The Environmental Protection Agency is cherry-picking members to serve on key science advisory panels by allowing staff to choose the candidates, says the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma sent a letter Friday to the head of the agency outlining his concerns, especially as one of the advisory panels in question is meant to provide input from states and others independent of the agency on the cost and expense of air quality regulations.
Inhofe said he is “troubled to learn” that EPA employees and “designated federal officers,” who typically provide logistical support in running the advisory panels, were actually selecting the five members meant to serve on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, according to the letter.
“In other words, none of the potential members who were nominated by an individual or organization outside the EPA or those who self-nominated were selected,” Inhofe wrote in the letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “These findings only lend further credence to my concerns that these panels may not be fully indepedent of the agency.”
“I am equally concerned by EPA’s lack of transparency throughout the selection process,” Inhofe said. Based on a previous Feb. 25 letter sent to Inhofe by the agency, he says the EPA appointed five candidates to the clean air panel on Aug. 3, “yet the names of those selected were not posted on [EPA’s] website until Oct. 5, 2015.” He said the agency did not contact candidates until Oct. 6.
“It is wholly inappropriate that more than two months had passed from the time EPA appointed [committee] members, to the time the public and those who were not selected were notified of the agency’s decision,” he said in the letter.
“I have said time and again, greater transparency within the selection process would benefit all.”
Nevertheless, it appears the EPA has taken “no serious actions to ameliorate these concerns,” said Inhofe, directing the agency to take a number of actions going into the new nomination process.
He wants the upcoming deadline for new candidates to be extended 30 days from the origianl May 6 cutoff. He wants all information on who referred the candidate to serve on the panel, including title and organization.
Inhofe also wants any public comments submitted to the agency in favor of a candidate to be made public.
All candidates must be notified once the selection process has concluded, including those who were not chosen.
Finally, Inhofe wants the EPA to make the list of newly appointed candidates available on its website within seven business days, including the date on which appointments were made.
