EPA analysis shows the public plays no meaningful role in EPA rulemaking

[limpyhobbler]

Washington, DC — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fully addressed less than 5 percent of the administrative rulemaking petitions submitted during the past 30 years to one of its branches, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Unlike other agencies, EPA does not display the status of the hundreds of petitions it receives each year from citizens, states, industry and environmental organizations.

The U.S. Administrative Procedures Act requires federal regulatory agencies to “give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” (5 U.S.C. § 553(e)) Agencies must respond to these petitions “within a reasonable time…” (5 U.S.C. § 555)

An internal analysis of rulemaking petitions submitted to EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery, which handles solid and hazardous waste issues, concluded that the agency had fully addressed only 2 of 50 rulemaking petitions submitted since 1981. For most (34 of 50) of these petitions, EPA had “no record of any action formally taken” – a condition aggravated by the fact that EPA could not even locate them since “copies of the petitions are not available.”

The unanswered petitions cover an array of topics ranging from coal combustion wastes to dry-cleaning cartridge filters. The vast majority were submitted by industry groups with others submitted by state agencies and environmental groups. This backlog was first tallied in 2009 and updated in 2010.

“These documents suggest that the public – including those most affected by the rules – plays no meaningful role in EPA rulemaking,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who obtained the analyses in discovery produced by EPA in an unrelated case. “A delay of decades exceeds ‘a reasonable time’ to respond by any measure.”
...

more http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/08/20/epa-is-graveyard-for-rulemaking-petitions/

[GeorgeGist]

1. The EPA should be dealing with science.

Science isn't democratic.

[limpyhobbler]

2. EPA deals in policy. Policy needs to be influenced by democracy.

Science can only tell us what is chemical and physical, and only sometimes. It cannot tell us what is right and wrong. Science might tell how much emissions a power plant makes, or the relative risk posed by possible failure of an oil rig. But science can not tell us whether the risk is worth it. For that we need ethics and democracy.


Also EPA policy making is heavily influenced by politics already, such as by industry lobbyists seeking to increase corporate profits at any risk to the general population.

For another thing, I think you'll find that even the scientific analysis produced by the EPA is heavily influenced by pressure brought to bear by political lobbying efforts.

Also science is actually somewhat democratic. It's not put to a popular vote. But it is democratic in the sense that scientific results and theories are not self-justifying. They must be able to achieve and maintain a consensus of specialists, while at the same time withstanding any public challenges to their correctness.

[kristopher]

3. +1