David Bass’ Carolina Journal Exclusive unearths an important study done by NC’s Division of Air Quality arguing that ozone is not a precursor to the formation of particulate matter. As David points out, this conclusion undermined the AG’s lawsuit against the TVA and after a meeting with the AG’s office DAQ killed the study. What is interesting is DAQ’s response to David’s inquiries regarding the suppression of the study. Laura Booth, DAQ official, told Bass that they didn’t drop the study because of pressure from the AG’s office but because of “pushback from the U.S. EPA.” Booth told David that the EPA “did not feel comfortable with what we had done there.” In other words, what DAQ is saying is that they didn’t drop it because of pressure from the AG but instead they dropped it because of pressure from the EPA.
It should be noted that DAQ did not say they dropped it because of any problem with the study itself or because of any flaws in its conclusions. From Bass? story we can’t say for sure where the outside pressure came from but what is quite clear is that the study was dropped because either the AG’s office or the EPA wanted DAQ to drop it.
What this means is that DAQ is unwilling to stand behind analysis, performed by its own analysts, that is technically and scientifically sound because the conclusions of the study have proven to be unacceptable or inconvenient to people in other agencies. The question that needs to be raised is what other studies are being suppressed by DAQ because of pressures from other government agencies. And, given DAQ?s well known sympathies and connections to environmental advocacy groups, could these groups be having a similar influence?
