Tobacco Documents Online

APR 27 '92 11:26 P.2 -EPA WATCH A nuice-monthly survey of aivironmental regulatary activities undtwakere by the EPA, OSH1l, the White,Flouse, Ihe U.S. Congreirs mW Federal; Szatt; and locat agencies. Vol 1 Number 1 - - - Febntary 21, 1992 "ITE HOUSE, CONGRESS CLASH OVER INDOOR AIR LEGISLATION Battle lines are being drawn between the Bush administration and Congress over the future of indoor air regulation in the US. The outcome of the struggle will not only determine which Federal agencies have the final say on indoor air quality issues, but will also have a direct bearing on US industry's ability to compete against its aggressive foreign rivals. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D - Maine) and Congressman Joseph Kennedy (f) - °liassachusetts) have each introduced -.:'.ls that aim at a radical .;.risformation of the Federal ,%wernment's indoor air regulatory structure. In essence, their bills, each entitled the Indoor Air Quality Act of 1991, represent a frontal assault on the existing system under which authority over indoor air is divided among several agencies. In its place, the Mitchell-Kennedy legislation would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the "lead role" in developing the Federal response to indoor air issues. To buttress the EPA's position as the dominant agency on indoor air problems, the legislation seeks to establish an "institutional base" for indoor air activities. This would be done through expanding the FPA's controversial Indoor Air Division (IAD) and the creation of au interagency Indoor Air Council to coordinate efforts of different Federal agencies. White House Position When Sen. Mitchell's version of the bill (S. 455) passed the Senate by a whopping SS-to-7 margin on November 6, the White House issued a blistering attack on the measure. The administration charged that the bill would "disrupt a long-standing and effective Federal indoor air quality program," adding that it would "create conflicting responsibilities among Federal agencies, and impose duplicative and unnecessary requirements that would undermine Federal priorities." Recognizing the bill's goal of broadening the regulatory powers of the EPA, the administration pointed Out that the legislation would "inappropriately give EPA responsibility for developing plans for potential regulatory actions under statutes administered by other agencies." Specifically, the bill would reduce the roles of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and its research arm, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Separation of Jurisdiction Any move directed toward transferring jurisdiction over indoor air from OSHA to EPA would affect more than just the agencies involved. In passing EPA and OSHA legislation, Congress clearly established the EPA as the lead agency regarding environmental health and safety, with jurisdiction over air and tvater, issues as they pertain to the safety and health of the general population. OSHA, on the other hand, was established to handle safety and health issues affecting workers. No distinction was made between office workers and those in production, construction, or setvice activities. The enforcement mechanism utilized by OSHA is based on the employer/employee relationship, and OSHA Iooks to employers to control exposure that may be harmful to their employees. It makes no difference whether the employer created the harmful exposure (such as a toxic chetnical used in an employer's manufacturing process), or the exposure was created by someone else. By contrast, the EPA's enforcement mechanism operates by regulating. output of hazardous materials by employers, whether that output is into the air or water. Exposure of individuals to hazardous materials is not the principal consideration of EPA. Since indoor air clearly is an issue where the vast majority of individuals affected are exposed in their workplaces, the responsibility for control of those exposures has properly belonged to the employer.

APR 27 '92 11:26 EFIA WA..TCH Page 2 The enforcement mechanism, inspection techniques, exposure monitoring methodology, expertise, and experience of OSHA are all geared to the workplace and, in particular, the employer/employee relationship_ The same compelling logic that demands that OSHA be the lead enforcement agency with respect to indoor air quality issue would seem to dictate that the supporting research be conducted by and under the auspices of the NIOSH. By making the EPA the priutary agency charged with research on the indoor air issue, the Mitchell/iCennedy legislation would replace the government's integrated, comprehensive, risk-based approach with a chemical-by-chemical analysis of indoor contaminants, more in line with the EPA's practice of regulating the output of hazardous materials. Pointing out that the government already has a comprehensive indoor Vol 1 Number I air program - one that includes research on causes and effects of indoor air pollution; assessment of mitigation technologies; information dissemination; and, when appropriate, issuance of regulations and guidelines - the White House sees no need to tamper with a system which, it believes, has•served the nation well. . Creating Its Own Problem community is certain to be inundated by a tidal wave of EPA iuduced indoor air regulation. Such regulations will be based on EPA's "scientific evaluation" of pollutants -- the same kind of "scientific evaluatiott" that, over the years, has caused the agency so much embarrassment in the cases of radon, asbestos, dioxin, and environmental tobaoco smoke (ETS). Now that the Senate has already passed its version of the Indoor Air Quality Act, any hopes the administration has of defeating the legislation rests with the House. There, Congressman Kennedy is confident his bill (H.R. 1066) will be approved later this year. If the House passes H.R. 1066 as overwhelmingly as the Senate approved Sen. Mitchell's bill, and if differences between the two bills can be worked out in committee, President Bush's expected veto of the legislation could be overridden. If this happens, the US business The White House bears no small amount of responsibility for the rise in prominence of the EPA. It was President Bush himself who elevated the EPA to cabinet-level status, raising the agency's credibility with those in Congress who seek to use the EPA to promote their regulatory agenda. Indeed, it will not have escaped their attention that the same administration which backed the Clean Air Act of 1990 and reversed itself on CFCs (see next article) might be persuaded to - reach a compromise" on indoor air regulation, one favorable to the EPA. BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S REVERSAL ON CFCs SEEN AS VICTORM. FOR EPA In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the Bush administration on February 11 jettisoned its cautious approach to ozone-depleting chetnieals, confronting US manufacturers and consumers with the certainty of substantially higher costs in the years to come. EPA Administrator William Reilly is widely credited with persuading the White House of the urgency of eliminating the ozone-threatening chemicals by the middle of the decade. The move was driven by a report -- actually, little more than a press release -- by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that indicated "alarming" levels of ozone-destroying chemicals, particularly chlorines, over the Northern Hemisphere. 'I'lte threatening chemicals, known as chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, are widely used by industry in refrigerators, air conditioners, and foam insulation. CFCs have been blamed by some scientists for depleting the ozone layer of the upper atmosphere which screens the Earth from ultraviolet rays. International Agreement In response to international concern over the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, the US signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which provided for the phase-out of CFCs by the year 2000. The administration's decision to move up the elimination of CFCs by four years -- to December 31, 1995 -- casts an unflattering light on the way the - Federal government crafts regulatory polic.~y. ~ O EPA Administrator Reilly has ~ praised President Bush for taking p~ seriously "the recent. scientific W discovery that the (ozone) problem is ZZ worse than we thought:" W But by referring to the contents of the NASA press release as a "scientific discovery," Mr. Reilly merely confirmed what critics of the EPA have long maintained, namely, C3T ~ ~

APR 27 '92 11:27 EPA Wztc Page that the agency's grasp of real science leaves much to be desired. NASA`s report has not been peer reviewed and thus -according to prevailing standards in the scientific conmtuniry --can hardly be termed a "scientific discovery," Wlu1e NASA. has belatedly put together a peer-review panel which is expected to issue its findings later this year, there is little agreement in the scientific community over what a depletion of the ozone layer at a particular point in titue and space really means. Is the depletion caused by CFCs or by the eruption of a gigantic volcano, such as recently occurred on Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines -- or both? No one knows. There is just as much uncertainty among scientists over the effect of such depletions on human health. °Toxic Terrorism" Edward Remmers, an MIT-trained biochemist and vice president of the American Council on Science and Health, recently told the Washington Times that basing o7ione-depletion fears on the NASA. findings is an act of "toxic terrorism." Mr. Remmers added that he did not ftnd NASA's finding alarming, because "while what we observe may be true, we still don't know the impact of it on human health " S. Fred Singer, director of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, was no less critical, pointing out that high levels of chlorine in the atmosphere have been observed before. "They are an indication of nothing," observed Mr. Singer, who is on leave from his position at the University of Virginia's department of environmental sciences. Such skepticism of unsubstantiated findings is generally ignored by the FPA. In April 1991, Mr. Reilly actually proclaimed that 275,000 Americans would soon die annually from ozone hole-related skin cancer. Not only has Mr. Reilly failed to produce any scientific evidence in support of his claim, his statement is misleading on another couat: There is no hole in the ozone layer. The ozone layer is composed of swirling gases that move around the atmosphere in concentrations that vary from time to time and from place to place: What are popularly, and incorrectly, referred to as "holes" in the ozone layer are, in fact, areas where the density of concentration is lower than in other parts of the layer. In, this connection, it is easily forgotten that the thin spot in the ozone layer, commonly referred to as a "hole," was first discovered over Antarctica in 1956, long before CFCs were in widespread use. The truth about the ozone layer notwithstanding, the EPA has persisted in perpetuating the myth that mankind ,faces an immanent threat of skin cancer, and worse, from the.depletion of the Earth's protective shield against ultraviolet sunlight. Yet these myths have become the basis on which far-reaching regulatory decision are made. Next Generation of Chemicals Targeted While US industry is prepared to meet the stepped-up deadline for phasing out CFCs, the real crunch will come when the next generation of chemicals comes into use. The interim replacement for CFCs is expected to be hydrochloro- fluorocarbons, or HCFCs. But these chemicals also have the potential to deplete the ozone layer, albeit much less so than CFCs. The Montreal Protocol provides for the elimination of HCM by 2030, giving industry ample time to develop commercially viable alternatives to these chemicals. However, an EPA plan, expected to be released in late March, would begin eliminating some HCFCs by 2005. The phased elimination of N . 4 Vol 1 Number I HCFCs years before any substitutes are available, will put additional financial burdens on makers of appliances, air conditioners, and automobiles. These industries already have spent over W0 million preparing for the phase-out of CFCs. If, as expected, HCFCs become the EPA's next target, and if the EPA goes beyond regulating new equipment and requires industry to modify existing equipment, the costs will soar into the tens of billions of dollars. Such costs might be justified if the risk to human health from periodic and localized depletions of the ozone layer were compelling. But this is the case that Mr. Reilly's agency has conspicuously failed to make. There was unintended irony in Mr. Reilly's recent statement to the press that "this (ozone) decision was driven by the science, and not the politics ... The science is more worrisome and disturbing than it was three years ago" when Mr. Bush became president. Indeed, it is precisely the El'A's "science" that is so worrisome and Idisturbing.

APR 27 '92 11:28 EPA `VVa*ph 'paQe 4 Vol VIRGINIA REJECTS MORE STRINGENT AUTO EMISSIONS STANDARDS The Senate Transportation Committee of Virginia has dealt a severe setback to efforts aimed at imposing the so-called "California standard" on. automobile emissions. By a vote of 8 to 6, the committee on February 10 rejected a plan that would have required all cars sold beginning in 1997 to meet California's tough emission standards. The Clean Air Act of 1990 allows foe two types of vehicle emission standards: a Federal program and one for California, where problems associated with smog have resulted in a more stringent emissions standard. Virginia is one of 11 Eastern seaboard states which have formed the Ozone Transport Corridor. Stretching from Virginia to Maine, but excluding Connecticut, the Ozone Transpott Corridor has pledged to adopt the California standard on auto emissions. But implementing the plan has not been easy. Last year, a similar measure "died° in Maryland when the state's House of Delegates failed to act on the proposal. In Virginia, as elsewhere, the plan has encountered strong opposition from the oil and auto industries. it is estimated that the tailpipe emission standards alone will add $200 to $1,000 to the cost of a new car. Tens of thousands of jobs could be lost as a result of the new regulatory burdens facing the already. beleaguered Northeastern states. In addition to the iticreased costs to manufacturers and consumers the California standard would impose, Ozone Transport Corridor states run the risk of incurring the wrath of the Federal government. The latter has threatened to saddle small businesses with stronger emissions regulations if the new standards are not adopted. The same states also run the risk of having their Federal highways funds cut off. Outdated Assumptions The assumption underlying the California standard is that mandating emissions standards for new automobiles is a cost-effective way of reducing smog. As pointed out by Jonathan H. Adler, an environmental policy analyst at the Washington- based Competitive Enterprise Institute, the argument assumes that by reducing new car emissions of c,et4.ain stnog precursors, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxide (NOx), regulatory agencies can greatly reduce urban smog formation. Mr. Adler notes that while this may have been true in the 1970s when such standards were first implemented, this is simply no longer the case. "Any significant gains to be achieved through such measures have already been realized," he says. "A new car today will emit 96 percent less hydrocarbons and 76 percent less NOx than those built 20 years ago," he goes on. "The result has been a significant decline in ambient levels of ozone (the primary constituent of smog nationwide.) By all conventional standards, a well- maintained new car is clean." "Tytere is little to be gained in reducing new car emissions by one or two percentage points, and what new gains are achieved will not be evidenced for years to come as newer, cleaner cars only gradually replace their older counterparts," Mr. Adler concludes. On-Road Testing P.5 I Number I Agreeing with the National Science Foundation that environmental regulators consistently overestimate "the effectiveness of VOC controls," Mr. Adler suggests that Federal agencies concentrate their efforts on identifying the relatively small number of motor vehicles that emit most of the pollutants. In place of mandatory emissions inspections for all drivers, he proposes the use of on- road emissions testing, A device developed by Professor Donald Stedman of the University of Denver can measure the emissions of moving vehicles. The device, which uses an infrared beam to measure relative concentrations of air pollutants before and after a vehicle passes, is extremely accurate, providing the benefit of testing cars during actual on-road use. Instead of adding additional regulatory costs to a region already suffering from a deep recession, the proposal on auto emissions put forward by Mr. Adler offers a relatively inexpensive way of targeting those vehicles which are responsible for most of the smog over the nation's cities. Adopting such an approach to controlling emissions from automobiles would require that Federal and state agencies take a permanent leave of absence from the practice of mandating universal regulatory coverage for the entire population. C ~ ~ W W ~ Far too often, this has not only led ~ to intolerable costs, but has also failed to address the real causes of pollution.