Tobacco Documents Online

INCONSISTENCY OF THE EPA PROCESS ETS VERSUS EMF I. SELECTION OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS FOR '. BOARD (SAB , • Questionable procedures were used by the Environmental ~ selecting members of the Indoor Air Quality!'I'otal Human The IAQC was given the responsibility for the review of two co, _,cuments on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). First, a"standing" coa tne EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was augmented by adding "consultants selected in a very indiscriminate manner. The SAB requested names of potential candidates from a limited universe; the SAB, interested parties, and the EPA program offices that prepared the draft ETS documents. Secondly, the SAB staff responsible for coordinating the activities of the IAQC chose among the names in discussions with the JAQC Chairman and the Executive Director of the SAB. The majority of the selection process took place behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Thirdly, the SAB "leaked" the names of the IAQC to the public and when a nationally known vocal anti-smoking advocate was part of the membership roster the interested parties became enraged. As reported by the press and in subsequent behind the scenes meetings the anti-smoking advocate was removed and then reinstated by EPA all within a 48-hour period. Finally, the EPA defended their membership selection procedures by insisting that they chose "members" who had not taken an advocacy position on ETS and were unbiased and objective. 1)Ivli • The procedures used by the SAB to form the Nonionizing Electric and Magnetic Fields Subcommittee (NIEMF) charged to review the draft electromagnetic fields (EMF) document were inconsistent with the methods employed in choosing members for the IAQC. In sharp contrast to the IAQC membership selection process, the first step in the NIEMF member selection process was a decision to start with a new, impartial group of scientists, rather than use an existing "standing" SAB committee. By establishing a new Subcommittee EPA appeared to be making a good faith effort to have a disinterested group review the controversial science in the draft EPA documents. A newly established Subcommittee also provided an added opportunity to foster scientific debate among scientists. With a new Subcommittee EPA also avoided the perception that there are preconceived feelings and opinions about the draft EPA documents due in part, to prior Committee ties to related EPA documents or to the EPA program itself. Secondly, an announcement for potential candidates was placed in several journals requesting interested individuals to respond to EPA if they were interested in serving on the NIEMF Subcommittee. Additionally, names of potential candidates were also solicited from interested parties, the SAB and the EPA program offices. This process produced a list of approximately 200 potential candidates. As a final step in the membership selection process, the list of potential candidates was sent to the Radiation Advisory Committee ("standing" committee) for their assistance with the final membership selection. The entire process was completed in the public view and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs committees who advise the federal government.