Tobacco Documents Online

~ Haw a Rebellion Over Environmental euneg 3 * • Rules Grew From a Patch of Weeds ByKE1THSCHNEIDER Spmolm Tee new Tud, nmee COLUMBUS,Ohro-Thiscitvdrdconcluded that the largest sums of n't want to pave paradise for a parkmoney were being spent on the least mglor. itjustwanteorocoverapatch threatenrngenvtronmentaiprobiems, of weeds and mud behind the Short like exposure to toxic and radioactive Street garage, where the cny main- wastes. In the view of these state tams its fleet of police cruisers and panels, more important environmen- garbage truckss tal issues, like damage to farmland But two years ago, cuy engineers and finests. were being largely ig- here in Ohio's capital discovered nored, traces of chemicals in the dirt and "We re really Just about at the end learned that the Federal hazardous- of the reducttonsrn risk that you can waste law might require a $2 million achieve by the conventional ap- cleanup before the hrsl ounce of proach, which is to crank down on the pavement could be laid. Right then, a polluuon coming out of the end of the forgettable little slretch of urban prpe," said Dr. William Cooper, an America became the focus of anger ecologist at Michigan State Universi- and exasperation so profound thatit ty who helped lead his state's study, started a national campaign among "Now we're into more subtle issues. cities and states. How clean do we really want our After the city issued a report on its environment? How much are we real- problems, all of a sudden Columbus's ly willing to pay for it?" leaders were joined by hundreds of city officials, state leaders and many private homeowners across the caun- try as they advocate a cause lhat until now big business has been argu- ing most forcefullyr that many of the nation's envtronmental regulations bring enormous expense for little real benefit. Although mdependent safety spe- ralrsts said the chemical concentra- ttuns were too small m cause any harm. Federal law dchned several of the compounds as hazardous and re- quired that they be removed, if de- tectable in the soil at all. What the Law rMwvndea In effect, the law requfred the city to take these expensive et": 9DIg up [.4 million pounds of dlrt containing no more than a few pounds of toxic chemicals from a patch of ground no larger than a baseball dia. mond. 45hip that dut 1,500 miles south tn Texas to he burned in un incinerator 4lnstall detecuon equipment to monitor the air for up to 25 years for traces of any contaminants that might remain. All this, the engineers asked, to expand a parking lot? They called a meeting at City Hall, and that led to the Arst malor study to identify the cost of complying with Federal environmental regulations. When It was completed, the study showed that environmental custs were about to swamp Columbus in red ink - or'generale a taxpayer revolt. Now nearly 1,000 other cities have asked to see the report And prompt- ed by the Columbus study, the Nation- al League of Cities has made updat- ing the nation's environmental laws - and through that reducing costs - one of its top five political priorities in Washington In January, mavors from 114 cities in 49 stams opened the campaign by sending Presrdent Clinton a letter urging the White House to focus nn how environmental pohcy-maktng had, in their view, gone awry. "Not only tlo we som<umes pay too much to solve environmental prob- lems, we've been known tn confront the wrong problems for the wrong reasons with the wrong technology," the mayors said. During the Bush Administration, William K. Reilly, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, offered public support for thts campaign and even began offerv tng grants to states that wanted to reevaluate their environmental prion- ues With that money. Michigan and Vermont were among the hrst to appotnt panels afcitrzens and sctenttsts l0 examine envlronmenlal po11Cy. In published reporls, bath state's panels The Seeds Benefits Are Vague As Policy Shifts The seeds of this grass-roots push lav in the Federal Government's shrft in focus over the last 15 vears f]'om promoting broad envrronmental guals (purifying the air, cleansing rhe water) to regulating speciftc toxic substances: dioxin, asbestos and doz- ens of other compounds tound at traae levels In drinking water, chemi- ca4waste sHes and the lika Controlling the kind of pollution ' that poured out of automobile tail- pipes or factory smokestacks, and stopping waste discharges into rivers and streams, showed clear soclal benefits. And so public acceptance usually came easily. But the improvements in health or emvronmental safety from the more recent effuns have been less ohvrous, sctenosts continue to debate how dangerous dioxin may really be. An industrial byproduct, dioxin was once considered the most toxic substance known to man. Reducing dioxin levels to the Federal standard - less than 13 parts per quintillion in drinking water, the equivalent of a single drop in lake Michigan - is difficult and terribly expensive, even though nu one really knows what, if any, bene- fit5 result. More than 10 years ago, the Fed- eral Government adopted the view that when there is any doubt, it is better to take the prudent approach than do nothing. But a decade later, the economlc costs of this policy are painfully clear while the benefits re- main largely unmeasurabte. Last year, home owners, farmers, miners and timber industry workers roared into Washington and brought to a standstill Congressional efforts to reauthorize the Endangered Spe- cres Act and the Clean Water Act, two of the laws that form the toundauon of American environmental policy. President Bush focused on this theme during his reelection campaign, largely siding with these protesters. This year, city and state leaders have joined in a campaign to write into environmental statutes a provi- ston requirmg the Federal Govern- ment m evaluate scientific evrnence and the cost to communities before resurng any new environmental direo uves. Leaders of the major envrronmen- tai groups are fighting this idea. Thev areue that n would set a level of proof so difficult to meet that the Oovern- mem could nm write new regulatlons unul people started dytng. But backers of the provrsion assert I Reguiation and the Price per Llfe ~ Two years ago, the Office of Mangement and Budget tried to ! estimate the cost of certain environmental and safety regulations by ! dividing the cost of enforcing each rule by the number of lives it I appeared to save. The estimate is highly sublective 5snoe it is , virtually impossible to know now many lives might have been lost '' without a certain rulee to addiLonn tlle analysis d,tl not account for i non-tatal iniurre5. But this cost-benetn analyss d,d demonstrate the i Bush Adm,n,stratlon5 attitudes tnwartl tne laws it was enforcing Now. state and locai governments are distributing this analysis widely to support tflelu criticism of national environmental pOlicy Here is a partial list of regulatrons. Cost Per Prenature Death Avertad ReNlntlon In MlfBona of DoRars Ban on unvented space heaters $ 0.1 Aircraft cabin flre-protection standards . 0.1 Auto passive restrarnUseat belt standards ' 0.1 Trihalomethane drinking water standards 0.2 Aircrah floor emergency ughting standard 0.6 , Concrete and masonry construction standards 06 I _.~._....~_...___...~...._..~._-_...__. _....__._..___ I Ban on flammable cmldrens sleepwear 0.8 ! Grain dust explosion-prevenoon standards 2,8 I Rear seat auto lap/shoulder belts 3,2 Ethylene debromide drinking-water standard ' 5.7 Asbestos expoeure limit for workers , , 8.3 Benzene exposure limit for workers 8.9 Standards for electrical equipment in coal mines 9.2 Arsenic emission standards for glass plants 13.5 Ethylene oxide exposure limit for workers 20.5 i Hazardous-waste lishng for petroleum- I refining sludge 27.6 Acrylonitnte exposure limit for workers 51.5 Asbestos exposure limit tor workers 74.9 Arsenic exposure limit Ior workers 106.9 Asbestos ban 110.7 1,2-Oichloropropafre limits in drinking water 653.0 Hazardous waste land-disposal ban 4,190.4 Formaldehyde exposure limit for workers 82,201.8 Standard for atrazme/atachlor in drinking water 92,069.7 Hazardous waste listing for wood preserving chemicals 5,700,000.0 SourceOX~cedMana9emmraM&A9s! /931 that unless changes are made, public support fm' envtronmental pmwc- tions wdl crumble as costs continue to rise. The Anger Counting the Costs In a City Hall ]t was precisely thts issue of cost that prompted the Columbus en6r- neers to can a meeting in January 1991. One parttctpanl, Michael J. Pompih, who was in charge of the Columbus Health Department's envr ronmental-health divtston, had on his own been quietly studying how much the cnrv would have lo pay to complv wrth a new wace or rules coming out of Washtngton. These were intended to prevent public exposure to minute levela of chemicals in air and water. "The guys were talking about spending all that money for nothing at the Short Street garage," he said in an interview. "They were complain- ing about the $2 million, And I said, the issue isn't $2 millton, It's a tot more than that I told them my guys had identified millions more in costs cnywtde to meet Federal envrrom mental requirements, and where were we going to gel the money to meet those mandates?" Culumbus's Mayor at the time, Dana Hurk Rinehart, a Republican. promptly named hir. Pompih chauman of the city team ttlat pubtished

d 0 • the environmental study in May 1991. across the country. That led the 7heflp)rt said thet to meet dozens E.P.A. to call radon the most serious ol Feoeral environmental require- environmental public health threat ments. Columbus faced $1.3 billion to the nation faced. It was a menace so $1.6 billion in new expenses from 1991 great, the agency said, that radnn through the end of the decade, de- was probably causing up to 2QOO0 pending on the inflation rate. Virtual- cases of lung cancer a year. h• all of that money was to come from That estimate has come under in- the Columbus t'ny treasury. tense criticism from many radl - Of the $591 million 1991 city budget, health specialtsts, who have called il E62 million, or 11 percent, was de- unscientific and wildly exaggerated, voted to environmental pratections. GoingAhenheWater That year, the average Columbus household paid $160 for that purpose. But the E.P.A. ignored the crnlThe study said that by the end of cism and set an unofficial guideline the decade, if every Federal requtrefor the amount of radon it considered ment were met, Columbus's environ. safe in homes. The agency has been mental budget would more than reluctant to make the limtt kgally triple, to $218 million, or roughly 27 enforceable because of the backlash percent of the city's $810 million that some E.P.A. officials feared budget prolected for the year 2000. from homeowners. Hundreds of tlwu- The cost to a household for environ- sands would have heen required to mental protection would be $856 that spend thousands of dollars on venlila- year - more than the cost of fire or tion equipment to clear radon from poGce protectian. basements. ' - "When we came up with these Since the agency was unwilling to kinds of costs, we also looked far the regulate the air in private homes, justification and just couldn't find E.P.A, scientists and technical ex- much there," Mr. Pompdi said. "f perts chose to defend their assess- had to wonder, Am I out of touch? I ment that radon was a menace by have worked all my Itfe to protect taking action against the only other people from envtronmental harm, source in homes: tap water.So the Am I looking at these tssues in the E.P.A, proposed a legally enforceable wrong way"' limit on radon in water. Now',hesaid,"Inolongeraskthose Scientists who have looked at the questions because I'm convinced thal issue satd the threat tu health irom we are doing the right thtng." radon in water, if there is one at all, Mr.POmpiltsaidhewantscleanair can come only from inhaling radon and water as much as anyone else that e.aporates, particularly during ("This city will not survive without a showering. In other words, the Gov- clean environmenP'), but he added: ernment was trying to prevent some- "What bothers me is that the new one from getting lung cancer from rules coming out of Washington are their morning showers. taking money from decent programs Independent radiahon-health ex- and making me waste them on less pm'ts said that In virtually every area tmportant problems. It ktlls you as a of ine United States, the amount of city official to see this kind of money radon that evaporates from water is being spent for nathing." only une-thirtieth to one onehun- The Revolt Battling Radon: Changing Targets Officials in many other cities feel the same way. Late last year, Has- tings. Neb., began its own review of environmental costs and concluded that the single biggest draln on its ' treasury was the jg5 million it woultl take to build a treatment plant to meet a proposed E.P.A. rule for re- g moving radon from the city's water. Radon is a radioactive gas formed naturally when radium decays in rocks and soil. It is frequently found at trace levels tn water pumped from the ground, Before the E.P.A. pro- posal, made under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, almost no public-health spectahst had constd. ered radon in drinking water to be any sort of threat. And for years Hasungs had been boasting that its watrr supply was so clean that n could be pumped from an under- ground aquifer directly into the homes of 23,000 residents. Last year, however, the E.P.A. said Hastings did have a problem with its waten Radon levels exceeded the proposed safety limit. But critics of the proposal,includtng some agency officials, said the E.P.A,'S dectston to tackle the radon issue was an inglori- ous lesson in the dangers of ustng weak scientific assumptions to write an expensive new regulauon, even while many experts found thc idea absurd. dredth ot what ts already naturally in the air These experts said the reRulaf!on does nothing to protect health It's a silly thing that E,P.A. is pro- postng because radon in water is an insignificant public health hazard," said Dr. Ralph E. Lapp, a radiation physicist in Alexandria, Va., and au. thor of 22 bonks on radiation and public heaith, If the regulation becomes final, the cost to install filtering equipment in public water systems in the Unued States would be $10 billion m•120 billion, according to estimates made by several states. The Assaciatldt'of California Water Agencies recetitly estimated that the coat in Glifomta would approach $4 billion. . - "How do we explain to nur Yesi- dents the need for a regulatiomthat costs as much as this one will and doesn't provide any public-heelth benefits?" asked Dr. Adi Pour, the toxicologist for the Nebraska Depart- ment of Health. "1f this kind of rulemaking continues, it's going to hurt public confidert2e in environmental protection." The protests prompted Congress last year to pass legislation spon- sored by Senator John H, Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, that pre- vented the E.P.A. from makinW+tte radon rule final until the agency looked at the benefits and costs again. When asked about the role, Martha G. Prothro, the acting Assistant Admin- istrator for Water at the E.P,A., ac- knowledged: °Wemavhavegonefur- ther then we need to in human health concerns.lt's appropriate to go back and look at thts proposai." So for now, Hastings, Neb., has been given a repl'teve, Many studies of radon have shown BaekinCnlumbus that it is harmful only if inhaled at AsforthatparktnglonnColumbuss highleveisoveralongpertud.Almost City engineers are sull working on 30 years ago, the Government did the problem. One idea they proposed confirm that uranium mmers in the wastodigupthedirt,turnitaverantl r West contracted lung cancer after allow the chemicals to evaporate. ~ vears of working in the mines, where But the state said Federal law for they were exposed to some of the bade that. The engineers then prohighestlevelsofradoneverrecordedo posed inserting pipes beneath m^ Among those who died, though, it was ground, pumping air to the surface also trur that many were heavv and trapping and filtering uhemical, smoker- that are released. The stxre envirmr - iheni during the I4k1/'S, the E.P.A. mental agency is Conslqerln2 tnttl munu smmucam heeh ut rudnn In Iu idea, The esumatrd rnr, . 250000 I, nercem 4 u:r nnm,.;~ rhev sunmcrl g,nn0on - ishe 1~'ew vurlc CUM 3 -~ ~- 73