CHRIS ZARBA: Actually, I was planning on retiring a year before I really retired. And I had identified a number of excellent candidates that I would recommend for people to take my position when I retired. After the election, those people who were interested in the position backed down. And I actually decided to stay an additional year, because I truly believed in the agency and the mission of the Science Advisory Board, and I thought if I stayed another year, I could be helpful in helping the organization get through a very difficult time.
AMY GOODMAN: And what was your reaction yesterday when President Trump tweeted that Scott Pruitt was out?
CHRIS ZARBA: Well, my immediate reaction was -- I mean, I think there's 12 or 14 individual investigations on his ethical behavior. And while I think they all should continue, they really are quite trivial compared to some of the other things that Scott Pruitt was pushing for. And that's why I'm here. And at the top of that list is the bill that he has proposed that's called transparency in regulatory science. And the implications are huge to the health of the American public. And it's important that that message get out there and people be aware of what's happening.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the EPA Science Advisory Board and what was happening to it, Chris Zarba.
CHRIS ZARBA: So, the Science Advisory Board -- anything that EPA does that is based on science of consequence, it really requires -- sometimes it's by law, and sometimes you just have to do it -- an independent science review. So the Science Advisory Board consists of -- and the panels and the standing committees underneath it -- 200 to 300 nationally recognized scientists. They're all cleared for ethics conflicts of interest. They come from industry, academia, state and local government. They conduct independent reviews, and they write reports that summarize the strengths and limitations of the science that the EPA is going to be using.
What happened in the past year, the rules of governing the Science Advisory Board changed quite substantially as a result of an October 31st directive from Scott Pruitt. And there were a variety of changes, but some of the key ones were that the term limit for SAB members went from six years to three. So each year we went from an 18 percent turnover rate to over a 36 percent turnover rate. The second thing was, is that any SAB member that had an active EPA grant needed to be terminated. So I had to pick up the phone and fire quite a few of these nationally recognized scientists. And at the same time, if these scientists had a grant from industry, there was no issue with that. It was only if you had an EPA grant. And the third and most concerning thing that we had to do is that in considering new members of the SAB, we couldn't consider anyone that had an active EPA grant, which meant that a huge portion of some of the most qualified scientists in the nation could not even be considered for these positions. And when you put all those three things together, it certainly leads to the perception that the Science Advisory Board could be compromised, and it would make people question the reports that will be coming out in the coming months.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us who Steven Milloy is, the architect of the tobacco industry's defense of the dangers of cigarette smoke?
CHRIS ZARBA: Yeah. So, in the past several years, Congress has tried to pass a bill called the HONEST Act. And it was an act that would apply just to EPA, and it would limit the kind of data that we could use to set policy. It never passed. But it then was proposed by Scott Pruitt, and it's called the transparency in -- transparency in regulatory science. And what that does is it prevents EPA from using any data where all the information is not made publicly available.
So, much of the data EPA uses is human subject data, where people, let's say, in a community were accidentally exposed to contaminated drinking water. They were -- got sick, had problems with that. It was found out, unfortunately, and then scientists would come in and study what happened and what exposures people had and what the consequences were. Well, while that was a terrible -- those things are terrible, they do provide a unique opportunity for scientists to get real data on what's safe -- what the safe level is or dangerous level is for different contaminants. In getting the public to agree to let the scientists use their data, they frequently sign confidentiality agreements, which means that we, the scientists, cannot share the person's name or phone number or address, so that they have that anonymity. And basically, this act is proposing that if all of that data isn't made publicly available, scientists and EPA can't use it to set regulations, which means that the vast majority of science that EPA has to set clean levels for different contaminants and classes of contaminants in the environment goes away, and all of those rules go away.
There was a recent study done by a group called the Environment Protection Network, and they calculated that if this law had passed 20 years ago, approximately 50,000 Americans would have died each year in the past 20 years. So, if you add that up, it comes out to about a million Americans could have died prematurely as the result of that bill. So, when I said earlier that the ethical issues with Scott Pruitt are trivial compared to some of these bigger issues, this is what I'm referring to. A million Americans is important.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking with Chris Zarba, ex-director of the EPA's Science Advisory Board -- he left the EPA in February -- and Mustafa Ali, one of the first to resign last year after EPA chief Scott Pruitt started. Well, yesterday, it was announced Scott Pruitt is out. When we come back, we'll speak to the mother who confronted Scott Pruitt this week in a restaurant, demanding he resign. Stay with us.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
