World of Education

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ World of Education / World of Education.iso / world_e / 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.