I know people are going to say don't bring politics to the list, but a Senate hearing is decidedly political. It=E2=80™s critically important y'all understand who is on the majority side of this committee: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/members

Just one important example: Senator Inhofe's public position is on "cutting regulations-to achieve energy dominance." which I take to mean he's not pro-CSB. See https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/issues/energy-environment as well as https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/epw-archive He is known for his public rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change - you know, the one that 97% of all climate scientists agree on and the other 3% were published in non-peer reviewed journals, had faulty science etc, calling it 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He compared the IPCC to "Soviet style trial". He consistently makes false claims about environmental science: https://www.factcheck.org/person/james-inhofe/ He's part of the cabal that has sought to remove scientists from the EPA because they have "conflicts of interest": https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/news-inhofe-joins-epa-administrator-pruitt-to-announce-epa-science-committee-directive and https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100226/opponents-climate-regulations-start-targeting-scientists

I have no idea what's behind this meeting, but clearly the importance of the CSB is well known and not a matter of (pressing) debate=E2=80=A6so why hold this meeting? If history is a guide, every meeting/proposal we've seen announced in areas of concern to the list membership in the past three years has been 1984 doublespeak with the opposite intent of what it says. My spidey sense is that they are at least taking a run at putting CSB under the thumb of Congress (which, given its history under the Moure-Eraso era one can make arguments that way, sure; see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/_epaoig_20180604-18-n-0208.pdf BTW), but I suspect its more likely another shot at gutting or eliminating it. Past history there: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-trump-want-to-stop-investigating-chemical-accidents/ and https://www.revealnews.org/article/trump-keeps-trying-to-kill-chemical-safety-board/

If anything, the CSB needs an expanded budget, more investigators, and the ability to actually do their job (CSB investigators were allegedly blocked from the West Fertilizer explosion site for a month: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-chemical-safety-inspe_b_3353064 .

We're going to have to watch this one closely!

Rob Toreki

======================================================

Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names

you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com

esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412

Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

On Jan 23, 2020, at 7:04 AM, DCHAS Membership Chair <membership**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG> wrote:

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=AC86E1F2-3A8A-473E-80BB-7F338CAC16F6

Stakeholder perspectives on the importance of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
January 29, 2020 10:00 AM

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Stakeholder perspectives on the importance of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board."

WEDNESDAY, January 29, 2020
10:00 AM
Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas