Tobacco Documents Online

INCONSISTENCY OF THE EPA PROCESS ETS VERSUS EMF 1. SELECTION OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS FOR TFIE EPA SCjENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) ~ • Questionable procedures were used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in selecting members of the Indoor Air QualitylTotal Human Exposure Committee (IAQC). The IAQC was given the responsibility for the review of two controversial draft documents on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). First, a "standing" committee of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was augmented by adding "consuitants" 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 IAQC 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. Ft1L' ~ 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.

2. COMMITj'EE COMPOSITION in • There was a public outcry that the IAQC was inappropriately Influenced when the names of the members were publicized. So much was made of the potential conflict-of-interest issue that the members had to publicly disclose any relationship with the tobacco industry at the December 4-5, 1990 Committee meeting. The IAQC members did not have to disclose their connections with anti-smoking groups, although some members admitted financial ties to both the anti-smoking and tobacco industry. Nearly one half of the IAQC had previously worked, on earlier ETS reports issued by the U.S. Surgeon General and the National Research Council. In fact these particular members had publicly stated their support of these reports, baaed on their intimate involvement. In some instances these Committee members were primary authors and even senior scientific editors of the federal reports. One IAQC member admitted that he had presented comments to EPA on the draft ETS document prior to his involvement with the IAQC. Three of the IAQC members had testified, either In court or before Congressional committees prior on behalf of anti-smoking organizations in the U.S. Over one fourth of the IAQC admitted having received money from EPA to do specific ETS• related work. In guidelines to federal agencies on membership, Congress specifically directed that provisions should be taken by federal entities to assure that advisory committees not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special Interests. In the case of the IAQC a good number of the members seemed not only to have pre-determined opinions but special interests as well. EMF • In sharp contrast, the NIEMF members seemed to be entering the review of the EMF draft documents with deliberation and an informed open minded attitude toward their task. In fact, the NIEMF Subcommittee seems to have been composed with EPA's own publicly stated goal of obtaining technically sound advice from knowledgeable experts who are free from legal and perceived conflict-of-interest. At the NIEMF Subcommittee meeting held January 14-16, 1991, the Subcommittee members were not asked to disclose their ties to the industry, instead, the NIEMF staff explained in great detail their efforts to seleCt members who were fairly balanced in terms of points of views represented. 3. EXPERT WORKSHOP EM • A request was made by the industry in July 1990, asking EPA to hold a public workshop to provide scientists and the public with a forum to discuss the complex scientific issues concerning ETS. Two months later in denying the request EPA seemed to have already pre- determined the outcome of the IAQC review and EPA's actions on this particular issue by stating that a workshop would not illuminate the "appropriate" path to take in addressing the issue. Even though it was the first time EPA was taking a comprehensive look at the ETS data, the denial was based on the fact that there were earlier comprehensive reports by the National Research Council (1986) and the U.S. Surgeon General (1986). EPA also stated that even though they were adding recent data and extending analyses of the same body of data, a thorough review by EPA staff and their choice of outside experts prior to obtaining SAB and public comments would suffice as an efficient peer review. Z

ME • An expert review workshop was held on June 28, 1990 in Morrisville, NC. 'i'he public was allowed to observe and note the scientific issues as they were being debated. EPA stated that it uses the expert workshop approach to obtain early review of drafts of documents in which EPA is taking its first comprehensive look at a body of data. A second NIEMF review meeting will occur sometime in March/April 1991. The draft EMF document will undergo further review by three additional scientific committees before revisions are made to the document. The public will be advised and invited to the scientific deliberations. 4. NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS En • There were over 235 public comments submitted during the public review of the draft ETS documents. These comments represented over 7000 pages of public comment filed regarding the two draft ETS documents. Summaries of the public comments were prepared by the two EPA program offices that prepared the draft documents. A response document will also be prepared which explains further EPA action on ETS. Once the draft ETS documents are completed the response document will be publicized. FME • The public comment period for the EMF document has not yet been initiated. The EMF draft document review process began with the expert workshop, then proceeded with the SAB review and their "open" public meeting. The next step in this process will be a review by a Committee within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy established for the sole purpose of reviewing the EMF document. The Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) will review the draft EMF documents and provide EPA with their comments. The "official" public eomment period begins after these scientific groups have had the opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. The nineteen "public commenters" that addressed the NIEMF Subcommittee meeting will have their presentations and comments placed in the public docket once the docket is opened. 5. NUMBER OF DAYS THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD MET ON THF: ISSUE ETS • The IAQC met for only two days to discuss the complex scientific foundation of the two draft ETS documents. Of the sixteen hours spent deliberating the science of the ETS issue by the IAQC, four hours were devoted to the public's views on the scientific aspects of ETS. In that four hour period, there were twenty six public commenters who presented opinions on the draft ETS documents. Each public commenter were given approximately nine minutes in which to make their pertinent points on the science of the ETS draft documents. Additionally, the IAQC Chairman denied a request by several members of the public to extend the amount of meeting time apportioned to the public.

EME ~ The NIEMF Subcommittee meeting lasted approximately 24 hours. There was approximately seven hours of public comment time scheduled during the meeting for nineteen "public commenters". Each presenter was asked prior to the meeting by the NIEMF staff how much time they needed for their presentation. The presentations by the public then averaged anywhere from 15 minutes to 45 minutes per presenter. Collectively speaking, though, that averaged out to approximately 22 minutes per presenter. In addition, time was granted for each presenter to respond to comments and questions from the Subcommittee and audience. 6. CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ALLOWED PUBLIC TQSPEAK FREELYON THE ISS.tE En • The IAQC meeting was conductcd in a manner that raised questions about whether policy was driving the scientists, or whether they were really interested in allowing the scientific Issues to be expressed and debated. The IAQC Chairman prevented scientific viewpoints critical of the two draft ETS documents from being given a full and fair hearing. When approached by three scientists of well known stature wishing to add to the discussion of the scientific issues, the Chairman denied their request to address the, Committee. In retrospect it seems that the rush to adjourn the IAQC meeting may have been due in part to the fact that the EPA had called the press to a press conference in the same room where the IAQC was meeting. When the press began arriving for the press conference prior to the adjournment of the meeting, it was obvious that the reporters had been given a specific time for the press conference In order to meet their 5:00 p.m. press deadlines. This type of Committee management presents serious questions as to whether the IAQC review of the draft ETS documents was conducted in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions governing the activities of federal advisory committees, not to mention fundamental notions of due process. At the press conference the IAQC Chairman reported that the IAQC had reached a consensus, even though contrary positions were stated throughout the meeting by IAQC members. Surprisingly, the IAQC was able to reach a consensus even though two IAQC members were absent one of the two days of the committee (during the public comment) and one IAQC member was absent throughout the two day meeting. EME ~ The Chairman of the NIEMF Subcommittee permitted and, in fact, encouraged a free and open discussion of the EMF scientific issues under consideration by the Subcommittee. There were opportunities for the audience to ask clarifying questions if confusion arose as to what the speakers presented. At the summary session of the Subcommittee meeting the Chairman once again allowed the public the opportunity to present summary comments and then adjourned the meeting with no press conference, even though EMF is also such a high visible and controversial subject.,

7. SAB COMMITT1rE MEMBERS STATED POSITIONS ON THE SUB]ECT M • During the IAQC meeting there was virtually no interchange between the members of the IAQC on their review of the draft documents. There was limited discussion by the IAQC members and scientists who presented their finding and views on the draft documents. When asked by the Chairman for their opinions the Committee members were either very hesitant to respond or the impression they presented was that they needed additional time to review the voluminous material they had been given. Several members stated that they had not had a chance to review all the public comment on the ETS draft documents. Of those members who responded to the Chairman's questioning the responses seemed to be criticism of the drafting of the documents rather than an agreement or consensus of the conclusions of the members. A consensus is not when members of a Committee, in public statements, do not seem to agree on a particular conclusion reached by the EPA. The publicity of a consensus during public deliberations without all the Committee members present does however, raise questions about the integrity of the EPA's SAB review process. EME • The NIEMF Subcommittee members reviewing the draft EMF documents were extremely conversant with the scientists presenting their views at the NIEMF meeting. There was significant interchange of information between the public presenters, EPA staff who authored the draft documents and the Subcommittee members. The public was encouraged to ask questions of the presenters and the Subcommittee members. The Subcommittee members were quick to state that they needed more time to review the materials presented by the public during the meeting. 8. NUMBER OF SAB MEETINGS ON THE TOPIC En • The IAQC meeting has been the only EPA public/scientific meeting to date on the review of the two ETS draft documents. At the end of the IAQC meeting the Committee was given specific writing assignments relative to the IAQC report. The decision on the writing assignments was made outside of the public eye and when asked for the assignments IAQC staff were told they could not give the public the assignment information. When the Committee completes their review and writing of the report they willl present their written findings to the SAB Executive Committee. Plans are now being made to present the IAQC finding at the April 1991 Executive Committee meeting where there will be a formal presentation of the IAQC.review and the Executive Committee will be given the opportunity to verbally present their opinions of the report or approval before the final IAQC report is transmitted to the Administrator of the EPA. The public has been told that they will not be privy to the draft IAQC documents or to the Committee deliberations during conference calls.

EME • There will at least four public/scientific meetings to review the public comments on the draft and revised EMF documents. Also, there will be telephone conferences between the Subcommittee members as they complete their review. Additionally, there are regularly scheduled telephone conference calls between the NIEMF staff and the general public wishing to ask questions on the process and review of the draft EMF documents. 9. ADVANCE NOTICE AND TIME ALhOTTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE SAB COMMITTEE MEETING • The public had two workdays notice prior to the deadline set by the IAQC staff for the public to respond on whether they would be attending and speaking at the IAQC meeting. The IAQC published the notice in the Federal Register the day before a federal holiday (Thanksgiving) for a December 4-5, 1990 meeting. In between the notice time and the deadline there were four weekend days. On top of the short notice, three scientists with critical views concerning the two draft ETS documents were not afforded time to make their prepared statements. The IAQC Chairman denied these speakers time to present their views, yet twice as much time was allowed on the agenda for presentations by anti-smoking organizations. There were few questions from the IAQC members to the speakers, no questions were allowed from the audience. While it seemed that there was sufficient time for all who wished to speak, the opportunity to do so was denied to some. Public participation is meaningless if adequate notice and sufficient time for the public to participate is not allowed. FME • There was at least 30 days notice of the meeting date of the NfEMF Subcommittee. 4'he meeting was planned and, organized to allow ample time for speakers and members of the public time to speak. There was more than sufficient time for all who wished to speak. The Subcommittee repeatedly asked the public for their comments during the meeting. T7te public comments and questions Seemed to foster more of a scientific debate of the issues and presented though provoking challenges for the Subcommittee members, 10. OPEN FREE DISCUSSION AT SAB MEETING M • There was no effort to have at least some level of scientific debate and inquiry at the IAQC meeting. One of the presentations not heard pertained to an extremely important scientific question which the IAQC was asked to address by the EPA program offices. The IAQC Chairman denied a request and the presentation was not permitted, even though scientists desiring to do so were present, and there was ample time on the schedule to permit such presentations to be made.. Because of the weight the public attaches to decisions by the EPA it is essential that a firm debated scientific foundation be established before policy decisions are made and EPA actions are undertaken.

FME • There was a remarkable amount of straightforward discussion at the NIEMF Subcommittee meeting. The Subcommittee Chairman's flexibility with regard to the public's questions and the questions of her own Subcommittee members contributed to the feeling of full public participation. The frankness of the public discussion also gave the impression that there was room for further work on the issue and that there were no predetermined opinions or consensus of the Subcommittee. ] 1. ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC COMMENT EM • By the IAQC's handling of the December 4-5 meeting EPA failed to conduct a fair hearing and public assessment with regard to the scientific review of the draft ETS documents. The impression after the two day meeting was that EPA had already decided a future course of action on ETS .'I~vo members of the IAQC who agreed to review the draft documents did not even attend the first day of the meeting which was the only time reserved for public comment. The Chairman presented the "consensus" of the IAQC at a press conference after the meeting. There was extremely limited opportunity for the public to present their views. In essence, there was a finality to the meeting and the work that had been done by the 1AQC as if the Committee had predctermined the conclusions prior to the "public" Committee meeting. ME • While no "official" public comment period has been initiated by the EPA in the review process of the EMF documents, there was a distinct feeling that the public comments would be given substantial weight during the NIEMF meetings and deliberations. The EPA is taking pains to deliberate and debate the controversial scientific issues surrounding the EMF matter in the public arena.