receives, we build upon EPA's scientific legacy. I hope we
don't spend our time condemning American scientists and
researchers simply because they are affiliated with research
universities. And I want to note that under existing law
scientists already recuse themselves from activities that
directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that are--
that affect them, besides suggesting that American scientists
and researchers are adversaries of good science is not good for
our country.
Before yielding back, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter
into the record several letters sent to the Committee by
various groups and individuals expressing their concerns about
provisions in the bill. These letters are from concerned
citizens, science, and environmental organizations, and
individuals within the scientific research community around the
country. I look forward to the testimony today and the
questions. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Chairman Stewart. Today the Subcommittee meets again for
a hearing on the quality of the science being used by the Environmental
Protection Agency. When I first read the title of this hearing,
``Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory Process,'' I felt encouraged that
this would be an opportunity to explore areas of bipartisan agreement
on how to improve an important federal agency. I am sure my colleagues
agree that, if and where there are problems in a government entity for
which the mission is to protect public health and the environment, we
should be steadfast in identifying any problem and work together to
find meaningful solutions.
According to the hearing charter, the purpose of this hearing is to
receive independent scientific advice and testimony on draft
legislation that seeks to strengthen public participation; improve the
process for selecting expert advisors; expand transparency
requirements; and limit non-scientific policy advice within the EPA
scientific advisory process. All of these are good government
principles that I support. Like many of my colleagues on this panel, I
have heard from constituents who are frustrated with EPA decisions, EPA
processes, or both. Many of those constituents tell me that what they
need from EPA is consistency and efficiency.
On closer examination of the discussion draft of the bill, however,
I noted provisions that will not improve the Science Advisory Board
structure or operation, but that instead would likely limit the quality
of scientific advice the EPA receives. These provisions appear to tie
the EPA's hands by denying the agency access to a vast pool of our
country's most expert scientists and researchers in environmental
science and health
Last Congress, there was a very similar bill introduced, only the
prior version contained a provision that would have resulted in many if
not most scientists from academic institutions being eliminated from
the EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards and being replaced by industry-
funded experts. I am glad to see that my Republican colleagues have
eliminated that provision in this current draft. Although that
provision is no longer there, other parts of the draft bill appear to
do the same thing by eroding requirements that are in place under the
Ethics in Government Act, and by creating an unnecessary legal
conundrum because of inconsistencies with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), under which thousands of boards, including the
EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards, operate and have operated since
inception.
To be clear on one point--and I trust that this is an area where my
Republican colleagues and I agree: I am not opposed to industry-funded
experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer
review process at the EPA. Their expert insight into processes and
industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.
That said, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the House of
Representatives should not be putting forth legislation that undermines
ethics requirements and other requirements that have governed thousands
of advisory boards throughout the executive branch since 1972, with the
end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on Science
Advisory Boards.
EPA's science is tied to a mission to protect public health through
environmental regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical
expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory
functions. That need for expertise is why Congress created advisory
bodies such as the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to provide independent
advice on the science, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to
make sound regulatory decisions.
I hope that, instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA
receives, we build upon EPA's scientific legacy. I hope that we don't
spend our time today condemning American scientists and researchers
simply because they are affiliated with a research university. And I
want to note that scientists already recuse themselves from activities
that directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that affect
them. Besides, suggesting that American scientists and researchers are
adversaries of good science is not good for our country.
Before yielding back, I would like to enter into the record letters
sent to the Committee by various groups and individuals expressing
their concerns about the provisions in the bill. These letters are from
concerned citizens, science and environmental organizations, and
individuals within the scientific research community around the
country.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Regarding your request for submitting your letters, without
objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Stewart. I would note that not all of these
letters from environmentalists mention concerns in H.R. 6564
that may not be relevant to the discussion draft considered
today, which I think you pointed out in your opening statement.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. And
before I do, thank you for taking the opportunity and being
with us today. Thank you for your service to your country and
for your expertise in this matter.
Our first witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Chief
Toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
He has been employed by Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality since 1996 and has managed the division of 14
toxicologists since 2003. His responsibilities include
overseeing health affects, reviews of the air permit
applications, overseeing the review of the results of Ambient
Air Monitoring Projects, and overseeing the reviews of Human
Health Risk Assessments for hazardous waste sites.
Our second witness is Dr. Roger McClellan, an Advisor of
Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis. Dr. McClellan has
served as an Advisor to numerous public and private
organizations. He has served on the Senior Advisory Committees
for eight Federal agencies, he is the past Chairman of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the Environmental
Health Committee, Research Strategies Advisory Committee, and a
member of the Executive Committee Science Advisory Board, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. He received his doctorate from
Washington State University in 1960.
Our final witness today is Dr. Francesca Grifo, a Senior
Scientist and Senior Policy Fellow at the Union of Concerned
Scientists. Dr. Grifo came to UCS in 2005 from Columbia
University where she directed the Center for Environmental
Research and Conservation Graduate Policy Workshop and ran the
Science Teachers Environmental Education Program. Prior to
that, she was Director of the Center for Biodiversity and
Conservation and a Curator at the Hall of Biodiversity at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York. Dr. Grifo
earned her doctorate in botany from Cornell University.
It is clear that all of these witnesses have great
expertise and background that could lend to this subject. As
our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will have
five minutes to each ask questions.
I now recognize Dr. Honeycutt for five minutes for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT,
CHIEF TOXICOLOGIST,
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Dr. Honeycutt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee. My name is Dr. Michael Honeycutt. I am Director
of the Toxicology Division at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
A few years ago, I attended a scientific meeting in North
Carolina where I struck up a conversation with a scientist who
had been a member of the lead Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee, or CASAC. I gave him my view on EPA's lowering of
the lead standard in 2008 and he told me that he wished he had
known this information when they were deliberating the lead
standard and asked why I hadn't made comments. I told him that
I had submitted written comments and he replied we don't read
the written comments. You have to go to the public meetings to
make your case in person.
Why bother going through the pretense of having written
comments to the CASAC if you are not going to read them? Oral
testimony at the CASAC meetings is limited to three or five
minutes, hardly enough time to present a thorough argument.
This illustrates the need for EPA's advisory panels to be
balanced. Having balanced panels brings all the information
into consideration which reduces ``group think'' and leads to
better policy decisions.
In the past, the CASAC has been relatively well-balanced in
terms of expertise and range of opinions. However, in recent
years the trend has been towards inclusion of more
epidemiologists from academia at the exclusion of other areas
of expertise such as toxicologists and risk assessors with
little or no representation of well-qualified scientists from
states and industry. This is perhaps the results of a
misunderstanding of the role of scientists play in these
organizations together with a misplaced perception of potential
conflicts of interest.
I went to school with and have worked with many scientists
who now work for industry. I know their companies did not ask
them to check their ethics and morals at the door when they
took their jobs in industry. Given that academicians bring
their own biases into the CASAC, there is no reason to believe
that well-qualified experts from state agencies, consulting
firms, or industry would be disproportionately biased.
One concern that is often raised when deciding to exclude
certain parties in the process of EPA peer review is bias due
to sources of funding. I believe that receiving funding from
the EPA in the form of research grants can also be seen as a
potential source of bias. Under the current system, the EPA can
select who it wishes to fund, choose key studies to support
regulatory decisions, place the authors of those studies on the
CASAC, and then ask their opinion on the resulting analysis and
policy. Clearly, this poses a potential conflict of interest,
even if the study authors recuse themselves from discussions
which directly addresses their own work.
We would instead propose a more balanced approach such as
that employed by the nonprofit organization Toxicological
Excellence in Risk Assessment, or TERA. TERA believes, and we
concur, that an objective evaluation by independent experts
with a variety of viewpoints is critical to the credibility of
any peer review. TERA strives to include a range of
perspectives on each panel, including diverse professional
affiliations. The evaluation of real or perceived bias or
conflict of interest is an important consideration for both
peer review and consultation panels and every effort is made to
avoid conflicts of interest and biases that would prevent a
panel member from giving an independent opinion on the subject.
TERA's Conflict of Interest Policy identifies the following
situations as examples of those that would create a real or
perceived conflicts of interest: working for an organization
that sponsors or contributes to the document to be reviewed,
having direct personal financial investments benefiting from
the outcome of the review, or authoring or providing
significant comments on the document being reviewed.
The TERA Conflict of Interest Policy also discusses bias.
For these reviews, the term bias means a predisposition towards
the subject matter under consideration that could influence the
candidates of viewpoint. Examples of bias would be situations
in which a candidate: as previously taken a public position on
the subjects to be discussed or is affiliated with an industry,
governmental, public interest, or other group with a partiality
regarding the subjects to be discussed.
As you can see from these examples, such potential
conflicts or biases could apply equally to academicians as they
may to scientists from industry or any other organization.
Therefore, it is our belief that there is a need for
reconsideration of current conflict-of-interest policies
regarding EPA advisory panels. There is also much improvement
needed with regards to a balanced peer review that incorporates
numerous perspectives and areas of expertise. We believe that
these changes will result in a stronger peer review process in
ultimately better policy decisions.
The measures outlined in the bill are common sense and
already in use by other groups such as the National Academy of
Sciences and TERA. You will hear others testify that EPA has
ample guidance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The
problem is they don't consistently follow it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today
and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Honeycutt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.010
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt.
Dr. McClellan?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROGER MCCLELLAN, ADVISOR,
TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS
Dr. McClellan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to share my views
with you on approaches to ``Improving EPA's Scientific Advisory
Processes.'' I requested my written comments be entered into
the record in their entirety.
I applaud the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this
important topic. The receipt of sound scientific advice from
scientists and engineers outside of EPA is of paramount
importance to the Agency fulfilling its mandated
responsibilities for protection of human health and the
environment. The comments I offer today draw on 50 years of
experience offering advice to public and private organizations,
as well as my receipt of advice as a scientist and research
manager.
My service as a Scientific Advisor to the EPA began with
the creation of the Agency. The new EPA included an
Environmental Radiation Program previously located in U.S.
Public Health Service. The transfer of the program to EPA
included transfer of the environmental radiation exposure
advisory committee that I would soon chair. Last summer, I
provided advice to the Agency on its Multi-Pollutant Air
Quality Program.
During the intervening 40 years, I have served as a member
of SABs, Executive Committee, and on numerous specific
committees, including service as Chair of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, it is clear from the amount of
time that I have spent in those activities now measured in
years that I think they are of great value to the Agency.
Moreover, I think the advisory committee activities can be
improved to substantially enhance their value to the EPA, to
the Nation, and to the participants. The changes in legislation
proposed by the Subcommittee are a small step in the right
direction. However, more is needed.
I suggest that we start with a comprehensive coordinated
internal and external review of all of EPA's advisory
committees across all of its offices and programs and their
linkage to relevant authorizing legislation and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Second, the review should focus on the purpose of each
advisory activity and the efficiency and effectiveness of the
past activities and how they can be further enhanced.
Three, the review should consider how the advisory process
can be broadened to beyond the current focus on using advisors
and consultants selected from a small portion of the scientific
community to include individuals drawn from a national pool of
talent, including those employed in the private sector.
Four, the review should consider how best to structure
future advisory activities so they focus on obtaining
scientific advice unfettered by any ideological linkage to how
the advice may advance the Agency's current policy or political
goals.
Five, the review should also focus on how to enhance public
participation and transparency in the nomination and selection
of advisors and consultants, because this is a very blurred
boundary, including EPA's internal processes for selecting
those individuals. This review should include what I call the
aspects of the selection process carried out behind the doors
of the Administrator's office.
Six, the reviews should consider the role of Science
Advisory Committees in addressing charge questions addressed
and developed by the Agency staff, which typically have
preordained answers versus obtaining advice generated by
committee members based on their broad view of scientific
issues and science.
Seven, special attention should be given to recent actions
to select members of the Hydraulic Fracking Impact and
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Review Committees. Nominees for both
committees represent a much-needed broader cross-section of
scientific talent then customarily considered for appointment
to EPA committees. I urge the Agency to select the best
qualified individuals from that broad talent pool, including
knowledgeable scientists and engineers employed in the private
sector.
In summary, critical review of EPA's scientific advisory
process will identify ways to enhance the advisory process that
will improve EPA's ability to protect human health and the
environment now and in the future.
I will be pleased to address any questions you may have.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear at this hearing
addressing an extremely important topic. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McClellan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.023
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. McClellan.
Ma'am, Dr. Grifo.
TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCESCA GRIFO,
SENIOR SCIENTIST AND SCIENCE POLICY FELLOW,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Dr. Grifo. Good morning, Chairman Stuart and Ranking Member
Bonamici. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns
regarding the proposed amendments to the ERDDA, or the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978. The changes described in the
amendments I believe would slow down the work of the EPA's
Science Advisory Board--which I will refer to as SAB--remove
long-standing and widely accepted practices for dealing with
conflicts of interest, and reduce expertise.
Congress articulated broad requirements for balance,
independence, and transparency in the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. FACA instructs agencies to ensure committees
will not be inappropriately influenced by special interests.
Currently, all the members of EPA's SAB are appointed as
Special Government Employees and subject to most of the
government's ethics rules. They are required to report
information about income, activities, assets, liabilities--it
is quite a long list--and to answer questions regarding causes
for impartiality and previous involvement and public statements
on issues under consideration.
Conflict of interest applies to financial interest; bias
applies to intellectually or ideologically motivated points of
view. They are different. Conflict of interest should be
eliminated. Bias should be managed by appointing a committee
such that a balance of perspectives is achieved except for when
a perspective is far from the mainstream or the individual is
unable to consider other points of view. It is important to
collect sufficient information from candidates and obtain
public input so that the designated Federal officials can make
their best determinations on these issues.
On to a couple of provisions in the discussion draft.
Inserting risk or hazard assessment in ERDDA expands the scope
of the SAB's work to potentially include every risk or hazard
assessment proposed by the Agency. This would overwhelm already
limited resources and delay assessments. When these assessments
can, when necessary, be reviewed by other means, why add this?
Holding a public information gathering session before major
advisory activities to discuss the state of related science
will consume time and resources. Since the SAB meetings are
open to the public with time set aside for their oral comments,
the Board accepts the written comments and will be discussing
the state of the science, what value does this add?
Requiring SAB to respond in writing to public comments is a
burden and distraction given that special interests could
arrange to have thousands and thousands of comments submitted
every week. Since committees read and respond to written public
comments in the final report content and to oral comments
during the proceedings, what does this add?
If persons affiliated with entities that may have a
potential interest in the Board's activities are not excluded
from the Board but simply required to fully disclose the
conflict, the objectivity of an advisory committee and the
public's trust and the advice rendered are irrevocably damaged.
Scientists are not immune to influence by their financial
prospects conflicted experts can influence panel decisions by
their voting, by dominating the discussion, and by pressuring
other panelists. Disclosure of individual and institutional
financial relationships is a critical but limited first step.
Disclosure does not resolve or eliminate conflicts. When a
scientist has irreplaceable expertise but has a conflict, that
expert can be invited to present to the committee without
serving on the committee.
The provision requiring that at least ten percent of the
membership of the Board be from state, local, or tribal
governments sounds like stakeholder representation and could be
interpreted to mean that these members of the SAB would be
appointed as representatives rather than Special Government
Employees and they would not be subject to most of the
government ethics rules and hence able to serve without
disclosure of conflicts of interest. There are reports from the
Government Accountability Office, Bipartisan Policy Center, and
Keystone all state that members of committees that consider
scientific and technical issues should be appointed as Special
Government Employees.
If experts cannot participate in the advisory activities
that potentially involve review of their own work, even if
their work is one of hundreds of studies under consideration,
some specialized experts would be disqualified. Standard
practice among Federal agencies and the National Academies is
to recuse scientists from peer review of their own work but
allow those scientists to serve on the committee.
Just a couple of--four quick recommendations. The
Bipartisan Policy Center report and Keystone report have
extensive recommendations so I am just going to go through four
that I believe are critical. All Federal scientific advisory
panels and subcommittees, including those put together or
managed by contractors, should be subject to FACA and have all
members appointed as special government employees.
The goal of agencies should--two, the goal of agencies
should be to appoint only panelists who do not have conflict of
interest. This is reinforced in the Bipartisan Policy Center
report as well as the Keystone report. And agencies should
select panel members based on their expertise and on their
ability to contribute to the panel deliberations without
conflict of interest or undue bias, again, Bipartisan Policy
Committee and Keystone.
Waivers should be publicly available and only issued as
rare, temporary exceptions, and panelists with waivers should
not be allowed to serve in leadership positions.
And finally, panel chairs should remind panelists at every
meeting to disclose new or previously undisclosed information
relevant to determining conflict of interest or bias.
Thank you and I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Grifo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.037
Chairman Stewart. Once again, I would like to thank the
witnesses for being available for questioning today and we look
forward to hearing your responses to some of our concerns.
Committee rules limit questioning to five minute rounds
alternating between Republicans and Democratic Members of the
Subcommittee. After all Subcommittee Members have asked
questions, I ask unanimous consent to recognize Committee
Members not on the Subcommittee.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Subcommittee Chair recognizes himself for five minutes
to begin questioning.
I would like to kind of put this in historical perspective
to get a larger view if we could. And let me begin with some
things that I think will be just very easy to answer. I think
we agree that it is important that our Scientific Advisory
Panels be viewed as being fair and unbiased. That is the
outcome that we are looking for here. We all would agree with
that. That serves the American people, and frankly, it serves
the EPA as well. And this shouldn't be a partisan issue and I
don't think that it is a partisan issue.
And I think I would ask you, do you believe that the EPA's
Boards, in the view of the public but also in the view of those
entities in which they regulate, are they now viewed as being
unbiased and arbitrary? Anyone who would like to just voice an
opinion on that?
Dr. McClellan. Let me start by saying I certainly endorse
your issue in terms of starting with a bipartisanship. As I
look around the room at the portraits here, I think I testified
before a number of those fine persons and both parties. So it
is not a partisan issue, and I would further say that I have
known many--hundreds of individuals who have served EPA in
Advisory Committees. They are very talented individuals, and if
you do the job well, it takes a lot of time.
Having said that, I don't think that the Committee has
approached science always with a fair and balanced view. I
think on many occasions individuals stumbled over their
understanding of the science and the relationship to the
policy. They are very quick to jump into the policy arena and
advocate a lower standard or a specific nature of the standard
which goes well beyond the issue of the science. So I think
that distinction, it needs to be done better.
Chairman Stewart. Well, let me ask the question
differently. I am asking something really quite simple, and
that is that you think there is a growing perception, a growing
concern among the public and among those entities that are
regulated that the panels may not be as unbiased as we hoped
they would be? That is a yes or no. Do you think there is a
growing concern of that?
Dr. McClellan. Yes, there is.
Chairman Stewart. Yes----
Dr. McClellan. It is at all levels.
Chairman Stewart. Okay.
Dr. McClellan. I would say that goes from blue-collar
workers that I meet in a mine or out in a fracking site in
Wyoming to executives in----
Chairman Stewart. Okay. So a wide range. And Dr. Honeycutt,
you seem to indicate yes. And Dr. Grifo?
Dr. Grifo. Respectfully disagree.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. I would like to come back to that
if I could, and I will. And then maybe just assuming that there
is a growing perception problem, is this something that is
relatively new? Ten years ago or 20 years ago was there more
trust in this process? Did the people and the regulated
agencies--did they feel like the advisory panels or advisory
boards were giving better recommendations? Or is this something
that has evolved in--you know, in more recent time? Again, a
brief answer if you could because I would like to come back to
you, Dr. Grifo, if we could.
Dr. McClellan. This is an issue that has really been there
from the beginning. In my written testimony I recount my
service as Chair of the ad hoc committee to review the first
lead criteria document. So----
Chairman Stewart. So you think it has been a problem for a
while?
Dr. McClellan. It has been a problem for a long period of
time and a central part of the issue is mixing up science which
should inform but not dictate policy. They are different.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. Dr. Honeycutt, would you agree or
disagree?
Dr. Honeycutt. I would mainly agree with what you are
saying.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. And either way, I think it is
appropriate to recognize that there is a problem whether it has
been recent or long-standing. It is time that we recognize that
and try to address it through this legislation.
And Dr. Grifo, you respectfully disagreed. Would you expand
on that a little bit?
Dr. Grifo. I think we have a disagreement over the nature
of the problem and the details, and I think we will probably
get into that. I mean I am not going to sit here and say that
every advisory committee is perfect. You know, they are not.
But I do believe that they are--my problems with them are in a
different direction than yours, I suspect.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. And that is fair. But I think we
can agree that this process could be improved?
Dr. Grifo. Always.
Chairman Stewart. Always, yes. There are concerns, whether
they are recent or whether they are long-standing, there are
concerns, and in my opinion, it is a growing concern having
some background in this industry, in one industry that is
regulated heavily by the EPA that there is a growing perception
problem, and that is why this legislation is meaningful. That
is why this is a great opportunity to address that because,
once again, everyone is better served if there is a perception
that this process is fair and that it listens to all opinions
and all voices. I would like to pursue that, and maybe I will
individually with you, but alas, my time is up.
So I will now turn to the time over to, again, the Ranking
Minority Member.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart. And
thank you all for your testimony and for your years of work.
One of the things that I have heard frequently here in
Congress is that we don't need new laws; we just need to
enforce what we have. So Dr. Honeycutt, in your testimony you
said that you will hear others testify that EPA has ample
guidance on conflict of interest, bias, and balance. The
problem is they don't consistently follow it. So I am glad you
recognize that or identify that as an issue.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do hear from
constituents who questioned the regulations and rules being
promulgated by the EPA, and central to their concerns is the
slow pace with which regulations are developed, implemented,
and processes seem to slow down. And that is a concern that is
expressed about other Federal agencies as well.
Because we hear so often in this era of what seems to be
governing from one crisis to the next, what we are looking for
is certainty in the communities, certainly the business
community was to have certainty and stability to promote
growth. So in that context, Dr. Grifo, based on your expertise
and studying this issue, would the changes to EPA's Science
Advisory Board under the legislation we are discussing today
expedite or improve the EPA's process and receiving independent
scientific advice?
Dr. Grifo. In the amendments there are one or two things
that I think are actually helpful, but I think the vast
majority would have the long-term effect of slowing us down.
And I think as you have rightly said, whether you are coming
from a business perspective or, you know, a constituent-other-
regular-people perspective, slowdown isn't good. I mean
slowdown means that, you know, the regulations are slower, the
health impacts continue, and so on, but it also means
uncertainty for business and it also means that, you know,
things happen. I mean if we don't do this right you end up with
products on the market that are tainted or, you know,
problematic, and that is not good for business either. So
getting it right and doing it in a timely fashion is what I
think we are all after.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I know in your
testimony you talked about one of the issues was this need to
respond in writing to public comment, and I think you have
effectively identified some of the problems that could come
with that.
And I wanted to ask another question too. When a draft bill
was introduced in the last Congress, it included the provision
that would have limited the input of academic scientists to
just ten percent of advisory panels, and I mentioned that is
not in this current version of the bill. It is unclear why it
was taken out, but this provision could be placed back in at
some time. So I wonder if you could explain for the Committee
what the impact of the science at the EPA would be if that
were--type of provision were included in the final bill?
Dr. Grifo. I think what is important--and we are
conflating--are conflict of interest and bias. I think that
what we need to really look at is getting committees that have
no conflict of interest or very minimal and as a rare exception
as the National Academies suggest. And really, you know, it is
not about industry or not industry. It is about bias and
conflict of interest. And I think we are going to find people
with bias and conflicts in industry and in academia. And I
think the point of submitting a lot of information, the point
of having opportunities for public comment is to be able to
allow the agencies--and there are really amazing people at the
agencies that spend enormous amounts of time doing the
screening to get it right, to get the combination that is
correct.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. To your knowledge did either the
Keystone Center or the Bipartisan Policy Center reports
specifically recommend that there be more people from industry
on advisory panels at the cost of reducing or eliminating some
of the academic government-funded scientists?
Dr. Grifo. No, absolutely not. And I should say, you know,
it was rather an amazing and wonderful experience to be on the
Keystone, that research integrity roundtable, because it was
folks from academia, we had people from Baird, Dow, DuPont,
American Chemistry Council, and when we sat around those tables
and had those extended conversations--and we met off and on for
18 months--we agreed. We came together on the things that are
in there. In the same way with the Bipartisan Policy Center,
the name Bipartisan----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Grifo. --Policy suggests a broad input. And in fact, if
you look at the list of those participants, they came from
across the spectrum. And what we all agreed on was--I mean in
both of these reports is that what is important is really
looking at bias so that you get a balanced panel, conflict of
interest so that you get a panel that minimizes or eliminates
those conflicts.
Ms. Bonamici. And just to follow up then, are the conflict-
of-interest principles laid out in the draft bill we are
discussing based on the recommendations of Keystone or the
Bipartisan Policy Center?
Dr. Grifo. No.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you for holding this very thought-provoking hearing
today.
I would like to just read something from Dwight Eisenhower
in his farewell address. Most people remember Eisenhower's
admonition about the military-industrial complex, but they
ignore what Eisenhower spent much more time warning us about in
his farewell address, and I will read this portion of it. ``The
prospect of domination of the Nation's scholars by Federal
employment project allocations and the power of money is ever-
present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding
scientific research and discovery in respect, we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public
policy itself could become the captive of a scientific
technological elites.''
That is Dwight Eisenhower. Now, we almost never hear that
quote but we hear the military-industrial complex all the time.
I think that Eisenhower was a man of vision and a patriot in
both of the areas where he warned us about. And in terms of
what he was warning us about there, as I just read, the
Congressional Research Service has done in the report, which
you opened in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to submit at this point that entire report for the record
of this hearing.
Chairman Stewart. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. What the report found is that almost
60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and CASAC,
that is 34 of the 58 members, have directly received National
Center for Environmental Research Grants from the Agency since
2000. These advisors served as principal or co-investigators
for EPA grants totaling roughly $140 million.
Now, what, unfortunately, we hear in situations like this,
and we have talked about expertise and it can also be bias.
Expertise is biased if those experts are from the private
sector, but if those experts receive their experience by
getting government grants and are part of government studies
which have put them part of this elite that Eisenhower warned
us about, now, that is a positive thing. All of a sudden that
becomes experience.
And I think that we have got to pay attention to this
because bias can result in cliques that are formed among people
who make sure people in the clique get the research grants and
are part of the system that determines public policy, which is
exactly what Eisenhower was warning us against.
The research, of course, that we are talking about,
example: four of seven members of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, which reviewed the EPA's Final Particulate
Matter on the National Standards, have received million-dollar-
plus EPA grants related to particulate matter since 2010. Now,
if that isn't bias, I don't know. It is one thing to be able to
have the scientific knowledge to judge what is going on, but to
have already participated in research, that indicates a bias
and something we need to address. And I would hope--and maybe I
will. Doctor, maybe we should give you a chance to comment on
what I have just stated, because obviously I am aiming this at
the EPA.
Dr. Grifo. Happy to, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Dr. Grifo. I think again that is not what I am saying. Bias
matters; conflict of interest matters. Those are the things we
need to examine. There are very well-equipped experienced folks
in the agencies spending inordinate amount of time examining
those things and coming to the best decisions they can with the
guidance from the Office of Government Ethics, the General
Services Administration, all those folks that are working on
this. And I think what we are talking about are not necessarily
including or excluding people because of the institutions that
they work for. It is about what they turn in on those forms.
And those forms are extraordinarily extensive. I mean if
anything, they are--you know, they are very burdensome and
long.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But we do----
Dr. Grifo. But it is the information that we need in order
to bury carefully make those determinations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, Mr. Chairman--and obviously, the
report that has been given to us by the Congressional Research
indicates that we--that there are people who are in the clique
who are getting these grants and then getting the jobs. And
Eisenhower warned us about this, and quite frankly, we have
seen evidence of that in a number of areas, especially in
fracking and these other things that you mentioned.
Thank you very much for the hearing today.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Now, we turn to Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
say, first, I had the privilege as the former Ranking Member of
the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee--and I can recall
well the numerous questions about EPA's scientific integrity,
and specifically, the concerns about the scientific advisory
processes. And while I understand the concerns and those
expressed by the witnesses today, I think the aims of the draft
bill that is in front of us with it, it is not really clear to
me that this bill and the sort of recommended changes espoused
by Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McClellan would actually create the
kind of improvements to the process that the bipartisan group,
the Keystone group identified as recommended changes to address
directly address the concerns that you have just expressed.
Dr. McClellan, I want to ask you because you have served on
advisory boards before, and so I am curious, did you have the
occasion in your service to read all of the comments that were
submitted in addition to the testimony that you heard when--
during your service?
Dr. McClellan. As you have noted, I served on numerous
committees. Committees that we are specifically focusing on
here in terms of public input are those that come under the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which I chaired. I can
assure you that I read every public comment that came forward.
I am disappointed I cannot say that for many of my colleagues.
Ms. Edwards. But did you have----
Dr. McClellan. I also--
Ms. Edwards. Let me just--because I just have a limited
amount of time. You served on those committees. You read all of
the comments. Did you feel a need to respond to every single
comment that was submitted to you even though you considered it
in your service?
Dr. McClellan. There weren't many of those comments that
deserved comment from the Agency as it proceeded with its
rulemaking process.
Ms. Edwards. Dr. Grifo----
Dr. McClellan. It has done that in some cases. In many
cases I think the Agency is deficient in responding. I think
the Agency and the Committee frequently dismisses public
comments to provide a three minute or a five minute comment
period on very important matters is not sufficient. That is not
engaging the public.
Ms. Edwards. So I am a little bit unclear. Dr. Grifo, I
wonder if you can tell me in the work that you did coming up
with--on these panels coming up with recommendations, do you
believe that it is feasible given the level of work and the
speed with which sometimes industry actually wants the
stability and wants the Agency to operate that it would be
possible with 17 full-time employees to respond to every single
comment or even the significant ones? And is it your experience
in reviewing these matters that there are times when comment is
submitted and at a staff level it is reviewed and factors into
the decision-making and the process whether or not it is
actually responded to or whether or not anyone was even
listening during the hearings?
Dr. Grifo. You know, in anticipation of today I did a
little bit of a survey calling several colleagues that serve
regularly on panels, as you do, sir. And in fact, you know,
they do look at them. I mean they do read them. They do take
them seriously. And, you know, if they don't appear in the
final report is because the consensus of the Committee was that
it wasn't appropriate for them to be in that final report.
So I think what is important here is that those public
comments do come in and that there is an opportunity for the
panel members to read them. But the written response could
literally bring everything to a stop. Thousands and thousands
and thousands of comments could be submitted on a weekly basis
and there is no way there would ever be time to do anything
else.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And then I want to ask you actually
about the process a little bit and this idea of conflicts of
interest because it is possible to have conflicts of interest
that are fully disclosed or analyzed and still participate
effectively in a process, isn't that true?
Dr. Grifo. We currently have a system of waivers where
waivers are actually given out so that people with conflicts
may continue to serve. And one of the great things that came
out of Dr. Holden's memo is this notion that all of those
waivers should be made public.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And then lastly, let me just, you
know, just say for the record. I mean there are plenty of times
when a person has a conflict or some kind of interest and they
have an expertise that is necessary, and it becomes necessary
to involve them in the process and make sure that there is
transparency in that disclosure and evaluation and move forward
with the kind of assessments we need.
And with that, my time is expired.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
So we now turn to Dr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Committee rules state that ``Members of the Committee
or Subcommittee have two weeks from the date of the hearing to
submit additional questions in writing for the record to be
answered by witnesses who have appeared in person. The letters
of transmission and your responses thereto shall be printed in
the hearing record.'' Dr. Grifo, you testified in front of the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on October the
13th, 2011, for a hearing titled ``The Endangered Species Act:
Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy.'' November 16, 2011
you were sent questions for the record and asked for responses
within two weeks. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I asked for a
unanimous consent to enter into the record at this point the
letter, as well as the questions sent to Dr. Grifo.
Chairman Stewart. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Broun. Thank you. Despite multiple reminders from
Committee staff, we still have not received your answers for a
year-and-a-half. Why did you ignore the Committee's questions?
Dr. Grifo. I sent them. I will look into why you don't have
them.
Mr. Broun. We have not received them and I am not sure that
I can--well, if you say you sent them, I would like to have
proof of that.
Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
Mr. Broun. What date did you send those, Dr. Grifo?
Dr. Grifo. I don't know. I would have to go back and look.
I know they were late. It was not within the two weeks. I will
clearly tell you that. But it was within a month, and I know I
sent them. I will have to go back and look at the record.
Mr. Broun. Well, we have not received those and I am not
sure----
Dr. Grifo. Well, then, we need to clear that up, sir.
Mr. Broun. Okay. Well, why should this Committee believe
that you would respond to Member's questions if the Committee
staff has reminded you over and over again? And this is the
first time I have heard as a Chairman of that Committee that
you sent the answers. Why should we accept any thought that you
will respond to the Committee's questions today?
Dr. Grifo. Because I have testified dozens of times and I
have Respondent on all of those occasions.
Mr. Broun. Well, you have an even----
Dr. Grifo. And I will have to look into this one and find
out what happened, sir.
Mr. Broun. Well, Dr. Grifo, you have--even in spite of the
Committee staff asking you over and over again, this is the
first time we have heard.
When you testified on October 13, you were under oath at
that time and you indicated a willingness to respond to those
questions. You say that you have. I think you failed to do so
frankly. Why should we believe anything that you say?
Dr. Grifo. Because I am telling you that you can look at
the record for other hearings and you will see that I have
responded, and I will look into this and see what happened.
Mr. Broun. Well, I certainly hope so.
Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McClellan, Dr. Grifo believes that
the process of panelists recusing themselves from review
proceedings if their work is being discussed. She believes
that, that the panelists should recuse themselves. Do you
believe this practice of self-recusal actually works, Dr.
Honeycutt?
Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir. In fact, we have seen that not
happen with the ozone case specifically--or especially.
Actually, at the last CASAC public meeting, two study authors
of the two studies that were the basis of the standard did
recuse themselves at the last panel meeting, but previous panel
meetings and they did not.
Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
Dr. McClellan. No, I would certainly agree that it has been
inconsistent in the manner of which that has been done. Dr.
Honeycutt is correct and I was in attendance at that last
meeting. Those two authors did take special effort at that
time. It was clear that there was some change underway in terms
of the Agency.
Mr. Broun. Do either of you have suggestions of how we
should do the recusal process if a panelist's work is being
discussed?
Dr. Honeycutt. Well, actually, in my opinion, they
shouldn't have been on the panel in the first place.
Mr. Broun. Okay.
Dr. Honeycutt. There were only two studies that were the
basis of the standard and there are dozens of scientists that
could have been chosen to be on the panel. And it makes no
sense to me why you would have those study authors on the
panel.
Mr. Broun. So a better selection process.
Dr. McClellan?
Dr. McClellan. I would agree with Dr. Honeycutt statement
there. In terms of that particular situation, there were a
broad group of scientists that could have served and it was
probably inappropriate because of the very clear and central
role of those individuals. Unfortunately, the situation was one
in which the individual who was serving as Chair of CASAC was
one of the authors in question. So he was put into a very
difficult position.
Mr. Broun. Well, thank you, gentlemen. My time is about up
and I just want to say that I know when I talk to constituents
and Georgia about the scientific integrity of EPA, I see a
tremendous disgust and disbelief in the scientific integrity of
EPA.
Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Sir, thank you, Dr. Broun.
Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to start with you, Dr. Grifo. I believe you
stated--well, let me say a couple things first. I heard it said
one time that all scientists are only convinced of one thing,
and that is that every scientist before them was wrong. Excuse
me. They can't always agree. In fact, to Vice Chairman
Stewart's first question, is there a perceived problem with the
EPA? I think 66-2/3 of you agree and 33-1/3 disagree, case in
point.
Dr. Grifo, I think you stated that any panel member should
be ``Special Government Employees.'' Is that accurate?
Dr. Grifo. For this particular Science Advisory Board, yes.
Mr. Weber. Yes, ma'am. Do you contend that only Special
Government Employees can be unbiased?
Dr. Grifo. No, sir. I contend that only Special Government
Employees have full examinations for conflict of interest.
Mr. Weber. So what you are saying is that normal people,
not that Special Government Employees aren't normal, and we
could debate that, are not able to be unbiased. And I want to
specifically hone in on industry here. Would you agree with the
statement that most American entrepreneurs want a good clean
environment for themselves, their families, their employees,
indeed their customers? I mean after all, the longer a customer
lives, the more products they can buy. That sounds kind of
selfish, doesn't it? Do you agree, disagree with that?
Dr. Grifo. I agree that. You know, I can only answer that
in one way, as a mom. And I think that, you know, there are
moms across this country that care deeply about the health and
safety of their children.
Mr. Weber. Well, and that is very commendable. I am not a
mom but I am a dad and I got 3 kids and 4-1/2 grandkids. And do
you have any grandchildren?
Dr. Grifo. No. Do I look that old?
Mr. Weber. I highly recommend them.
Dr. Grifo. Good.
Mr. Weber. Just as long as they are EPA-certified. I will
say that they do have emissions when they are babies though and
so you might want to take that into account.
Dr. Grifo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. I own a business, and air-conditioning business,
where we dealt with the EPA over Freon issues, and I can tell
you as a father and a grandfather, industry has a vested
interest in making sure that we have the best product, the best
environment----
Dr. Grifo. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --and I think that for us to be able to weigh in
on fracking and some of the other issues that seem to be of
some concern, we need industry experts, those who have
demonstrated by their lives, their time, their investment in
terms of money, blood, sweat, and tears that they care about
this country, they care about the environment. I have been to
many chemical factories with a lot of my colleagues when I was
in the state legislature and I would have to say that
industry--because of that dirty word profit motive--doesn't
want emissions, doesn't want accidents, doesn't want spells.
They want to do it the safest, cleanest, best way because it is
the most profitable. Would you object? I mean do you agree that
we are horribly underrepresented by industry on this council,
in the EPA on this panel?
Dr. Grifo. Every Scientific Advisory Committee under FACA
must submit a charter. In that charter they have to describe
what the committee is going to be doing and what balance means
for that committee. That is what is important is that, you
know, the folks who were putting the folks--people on that
panel actually look at that charter, follow that charter.
I believe somebody submitted for the record the General
Service Administration's requirements for plans for a balance
committee and how that works. I support all of that and----
Mr. Weber. My time is running out here. I just want to make
the point that I believe we are.
Dr. McClellan, how about you? And then we will go to Dr.
Honeycutt.
Dr. McClellan. Yeah, I--let me put it in sharp focus for
you. In preparation for this hearing I went to the EPA's
website and the Science Advisory Board. I looked through the
participants on that, and as best I could tally them up in
terms of, you know, where they came from----
Mr. Weber. Industry experience?
Dr. McClellan. I looked at these 110 members of the seven
standing committees. Eighty-seven of those were from academic
institutions. There was one individual from a company that
makes products. I looked----
Mr. Weber. And let's go on to Dr.----
Dr. McClellan. --at the chartered SAB, something close to
50 individuals. They were four to one----
Mr. Weber. You are making my point. Let me run over to Dr.
Honeycutt real quick. Thank you.
Dr. Honeycutt. Yes, sir, I agree with you.
Mr. Weber. Yes, well, boy, he is short and to the point.
Well, unfortunately, not every EPA representative does us--
we don't get the luxury of having a video or he has gone out
and talked about crucifying industry like the former Regional 6
EPA Administrator did, so we are not always fortunate to have
that kind of biased out there. So it does exist. And I
appreciate your comments. My time is expired.
Mr. Vice Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, Mr. Weber. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the former Chairman, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I really thank you
for holding this hearing and the manner in which you have
conducted it and your statements. The draft legislation being
discussed today is a bill I think partially based on a bill I
had introduced last year too late to get out of rules, but EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I certainly look forward to
your leadership on this because it is imperative that EPA's
regulatory science be judged by truly independent experts.
According to the EPA's Peer Review Handbook, the choice of
peer review should be based primarily upon reviewers'
expertise, knowledge, skills, and experience. And we have heard
Dr. Grifo talked of that. And I want to ask her some questions
in a minute. But according to EPA's Peer Review Handbook,
choice of peer reviewers should be so based and should include
specialists from multiple disciplines. Similarly, the National
Academy of Sciences found that it may be important to have an
industrial perspective because of the individual's particular
knowledge and experience are often vital and you could say are
testimony.
Dr.--let me see who I want to get to next. I may just go
directly to Dr. Grifo. You understand that one of the roles of
an advisory committee is, as you said, to provide consensus
among various identified interests or stakeholders, your
statement, right?
Dr. Grifo. My statement was that----
Mr. Hall. Was that part of your statement?
Dr. Grifo. That--if they are appointed as representatives
but not necessarily for every advisory.
Mr. Hall. No, I didn't ask you that. I just asked you if
your statement was it should be among various identified
interests or stakeholders? Yes or no?
Dr. Grifo. No.
Mr. Hall. Good. Then are you going to write and correct
your statements before, as you have had to do probably many
times?
Dr. Grifo. What my statement said was that there are two
ways that people can be appointed. One is as Special Government
Employees, which comes with the government ethics rules, most
of them. The other way they can be appointed is as a
representative. I did not say whether one should be one or the
other. What I did say----
Mr. Hall. All right. Let me stop you there. I think I have
heard all I want to hear from you. Do you think there is merit
in acknowledging or making public any dissenting or minority
opinions much like a court hearing? Do you think that is
important? Yes or no?
Dr. Grifo. There are different kinds of----
Mr. Hall. A yes----
Dr. Grifo. --advisory committees.
Mr. Hall. --give me a yes or a no.
Dr. Grifo. I can't give you a yes or no. It is more complex
than that.
Mr. Hall. I didn't think you really could. All that time
that you were with the research roundtable, did you tell them
about the court opinion that was given for aluminum against the
EPA? Did you mention that to them? Now, you were there with
them I think 18 months. You surely got around to discussing
something like that. How important is a court hearing, a court
ruling, not something the EPA or the President has directed or
the Nazis trying to put on people? That is not what you want.
We are looking for science from people that will give us true
science. I don't find you doing that. I am glad my time is
almost over.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Hall.
Some of us have expressed interest in follow-up questions
with maybe a brief second round, and I think we would like to
do that if we could.
I would like to begin then, and go back to an example that
I alluded to, although only quickly in my opening statements,
and that is it is an example of, I think, one of the concerns
that we have in this. As one of the members of EPA's SAB panel
tasked to reviewing the Agency's hydraulic fracturing study,
Dr. Jerald Schnoor published an article entitled ``Regulate,
Baby, Regulate,'' which characterizes a relationship between
government regulators and the oil and gas industry as ``cozy
and sometimes corrupt.''
Now, I would like to turn this just a little bit and then
get your reaction to it. What is the title of the book had been
something like Drill, Baby, Drill and the quote that I
described characterized the relationship between regulators and
environmental groups as being cozy and corrupt? Do you think if
someone had taken that, that they would have been allowed to
continue to serve or, as he was, allowed to serve on subsequent
boards in that industry? Do you think that would have happened?
Dr. Honeycutt?
Dr. Honeycutt. I wouldn't think so.
Chairman Stewart. Yes?
Dr. McClellan. I think it is very unlikely. The original
question, there is an element of the door tends to swing one
direction there.
Chairman Stewart. Yes.
Dr. McClellan. That individual clearly never would have
made it there. But they probably would not have made it there
because they may have owned stock in the company. They may have
been an independent driller.
Chairman Stewart. Yes.
Dr. McClellan. So it is--the point is well made.
Chairman Stewart. Probably not. And Dr. Grifo, I would be
particularly interested in yours. I mean if someone had made
the statements as I described them, you know, Drill, Baby,
Drill, and they described that relationship between, you know,
environmental groups and regulators, would you have been
comfortable allowing that person to continue to serve on the
boards?
Dr. Grifo. It would have depended on the overall balance of
the committee. You don't, you know, eliminated conflict of
interest, balance, bias. If you have people who you believe can
take part in an open conversation, you want them there and you
want to balance that point of view. You don't want to
eliminate.
Chairman Stewart. And I agree with you actually. And I
think that is a great point that, you know, you can have people
with perceived biases as long as they are balanced. Although I
do think that you reach a threshold, and it may have been
reached and some comment like that that would have excluded
that opinion. I mean again if someone had said describe the
relationship between regulators and environmental groups as
cozy and corrupt, I think that perhaps is a threshold that even
excepting bias or prejudices in the panel would have made so
many people uncomfortable with a preconceived notion, I think
it would have made many of us uncomfortable. And yet, the
doctor continued to serve on subsequent boards.
And I think that is just an example of a problem that we
hope to address in this revised legislation from the former
Chairman that we are happy to carry over from, you know, the
previous Congress.
Yes?
Dr. Grifo. I just think that the pieces and hear that talk
about making public the list ahead of time and allowing people
to know who is going to be appointed are critical to looking at
that balance issue. I think that is really important.
Chairman Stewart. Well, and I agree with you. And, you
know, along with that and in a separate area is this--and you
have addressed this, although I don't think we have addressed
it as strongly as I would have liked to, and that was this idea
that it is okay for some of these members to have direct
financial ties through grants or other financial, you know,
financial vehicles that the government uses, and yet we are so
readily exclude those who have financial ties to the industry.
And agreeing with you, Dr. Grifo, as long as they are revealed,
as long as the ethics of this are clear. I think that we can
clearly bring in more balance.
And Dr. McClellan, as you indicated in your previous answer
to a question, you know, some 100 members on one panel and only
one from the industry. And final point I will make and then I
will yield time, the fracking industry is an industry, if we
think IT as being an industry that is very dynamic and has
great changes, it is nothing compared with the technological
advances we are seeing and fracking. I mean these processes are
changing every day, every week. And if you are not reaching out
to these industry experts and asking for their input to these,
if you are talking to someone who hasn't been in industry for a
few months let alone a few years, then you are not getting the
appropriate response from them because the technology has
passed them by.
Thank you again for your time today. And I now yield to the
Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart.
I want to start by saying that witnesses here today are all
professionals with years of experience and deserve to be
treated as such regardless of whether we agree or disagree with
their positions. So I just wanted to state that for the record
and I hope that the other Members will respect that as well.
I want to clarify something that came up in Mr. Weber's
question. Dr. Grifo, in your written testimony this is very
clear, but I am concerned about the record. I want to make sure
that it is clear for those just listening as well. When you
talked about how everyone on one of the EPA's SABs should be a
Special Government Employee, I am concerned that some people
thought that that meant that it could only mean somebody who
was employed by the government and not an industry person. But
your written testimony makes clear that when a member of a
committee is--that is created to provide independent advice is
appointed as a Special Government Employee, that is a specific
term that requires that they comply with the government ethics
rules.
So I want to clarify that for the record and perhaps, Dr.
Grifo, if you could explain a little bit about what that means
to be a Special Government Employee to really make clear what
the requirements are and clarify that it does include people
from industry. If they are appointed as a Special Government
Employee, that doesn't mean you exclude industry people.
Dr. Grifo. Absolutely. To be--it is just a way of
appointing people to government employee--to advisory
committees. It is a term that refers to the number of days per
year that they work and so on. It is just--it is a piece of the
bureaucracy.
But I think the other thing that is important is that, you
know, academia does not mean no experience with industry. I
think our academic world and the corporate world are
increasingly interdigitated, and so to put someone in this
pile, or this pile, it becomes a little bit artificial because
I think we cross those piles on a regular basis.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Dr. Grifo. And just
again to clarify that Special Government Employee does include
people from industry----
Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
Ms. Bonamici. --it simply means that they need to comply
with the government ethics rules, which I happen to think is a
good thing.
Dr. Grifo. Absolutely.
Ms. Bonamici. So thank you all for your testimony.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have certainly
identified several areas where we agree, and I look forward to
working with you and getting the input of the other Members and
hope we can come up with some meaningful policy that improves
the process.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And then we now turn once again to Dr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Grifo stated that
the provisions requiring that the scientific and technical
points of view represented by fairly balanced is unnecessary
because it is already included in the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. However, Dr. Honeycutt, Dr. McClellan, would you
agree that it is important for the points of view represented
on advisory panels such as the SAB be balanced? Yes or no?
Dr. Honeycutt. Yes.
Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
Dr. McClellan. Absolutely. And let me elaborate just a bit.
Mr. Broun. I have got just a little bit of time and you
like to talk a lot, so I just needed a yes or no right there. I
appreciate it. If you can collaborate in your written response
if you would.
Do you believe that EPA's current advisory panels such as
the SAB or the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee are
balanced in terms of the points of view represented, Dr.
Honeycutt?
Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir.
Mr. Broun. Dr. McClellan?
Dr. McClellan. No.
Mr. Broun. Dr. Grifo?
Dr. Grifo. It depends on the panel.
Mr. Broun. I asked yes or no.
Dr. Grifo. I can't answer it that way. I am sorry.
Mr. Broun. Okay. Nine members of the 2011 CASAC panel to
review PM2.5 has signed a public letter which expressed
dissatisfaction with the current standard, as well as a strong
opinion of what the standard should be. This means that 40
percent of the review panel is of the same opinion as to the
advisory work that they are tasked with. Would you say this
represents an adequate balance of opinion, Dr. Honeycutt?
Dr. Honeycutt. No, sir.
Mr. Broun. McClellan?
Dr. McClellan. No, they fail to distinguish between the
science and the policy they were advocating.
Mr. Broun. Okay. Dr. Grifo?
Dr. Grifo. No comment. I am not that familiar with that
particular panel. I would have to look at it.
Mr. Broun. Well, Dr. Grifo, the SAB's 2011 mercury panel is
comprised of 17 academics, three state regulatory members, one
from USGS and one private sector industry representative. You
said that the panels should be balanced. Would you say that
this is a fairly balanced panel?
Dr. Grifo. We don't have the information that the folks
putting that panel together had about the specific backgrounds
and details of those individuals.
Mr. Broun. Well, I am not asking about----
Dr. Grifo. They made a determination----
Mr. Broun. --their background. I just----
Dr. Grifo. --that it was balanced. Again----
Mr. Broun. --told you, Ms.----
Dr. Grifo. --the label of academia, the label of industry,
they are intermixed. People go back and forth between those
realms. What is important is that you look at it, look at the
charter for the committee and make sure that it is balanced. On
that, sir, we can agree.
Mr. Broun. Well, I think it should be balanced. If those
academics are going to be promoting whatever their academic
bias might be, three state regulatory members, one from USGS,
and only one from the private sector, this is not balanced. And
I think we can all agree we need balance, we need scientific
integrity, and frankly, I don't see that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, thank you, Dr. Broun.
Well, with that we conclude our hearing today. I would like
to thank once again the witnesses for your valuable testimony
as well as to the Members for their questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from the Members. And we ask the
witnesses to respond to these written questions in a timely
fashion.
Well, again, with our gratitude, the witnesses are excused
and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.042
Responses by Dr. Roger McClellan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.045
Responses by Dr. Francesca Grifo
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.046
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letters sent to the Committee by various groups
and individuals expressing their concerns about
the provisions in the bill submitted by
Representative Suzanne Bonamici
Congressional Research Service Memorandum on EPA Grants
to Members of Selected EPA Advisory Committees
submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Thank you letter and Questions sent to Dr. Grifo from the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing on October 13,
2011,
for the hearing titled, ``The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing
the Nexus of Science and Policy,'' submitted by Representative Paul
Bourn
George T. Wolff, The Changing NAAQS Review Process,
submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.058
EPA Evalualion Report submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.080
GSA Federal Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan
submitted by Dr. Michael Honeycutt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80553.084