Tobacco Documents Online

~ EPA WATCH . • • A Mticnmomhlp sw.rj of+n.rrmuu«uaf nau/arary activino und.rtakrn by Ihe EPA. OSHA, the White Hou.er, ~eh t15. Cangrsar and frderu(, rrmr and local agsncia. VOL 1 NUMBER 5 EPA PETITIONED TO APPLY "GOOD SCIENCE" TO DIOXIN The Environmental Protection Agency's highly publicized efforts to improve the quality of its science will be put to a severe test soon when the EPA releases revised risk assessments on a number of key health-related issues. As the EPA prepares to issue updated risk assessments on such widely divergent subjects as dioxin, electromagnetic fields, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), a cautious scientific community is waiting to see if the agency is serious about improving the quality of its science. Over the past several years, the EPA has been plagued by embarrassing revelations of shortcomings in the scientific evaluations underpinning its regulatory policies. Concerned that the EPA will come to be viewed as an agency of "eco-cowboys," Administrator William Reilly has committed the EPA to the highest standards of scientific excellence in evaluating the risks of environmental pollutants. The forthcoming release of the EPA's "Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin" will provide critics with their first glimpse at the agency's new approach to science. In an effort to encourage the agency to incorporate improved scientific methods into its risk assessments, Jim Toui, director of the Washington-based Multinational Business Services Inc. (MBS), has petitioned the EPA to apply its new approach to science to the problem of dioxin. Letter to Reilly In a letter to Administrator Reilly dated April 10, Mr. Toui noted that MBS, has for the past 18 months, been making recommendations to the EPA with respect to the development of risk assessment policy. Those recommendations have focused on two aspects of risk assessment at the EPA for which "significant policy voids exist": risk assessment guidelines for non-cancer health effects and criteria for inferring causation from epidemiologic data. 'To date," the letter states, "EPA has failed to fill these policy voids despite having worked on non-cancer risk assessment guidelines since 1983 and new epidemiology guidelines since 1989. Essentially, MBS believes that because there are significant gaps and uncertainties in the scientific knowledge base which is necessary to conduct non-cancer risk assessments and risk assessments based on epidemiology, sound risk assessment policy guidance is necessary to overcome these deficiencies in knowledge." Dioxin as a Vehicle for Risk Assessment Guidance Mr. Toui, whose firm represents a host of companies concerned with the risk assessment issue, said the EPA's forthcoming "Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin" presents the agency and the public with a "unique opportunity" to develop and implement risk assess- ment policy guidance for the use of epidemiulogy and non-cancer health effects." According to Mr. Tory: MAY 15, 1992 -- "Non-cancer health effects and epidemiology are key dioxin issues. At the April 7, 1991 meeting of the EPA's Science Advisory Board's Environmental Health Committee, EPA staff indicated that non-cancer health effects are a significant risk issue for dioxin -- even more significant than cancer." -- "Also, in the Background Document on EPA's Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin, EPA cited an epidemiologicstudy conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) which failed to confirm prior beliefs concerning the carcinogenicity of dioxin, as one of two major events that prompted reassessment." -- ""Che reassessment is a highly visible EPA activity. Although virtually all EPA risk assessments involve either or both non-cancer health effects and epidemiology, the dioxin reassessment has high visibility within EPA, with the public, across Federal agencies, and departments, (e.g. NIOSH, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences), and Congress (i.e. the Agent Orange Act of 1991)." Improving the Role of Science at EPA The MBS petition pointed out that the recently released EPA report entitled "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions," which evaluated the role of science at the EPA, focused on EPA policy shortcomings rather than 2074144095

EPA WATCH PAGE 2 organizational or funding deficiencies. Composed by an expert panel of scientists named by Administrator Reilly, the report was highly critical of the EPA's use of science (See: EPA WATCH, March 31, 1992). Hoping to link the panel's findings on the problems besetting EPA science to the agency's ongoing risk assessment on dioxin, Mr. To1zi stressed that many of the EPA's deficiencies in science can be remedied in large part through the implementation of sound risk assessment policies: -- "Expert Panel Finding #1: 'EPA does not have a coherent science agenda and operational plan to guide scientific efforts throughout the agency and support its focus on relatively high-risk environmental problems.' Non-cancer risk assessment and epidemiologic guidelines would provide agency science with proper guidance to identify and prioritize significant environmental risks, thereby assuring that environmental hazards are addressed on a'worst- first' basis." -- "Expert Panel Finding #3: '['he science advise function -- that is, the process of ensuring that policy decisions are informed by a clear understanding of the relevant science -- is not well defined or coherently organized within the EPA.' Non-cancer risk assessment and epidemiologic guidelines would require agency scientists to identify, explain, and justify in a clear and concise manner for risk managers assumptions, inferences, policy and value judgments, and limitations in data and scientific understanding." -- "Expert Panel Finding #4: 'In many cases, appropriate science advice and information is not considered early or often enough in the decision-making process.' Non-cancer risk assessment and epidemiologic guidelines would provide logical frameworks within which scientific information is considered, thereby enabling risk assessors to identify the type of scientific and technical information needed to ensure scientifically credible decisions." -- "Expert Panel Finding #6: '(EPA) does not have a uniform process to ensure a minimum level of quality assurance and peer review for all the science developed in support of agency decision-making.' Non-cancer risk assessments and epidemiologic guidelines would provide standards against which risk assessments could be evaluated, thereby facilitating quality assurance and peer review." '[-he MBS petition concludes by saying that the adoption of the above proposals would provide EPA staff with a "road map for ensuring that relevant regulatory decisions are based on sound science." EPA's Response The LPA appears to have been impressed by the MBS proposals: copies of the Tovi letter were sent to department heads throughout the agency. Moreover, in a conversation with EPA WATCH on May 4, Bill Farland of the EPA's office of research and development confirmed that the agency is in the process of incorporating the science panel's recommendations into risk assessments already in progress, including the soon-to-be-released "Scientific Reassessment on Dioxin." Mr. Farland, the EPA's top risk assessment official, added that the panel's recommendations would not require "major changes" in the way the agency conducts its research. But he noted that the EPA would be reaching out to the greater scientific community for input into its ongoing and future risk assessments. Confirming that the dioxin risk assessment will serve as a model for other risk assessments in the pipeline, 1 VOL 1 NUMBER he said the EPA will increase its efforts to keep the public informe nn the status of the agency's findin This will include public meetings comments from outside the agency, particularly when "new data" warrant such participation. Administrator Reilly's warm reception of the petition on dioxin, together with Mr. Farland's comments, indicate that the agency is, in fact, in the initial stages of reforming the way it carries out its scientific research. However, it remains to be seen whether this approach will prevail when the agency's addresses more controversial issues such as electromagnetic fields and environmental tobacco smoke. The EPA's last risk assessment on dioxin was issued in 1988 and focused primarily on the cancer potency of 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro-p-dioxin. The revised risk assessment on dioxin and related compounds due out in June is expected to be broader in scope than any previous EPA risk assessment. a Era rpAZCx EPA. Watch is a twice- monthly publication of the American Policy Center, a non-profit foundation concerued with public regulatory policy. Subscriptions to EPA Watch are $89.00 per year. AmericaII Policy Center 1 t14fIL Parke Long, Court Chattttlly, Virginia 22021 (703) 968-9768 - Office (703) 968-9771 - FAX 17tomas A.11eWeese, President Elaine A. I4icCusker, Exr.eudve pirector L)r: Bonner R. Cohen, Editor 2074144096 :1

t EPA WATCH PAGE 3 VOL I NUMBER 5 RELIEF SOUGHT FOR COMMUNITIES ~ BURDENED BY EPA REGULATIONS Faced with the mounting costs of implementing regulations issued by the EPA, a growing number of communities across the U.S. are seeking Federal help to alleviate the situation. • While community leaders as a rule do not object to the intent of such laws as the Safe Water Drinking Act or the Clean Air Act, many local governments simply cannot afford the measures needed to comply with the flood of environmental regulations mandated in Washington. This is particularly true when the health risks targeted for reduction by such measures are viewed as negligible by local officials on the scene. As recently pointed out by Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, many communities "do not have the financial base needed to construct and maintain the various infrastructure requirements" of EPA regulations. Burdick Bill Offers Relief ! 41 The plight of local governments strapped to come up with enough funds to satisfy EPA mandates has finally caught the attention of Congress. Senator Quentin Burdick, Democrat of North Dakota, has introduced legislation entitled "'fhe Small Community Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Act." Senator Burdick's bill would create a State loan and grant fund to help finance wastewater treatment, drinking water, and solid waste disposal facilities. The bill would also expand Federal programs to provide technical assistance and outreach to small communities. Finally, the legislation would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct essential wastewater treatment, drinking water, and solid waste facilities in economically depressed areas. Growing Discontent Originally introduced in 1990, Senator Burdick's measure has gone virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media. But growing discontent over enormous economic burdens imposed on communities by Federal environmental laws can no longer be ignored. Led by city officials from Columbus, Ohio, representatives from 14 Ohio municipalities-- including Cleveland, Toledo, Akron, Cincinnati, as well as smaller communities -- have undertaken a study detailing the costs of staying in compliance with EPA regulations. Not surprisingly, the study found that the EPA has consistently underestimated the costs of its mandates. The Ohio cities also called for regulations that address real rather than perceived risks to human health and the environment. The Ohio initiative is aimed at convincing Congress of the urgency of scaling back the wave of environmental regulations that has inundated local governments in the past few years. Like their counterparts in industry, the Ohio municipal leaders have found that far tuo little attention has been paid to the costs and benefits of such regulations, the setting of priorities among the various mandates, and the quality of the science underpinning the EPA's regulatory activity. For many local governments, the financial burdens have reached the crisis stage. Backlash Feared Aware that a voter backlash in a volatile election year could move Congress to ease up on environmental regulations, the EPA has shown concern for the growing anger at the local level. Officials from the EPA met May 12 with representatives of such organizations as National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the American Waterworks Association to discuss what steps can be taken to lighten the regulatory burden on hardpressed local governments. A second meeting between EPA officials and representatives of local governments in Ohio, Texas, Maine, Colorado, and other states will take place on May 15. Sources close to both meetings agree that overcoming barriers of mistrust between the EPA and the municipal and community officials will be no easy task. However, an agency source confirmed that only through such pressure from the outside will the EPA be persuaded to ease up on local governments. "We often don't use the (regulatory) flexibility we have;'the source said. The Burdick bill is the clearest expression yet of local frustration over Federal environmental regulatory policy. Ironically, most of the blame rests with the very body now being asked to pare back environmental regulations, Congress. For it was Congress, in its rush to enact far-reaching environmental legislation, that paid such scant attention to the financial consequences of its actions. With President Bush's recently announced extension of his regulatory moratorium encountering little opposition outside the Washington Beltway, and with "the environment" relegated to a secondary role at best in this year's Presidential election, the political tide appears to be turning against proponents of environmental regulation at all cost. 2074144097

EPA WATCH PAGE 4 OPPOSITION FORMS TO WAXMAN C02 BILL Fearing "economic turmoil and increased unemployment," a group of congressmen is seeking to block legislation that would stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Last month, Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter urging Members of Congress not to support the Global Climate Protection Act (H.R. 4750), sponsored by Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat of California. Mr. Waxman plans to offer his controversial bill in the form of an amendment to the National Energy Strategy Act (H.R. 776), which is scheduled to be considered on the House floor this month (See: EPA WATCH, May 1. 1992). The Waxman bill is "fundamentally flawed," according to Mr. Boucher, who heads a bipartisan effort to torpedo what many observers believe is one of the most radical environmental proposals ever introduced in Congress. Not only does the Waxman legislation require the President to adopt regulations which will achieve stabilization of C02 emissions by January 1, 2000 at 1990 levels, it alsoo would give all Federal agencies virtually unlimited ability to use their authority to achieve such stabilization. Blank Check "Since C02 is emitted by the combustion of all fossil fuels -- oil, coal, wood, etc. -- the Federal government would have a blank check in writing regulations that could affect emissions from a wide range of sources, including automobiles, farm equipment, coal fired power plants, industrial boilers, and wood burning stoves," Mr. Boucher told his colleagues. N "Many of the gut-wrenching economic issues which were hard- fought in the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 resurface in the Global Climate Protection Act," the Virginia Democrat noted. "Areas of the country such as California, the Pacific Northwest, and New England which have relatively low C02 emissions because they have access to natural gas, hydro-electric and nuclear power will have a much greater economic advantage over the South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions." As an alternative to the Waxman bill, the bipartisan group supports steps for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions internationally such as those recommended by the National Academy of Science (NAS) which can be taken without major economic dislocations. NAS Study In a recent study, the NAS reported that "(d)uring the last 100 years, the average global temperature has increased between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius (0.5 and 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). This temperature rise could be attributable to greenhouse warming or to natural climate variability; with today's limited understanding of the underlying phenomena, neither can be ruled out:" Congressman Boucher points out that the NAS report concludes that the state of the science is simply too uncertain to warrant drastic steps such as those proposed in the Global Climate Protection Act being taken at the present time. The Bouchcr group supports the NAS recommendation of pursuing options to lessen C02 emissions "which make sense regardless of the VOL I NUMBER 5 ~ threat of global warming," such as increasing energy efficiency, transferring technology to less developed nations, halting deforestation, rapidly eliminating chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and capturing methane fumes at coal mines and land fills. NASA's Disappearing Ozone Hole Congressman Boucher's concern about the uncertainties of environmental science has received an unexpected boost. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently announced that the dread "ozone hole" over the Northern Hemisphere it reported to have discovered last winter never materialized. The NASA scientists, reviewin results of seven months' observa said that after a record build-up of otnne-damaging chemicals last January, the amounts rapidly dissipated because of sudden warming in February and March. While tests continued to show a thinning of the ozone layer that protects the earth from ultraviolet rays, the sudden warming prevented any severe ozone depletion over the arctic region, the scientists said. NASA's highly publicized report of an "ozone hole" over North America unleashed a torrent of demands that drastic steps be taken to reduce greenhouse gases. The agency's revised findings, which were released with considerably less fanfare than the original, apocalyptic announcement, would appear to confirm Mr. Boucher's and the National Academ_v of Science's call for caution in assessing global climate change data. . 2074144098