Tobacco Documents Online

PR NEWSWIRE iPR01Wf via NewsNet Wednesday March 25, 1992 Update #: 17 Item #: 279 EPA ADMITS ITS SCIENCE IS ON `SHAKY GROUND' CHANTILLY, Va., March 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Policy Center issued the following: Under pressure from a growing number of critics within the scientific community, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a report admitting that many of its regulatory initiatives are on "shaky scientific ground." The report, "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions," was distributed at a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on March 19. It further acknowledged that EPA studies are frequently carried out "without the benefit of peer review of quality assurance." Concerned that the poor reputation of its science could jeopardize the agency's high funding level, EPA Administrator William Reilly appointed a special advisory panel of prominent scientists last year to assess the work of the EPA's Office of Research and Development. Affirming that the EPA needs its own strong science base to provide the background required for effective environmental protection programs, the committee found that, "Currently, EPA science is of uneven quality, and the agency's policies and regulations are frequently perceived as lacking in strong scientific foundation." Among the advisory committee's most devastating findings are the following: 1. "EPA should be a source of unbiased scientific information. However, 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. In addition, the agency is perceived to have a conflict of interest because it needs science to support its legal activities. The legal process fosters the presentation of the extremes of scientific opinion. This runs contrary to the preferred process of developing a consensus within the scientific community." 2. "EPA science is perceived by many people, both inside and outside the agency, to be adjusted to fit policy. Such 'adjustments' could be made consciously or unconsciously by the scientist of the decisionmaker." 3. "While the public frequently expects immediate "yes or no' answers to questions about environmental risks, scientific uncertainties often make such answers elusive. EPA has not been successful in communicating to Congress and the public about the nature of the uncertainties in science and how these uncertainties are handled when decisions are made." 4. "EPA program offices often conduct scoping studies or other preliminary assessments in the early stages of regulatory development. These studies are frequently carried out without the benefit of peer review or quality'assurance. They sometimes escalate into regulatory proposals with no further science input, leaving EPA initiatives on shaky scientific ground and affecting the credibility

I of the agency." 5. "EPA often does not scientifically evaluate the impact of its regulations." 6. "The interpretation and use of science is uneven and haphazard across programs and issues at EPA. Conflicting science policies between EPA programs create confusion and a lack of credibility for EPA decisions." 7. "Scientists at all levels at EPA believe that the agency does not use their science effectively." The EPA's mea culpa on the poor quality of its science comes on the heels of a series of well-publicized blunders on the part of the agency. In the 1980s, EPA "risk assessments" on the health dangers of radon, dioxin and asbestos -- just to name a few -- proved to be grossly exaggerated. The resulting cost to taxpayers and to U.S. industry has amounted to billions of dollars. Currently, the EPA has over 9,000 regulations in effect, all of which are based on the same poor quality of science referred to in the advisory panel's report. "If some were hoping that the release of the EPA report was signaling the beginning of a new age of seriousness on the part of the EPA, they are in for a rude awakening," commented Bonner Cohen, publications director at the American Policy Center (APC) and editor of EPA WATCH, an APC newsletter which has uncovered some of the most egregious examples of EPA mismanagement. Cohen pointed out that the release of the report coincides with the revelation that the EPA is undertaking a risk assessment on the danger of taking showers. "At a time when the agency is requesting additional funding for its much-criticized Office of Research and Development," Cohen went on, "the EPA knows little else to do with the money already at its disposal than to launch a risk assessment on the health risks of taking showers." Cohen added that "the EPA's concern about the health risks of an act which has been performed by tens of millions of Americans every day for decades is all the more remarkable when one considers that the EPA never consults the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on risk assessment." "The EPA's refusal to consult the NIH is revealing because, as Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the NIH, told columnist Warren Brookes last year, the National Institutes of Health are 'much more likely to develop an unbiased view of the real risk and hazard than the agencies that are established to regulate them,"' Cohen noted. "By avoiding sources of scientific analysis whose findings might not conform to its preconceived regulatory agenda," Cohen said, "the EPA has systematically shut itself off from much of the scientific community. The result has been an endless list of costly errors based on ludicrous risk assessments which have reflected more the bureaucratic proclivities of the EPA than they have served the interest of the environment." Cohen further pointed out that the devastating findings of the expert panel are in sharp contrast to what the EPA would have the greater public believe is really going on at the agency. In a "Notes to Correspondents" released on the same day the report was issued, Reilly admitted that the EPA needed to make "fundamental changes in

t the way the agency does research and uses scientific information." However, Reilly conspicuously avoided any reference to the critical findings of the expert panel. "The panel's scathing indictment of the quality of the EPA's science was on page 36 of the EPA publication," Cohen pointed out, "the press was not alerted to the bombshell hidden deep in the report. This enabled Mr. Reilly to pull the wool over the committee's eyes." "Sadly," Cohen concluded, "Congress has yet to get the message. At last week's hearing, most members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee were sympathetic to the EPA's argument that additional funding, as opposed to a radical reordering of priorities, would enable the EPA to improve the quality of its work." The American Policy Center is a non-profit, public interest organization, dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise, private property and individual liberty. APC is located in Chantilly. /CONTACT: Bonner Cohen of the American Policy Center, 703-968-9768/