EPA’s ‘Info Products Bulletin’ -- Boon or Bane? EPA is close to finalizing a mechanism that could be key to the open flow of timely, accurate information from the agency to the press and public. The Information Products Bulletin (IPB), the agency says, "will inform stakeholders and the public about upcoming significant information products being produced by EPA and some of the states." "So what?" a skeptic might ask. For one thing, environmental reporters who use federal and state databases to develop stories might use the IPB to be ready with research projects when new data comes out. In some cases, EPA will offer the public a chance to comment on forth-coming data before it is published. Right-to-know advocates worry that the IPB could offer interest groups a chance to censor or stifle data they don’t want to see the light of day. Whether the comment process will become an opportunity for obstructing or slanting publications remains to be seen. The IPB was described in a Federal Register notice on November 30, 2000, (pp. 71314-71317) -- which itself will be open for public comment until January 2, 2001. Further background is at http://www.epa.gov/ipbpages/. The IPB will be a joint effort of EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), a nonpartisan, nonprofit association of state environmental commissioners. An "interim" Web site version of the IPB is already online (http://www.epa.gov/ipbpages/ipblist.htm). EPA says a more detailed IPB will be published online and on paper in March 2001 and every six months thereafter, with Web updates possibly more frequently. EPA defines the "significant information products" which must be included in the IPB as: - "Products that analyze and/or compare data from various agencies and organizations, including industry, as well as various federal, state, tribal, and local agencies" - "Significant data collected by, acquired by, or directly reported to EPA from various agencies and organizations that EPA has not interpreted or analyzed" - "Products that describe or assess environmental conditions, trends, or risks" - "Products that apply to a large segment of the population or large geographic area" - "[Software] models used by the public to perform environmental analyses based upon data from various agencies and organizations" - "Those annual reports and other products released on a regular basis that describe environmental conditions, trends, risks, and/or portray compliance or performance." That definition can be read so broadly as to include almost anything that involves facts or thinking about the environment. But the notice also lists 15 things not to be included in the IPB, including: - announcements - brochures - citizen cuides - fact sheets - journal articles - policy statements - press releases - rulemakings and supporting documents (e.g. guidance). The notice seems to give wide leeway to EPA in how it gathers outside comments on upcoming data products and whether it accommodates those comments. Mechanisms could range from focus groups, surveys, and Web sites to Federal Register notices with formal comments. It is not clear whether the comments EPA receives, and the agencies response to them, will always be open to public view. One option is "stakeholder or expert consultation," which is defined as "Extended communication (through meet-ings, phone conversations, email, Fax or U.S. mail) with representatives of various government agencies and/or organizations ...." While the notice emphasizes receiving of comments in recorded form, it does not require them to be recorded. The IPB is to "provide an opportunity for stakeholders and the public to comment ... on some of the significant information products described on the list." The criteria for which items need comment are somewhat loose: "It should be noted that it may not be practical or useful to provide an opportunity for stakeholder or public input for some products on the IPB list. Examples of such products are those produced on a routine or annual basis, or those that are technical, science-based documents that undergo a rigorous peer review process." While "public" can include virtually anybody, "stakeholders" are defined as "individuals who represent groups or specific segments of the public with a vested interest in the product or policy," such as "representatives of an industry sector, community, government agency, [or] non-governmental organizations (NGOs)." Environmental groups are not mentioned explicitly. The notice seems to offer little legal basis for interest groups to halt or censor EPA data products. The notice specifies: "Where possible, every effort will be made" to make draft or prototype data products publicly available. It is silent on what EPA must do with the comments it receives and states no specific limitations, conditions, or prohibitions on eventual final publication. Nonetheless, its endorsement of "extended communication" with stakeholders could have the practical result of delaying publication. Proposal Written by Lobbyists Although the notice describes the IPB as an EPA and state initiative, it isn’t. It was invented and virtually imposed on EPA by industry lobbyists. One of the first appearances of the idea was in a paper ("Government Accountability for Environmental Information") submitted to EPA in May 1999 by Mark Greenwood, a former EPA official now with the Ropes & Gray law firm. Greenwood is the main spokesman for the Coalition for Effective Environmental Information (CEEI), a lobbying consortium representing the chemical, forest products, auto, petroleum, plastics, electric utility, and manufacturing industries. Greenwood and CEEI have made a number of proposals which could limit public and press access to EPA information. Major points of the industries’ information agenda in Greenwood’s paper were inserted as mandates to EPA in Senate report language accompanying the fiscal 2000 appropriations bill for EPA (H.R. 2684, S. Rept. 106-161). The language was inserted on September 16, 1999, into the report by Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-MO), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that covers EPA. It outlined the major features of the IPB. While such report language may technically be non-binding, agencies usually feel constrained to comply with wishes expressed by the committee that funds them. Appropriations report language, unlike other congressional action, requires neither hearings to examine its justification nor any record of the process by which it was arrived at. "I’m a little troubled by EPA going down the path of doing this," said Rick Blum, an analyst with OMB Watch, one of the groups tracking EPA’s information policies. "It’s one thing to provide notice," Blum said, explaining his "mixed opinion" on the IPB. "We want a very open, transparent government .... We encourage public participation .... but how do you get the public involved and make sure you’re providing broad representation -- not just to one segment of the public?" "EPA is tying its own hands, in essence," Blum said. "EPA was limited during their Sector Facility Indexing Project from taking its own data and performing straightforward calculations on that data and then publishing the result. If they can’t perform simple mathematical calculations on data they have and publish that to protect public health ... what can they do?" Blum noted that a lot of time and work was required of groups taking part in public participation. "It becomes a game of resources," he said. "And in that kind of game, industry will always win." Reprinted with permission. Published in Environment Writer newsletter December 2000/January 2001, by the National Safety Council's Environmental Health Center.