home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Current Shareware 1994 January
/
SHAR194.ISO
/
textfile
/
envfacts.zip
/
EPA.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-09-11
|
18KB
|
293 lines
Excerpts from Fort Freedom BBS, 914/941-1319 -- a pro-science,
pro-technology, pro-free enterprise oasis. Call in, its free!
TRILLION DOLLAR LIES ───────────────────────────────────────────────────
[From Consumers' Research 76(5):10-15 (1993 May)]
The [EPA-appointed expert] panel's March 1992 report, SAFEGUARDING THE
FUTURE: CREDITABLE SCIENCE, CREDITABLE DECISIONS, found a ``climate and
culture'' within the EPA that cast serious doubt on the quality of
science used by the agency to justify its programs. Indeed, scientists
play a minor role inside the agency, which tends to be dominated by
lawyers and other non-scientists. Even many agency personnel perceived
that EPA science was ``adjusted to fit policy.'' Among its specific
findings:
o EPA's ``science activities to support regulatory development ... do
not always have adequate, credible quality assurance, quality control,
or peer review.'' And although the agency receives ``sound advice'' it
``is not always heeded.''
o The EPA ``has not always ensured that contrasting, reputable
scientific views are well-explored and well-documented from the
beginning to the end of the regulatory process.'' Instead, ``studies
are frequently carried out without the benefit of peer review or
quality assurance. They sometimes escalate into regulatory proposals
with no further scientific input, leaving EPA initiatives on shaky
grounds.''
o The agency ``does not scientifically evaluate the impact of its
regulations,'' and ``scientists at all levels throughout EPA believe
that the agency does not use their science effectively.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathological Growth of Regulations
[By Philip H. Abelson]
[From Science 260:1859 (1993 Jun 25).]
The Congress of the United States has created a huge, multistatutory
regulatory machine. As an example, in the 1970s the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was answerable to 15 congressional committees
and subcommittees. That figure now exceeds 90. In 1989 alone, EPA
officials made 168 appearances before congressional committees. By 1990,
EPA was required to administer 11 major statutes and over 9000
regulations. Since then, some of the statutes have been amended, and the
number of regulations continues to grow. Other agencies are required to
issue regulations, and in total, agencies employing 125,000 bureaucrats
are busily engaged in formulating additional regulations. The direct
annual cost of meeting these mandates is more than $500 billion.
Additional indirect costs have been estimated at another $500 billion.
Some benefits have resulted from this federal command and control
legislation. However, the easy, cost-effective changes have largely been
made, and additional federal requirements will result in diminishing
returns.
In the 1970s, industry was the principal target of regulations issued by
EPA. By now, the major chemical companies are accustomed to dealing with
EPA mandates. They have long had health and safety programs solidly in
place; they have chemical engineers to improve processes to curtail
emissions and a legal staff to fight onerous interpretations of
statutes, The new targets of the EPA enforcers are state and local
governments and small companies.
The EPA estimate of the costs to companies, public works facilities, and
taxpayers of meeting its regulations in 1990 was $115 billion
nationwide. The EPA projection for the year 2000 is that the cost could
be $180 billion. However, estimates by EPA tend to be low.
Municipalities have reported instances in which real costs exceeded EPA
estimates by a factor of 20 or more. Moreover, the estimates do not take
into consideration the disruptive effects of regulations on local
governances. They are expected to comply with what EPA as termed 419
"essential" regulations for which the local governments are required to
provide funds. Not only do the local governments not have the money to
carry out environmental mandates, they frequently do not know what it is
they are supposed to implement. Frank Shafroth of the National League of
Cities has said, "EPA rules are written in Latin with Greek footnotes."
The cities and towns are required to achieve objectives of which they
have previously been incapable. For example, they must monitor more than
130 chemicals in their water supplies, some of them in the part per
billion or lower range.
Regulations are having an increasing impact on small businesses. EPA is
now enforcing standards on smaller companies that cannot afford to
develop environmental expertise. One mandate regulates 328 chemicals and
requires firms to keep inventories of their use, report the presence to
local safety officials and federal authorities, and train their
employees for emergencies involving hazardous materials. This is only
one of hundreds of regulations that small companies must implement.
Moreover, changes in regulations occur frequently, making it difficult
to plan ahead. Failure to comply with environmental laws can mean huge
fines and jail sentences for company owners, managers, and employees.
Companies are being counted on to create jobs. The regulatory pathology
impairs their health. Last year during the electoral campaign, candidate
Clinton stated, "Expanding regulations threaten to overwhelm the
nation's entrepreneurs and divert them from the task of building strong
innovative companies."
In its implementation of statutes EPA can be criticized on many grounds.
Its performance in dealing with Superfund sites has been less than
mediocre. Risk assessments of chemicals by EPA often exaggerate hazards
by a factor of 100 or more, and its risk management is questionable.
However, EPA is faced with interpreting and implementing complex and
fuzzy congressional legislation. For instance, under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA is required to set maximum contamination level goals to
prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects with an "adequate
margin of safety." Accordingly, EPA has set maximum concentration level
goals of zero for some major chemicals of doubtful carcinogenicity. By
law, cleanup levels of Superfund sites must under certain circumstances
meet standards set by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has
an invitation to require expenditures of trillions of dollars at sites
around which few if any excess deaths have been seen.
Philip H. Abelson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Costs
By Philip H. Abelson
[Editorial, Science 259:159 (1993 Jan 8)]
On 20 January, the Democrats become sole heirs to a phenomenon of
regulation gone amok. In April 1992, 59 regulatory agencies with about
125,000 employees were at work on 4,186 pending regulations. The cost
during 1991 of mandates already in place has been estimated at $542
billion. The fastest growing component of costs is environmental
regulations, which amounted to $115 billion in 1991 but are slated to
grow by more than 50 percent in constant dollars by the year 2000.
Twenty years ago, costs of federal environmental regulations were not
visible to the public. However, the number and stringency of unfunded
federal requirements have since increased markedly. New and tighter
regulations have drained funds from cities, towns, school districts, and
individuals. A result is the beginning of a revolt. There is a growing
questioning of the factual basis for federal command and control actions
and of the scientific competence of the regulators.
Two examples will be cited. Nine participating cities in Ohio have made
an important, detailed study of impacts on them of 14 environmental
regulations or issues. They estimate their compliance costs (1992 to
2001) at about $3 billion.* One of the cities, Columbus, had a budget of
$591 million in 1991, of which $62 million [10.5%] went to environmental
compliance. Projected compliance costs in 1995 are $107 million (1991
dollars). Faced with difficult funding choices, Mayor Greg Lashutka
decided that Columbus should create its own Environmental Science
Advisory Committee. The mayor had rich scientific resources including
Ohio State University, Battelle, Columbus, and Chemical Abstracts.
Edward F. Hayes, Vice President for Research of Ohio State University,
was named chairman of the committee.
Hayes has questioned the judgment inherent in some of the federal
command and control regulations. As one example he cited the Safe
Drinking Water Act, which requires that at least 133 specified pollutant
be monitored. Many of the substances are not present in significant
quantities in Ohio. In other instances, mandated regulatory levels are
extremely tight. He cited the herbicide Atrazine. Although its average
level at water intakes is far below 3 parts per billion, the city may be
required to install ``best available technology'' for Atrazine removal
at a cost of $80 million for each of two surface water plants. Hayes has
stated that the action level is 3 parts per billion because effects of
massive doses to rats are extrapolated to infinitesimal doses in humans,
and regulators included a thousandfold factor of safety. If the factor
of safety were set at 100, then a major uncertainty would be removed,
and Columbus would be more free to address real health problems in the
community.
Another example of questioning of the judgment of federal regulators
involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its proposal
to limit levels of radon in drinking water to 300 picocuries per liter.
The EPA estimated that the cost to achieve this standard nationwide
would be $1.6 billion in capital costs and additional annual expenses of
$180 million. The association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) found
that the cost for meeting the radon water standard in California alone
would approach $3.7 billion. National costs were estimated at $12 to $20
billion, and only 1 percent of the public radon exposure would be
reduced. The ACWA lined up support from 27 California members of the
House of Representatives. A letter dispatched to President Bush and
signed by them included: ``We are deeply concerned about new regulations
which place a considerable financial burden on our citizens without
providing appreciable public benefit.''
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) has been aware of deficiencies at
EPA. In the 102nd session of congress he introduced S. 2132, a bill
designed ``To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to seek ongoing advice from independent experts in ranking
relative environmental risks; to conduct the research and monitoring
necessary to ensure a sound scientific basis for decision-making; and to
use such information in managing available resources to protect society
from the greatest risks to human health, welfare, and ecological
resources.'' The bill was not acted on, but a modified version will be
introduced in the new Congress and should receive widespread support.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
*``Ohio Metropolitan Area Cost Report for Environmental Compliance''
(Columbus Health Department, Columbus, OH, 1992). Copies of the report
may be obtained form Michael J. Pompili, Assistant Health Commissioner;
telephone: 614-645-6181.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCARE OF THE WEEK
[By Daniel E. Koshland, Jr., editor of Science]
[From Science 244, p. 9 (7 April 1989)]
[768 words]
The fable of the boy who cried wolf is as pertinent today as it
was in Aesop's time. We are being subjected to the scare of the
week. Some of these scares may reflect real dangers, but they are
becoming obscured by a cacophany [sic] of false or exaggerated
ones. Two that hit the headlines recently illustrate quite
different problems.
The first was a highly publicized announcement by the Natural
Resources Defense Council that Alar-treated apples would cause
thousands of cancer deaths to children. The reaction was
predictable: school districts quickly canceled apple distribution
and the fruit piled up on grocery shelves. The facts came more
slowly. Only 5% of apples are treated with Alar, and in that 5%
the levels of Alar are well below conservative Environmental
Protection Agency tolerances. Even in a worst case scenario the
probability of cancer among the affected group would change from
25% to 25.025%. When health commissioners announced the facts,
the country returned to normal and apples were returned to school
districts and grocery shelves. However, serious psychological and
financial damage was sustained.
It is time to recognize that public interest groups have
conflicts of interest, just as do business groups, even though
their public positions are orthogonal. Businesses prefer to be
out of the limelight; public interest groups like to be in it.
Because they are selling products in the marketplace, businesses
downplay discussions of hazards. Because public interest groups
acquire members by publicity, they emphasize hazards. Each group
convinces itself that its worthy goals justify oversimplification
to an ``ignorant'' public. Businesses today have product
liability and can incur legal damages if they place a dangerous
product on the market. Public interest groups have no such
constraints at the moment; it may be time to develop appropriate
ones so that victims of irresponsible information have redress.
Public interest groups, as well as apple growers, contribute
importantly to our society, but both groups should be accountable
for their acts.
The second scare was the banning of Chilean grapes after a
terrorist threat and the finding of traces of a little cyanide in
two grapes. On the surface it resembles the Alar scare: the
amounts of cyanide were found to be negligible, so the job losses
and the ensuing ill will created among Chilean farmers seemed
disproportionate in retrospect. The difference is that eating too
much cyanide can cause instant death, whereas Alar presents a
possible danger only over a lifetime of consumption and that
scare required no instantaneous action. Although the Chilean
grape scare may have been more justifiable, a reevaluation
suggests that a less extreme reaction would have been more
appropriate.
The overreaction in these cases has as its background the present
climate in our society in which complete safety without cost is
seen as a feasible goal. The possibility of danger, therefore, is
perceived to result from chicanery, negligence, or incompetence.
In such a climate, officials respond with extreme measures.
Because increased costs in either the affected products or in
taxes are not obviously linked to these official actions, the
system becomes tilted to overreaction. A certain balance is
necessary to prevent the costs of legitimate safety measures from
becoming prohibitive. A graphic illustration of this problem
surfaced recently with the arrest in Los Angeles of a person who
admitted having made about a hundred bomb threats to airlines,
all false, each of which had to be investigated by authorities.
If every threat causes flights to be canceled or fruit to be
removed from grocery shelves, terrorists and psychotics will soon
be able to grind society to a halt. On the other hand, the
alternative of broadcasting each threat, caveat emptor with a
vengeance, would soon cause all warnings to be ignored.
To thread our way between real dangers and false alarms, we must
often let officials decide which terrorist threats deserve wide
publicity, and the public must be understanding of risks as well.
Because these officials cannot always be right they deserve to be
judged on an overall record, not from any certainty of hindsight.
The public must recognize that a risk-free society is not only
impossible, but intolerably expensive. At some point the real
danger of too much pesticide must be balanced against the value
to poor people of cheaper fruit. There are numerous deaths from
falls down stairs in the home every year, but we do not advocate
that all staircases be replaced by elevators. Scares of the week
are in the same category. We cannot afford to be complacent about
real threats, but we must remember that to be alive is to be at
risk. -- Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.