Three of four draft reports posted online Tuesday suggest scientific consensus was not taken into consideration. In another draft, SAB members say their recommendations “do not seem to have been taken into consideration in the published analysis,” according to The Hill.
The SAB is questioning the lack of scientific underpinning in the agency’s proposed changes to clean-water, mercury, vehicle fuel-efficiency, and scientific transparency regulations. Under Obama-era regulations, the mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule was projected to save between $37 billion and $90 billion when the savings to public health were taken into account.
Under the Trump administration, that estimate on public health savings has been reduced to between $4 million to $6 million. The EPA MATS proposal doesn’t roll back the rule itself, but changing the cost-benefit analysis associated with it, and could open up the agency to swift legal challenges that could hinder future administrations being able to use the full power of the Clean Air Acy.
In another draft report, the advisory panel recommended strengthening the agency’s vehicle emission regulation that reduces the Obama administration’s vehicle emission rules. The Trump EPA insists the proposed changes would reduce vehicle costs and boost safety, reports Reuters.
“Together with other smaller problems and inconsistencies, the issues are of sufficient magnitude that the estimated net benefits of the proposed revision may be substantially overstated,” the SAB report said.
Another draft report took on the EPA’s changes to the Waters of the United States rule, saying the agency’s new definition was “not fully consistent with established EPA recognized science to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
An EPA spokesperson responded by email, stressing the feedback from the SAB was only a draft. “EPA always appreciates and respects the work and advice of the SAB. The reports they posted are a draft and will be discussed at their next meeting. The commentary and reports may potentially be revised by the SAB members as they strive for a consensus on these documents. The final commentary and reports will be developed soon after the public meeting and then sent to the administrator,” the email read.
