Tobacco Documents Online

EPA WATCH i A ,wic..,nond* .dmry o f .ovownpMd ",u/atary•.un;na und.takai by flw EPA. OSAAA tlu n'tiee IfauK rhe U.S. Cagvsr and l#dev4 tare and loeal aa~ VOL 1 NUMBER 6 JUNE 1.1992 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REELING FROM COSTS OF EPA REGULATIONS The staggering cost of implementing Federal environmental regulations threatens to lead to a "revolt" by hard-pressed local governments. This was the blunt message delivered to high-level EPA officials on May 12 who met with representatives of governments and utilities directly affected by un- funded Federal environmental mandates. The meeting, which had been in the planning stages for months, came 0t as a result of mounting ration on the part of local officials at Washington's apparent indifference to the plight of communities unable to finance the growing list of environmental regulations emanating from the EPA. "Congress provides no financing for the statutes it passes and the regulations the EPA issues," commented Ralph Tabor of the National Association of Counties, whose organization represents over 3,000 counties across the U.S. He added that Congress and the EPA develop implementation schedules for environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which have no basis in reality. Mr. Tabor said the timetables put together in Washington are arbitrary and ignore the financial constraints y~r which local governments ~te. He warned that the EPA facing a revolt" at the local level unless the agency took the concerns of taxpayers and ratepayers into account. "Written in Latin with Greek Footnotes" Speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities, Frank Shafroth pointed out that for every $10 of Federally-mandated environmental cost there is $1 available at the local level to implement the regulations. Not only do local governments not have the money to carry out environmental mandates, they frequently do not know what it is they are supposed to implement. "EPA rules are written in Latin with Greek footnotes," he commented. Mr. Shafroth told the EPA officials to "write rules that human beings can read." In an effort to simplify matters for local communities, the EPA recently issued a scaled-down list of 419 "essentiaf' regulations the agency expects local governments to put into effect. While appreciative of the EPA's move to reduce the number of regulations with which they must comply, most participants in the meeting echoed Mr. Shafroth's opinion that the rules are still "written with the attitude that U.S. municipal officials are stupid." So confusing are the regulations and so burdensome are the costs that many local governments are consciously violating Federal law, according to Jack Sullivan of the American Water Works Association. Because the cost of implementing the regulations are ultimately passed on to ratepayers, many local governments are reluctant to keep asking citizens to pay higher utility rates, Mr. Sullivan explained. 'The public does not understand it," he told the gathering. Rate Shock Warning that the U.S. public was facing "rate shock" as a consequence of unfunded environmental mandates, Mr. Sullivan pointed out that over the next few years the average cost of waste water per thousand gallons will rise from $1.06 to 54.50. The public also will see the average cost of drinking water per thousand gallons go from $1.27 to $3.50. In the case of solid waste, the average cost per ton will rise from $27 to $50. Mr. Suliivan's figures are borne out by similar projections made by city officials in Pboenuc, Arizona. There, according to the Arimna ReeubGci a typical family living in a 1,600 square- foot home would be billed $34.76 monthly this year for water, sewage, and sanitation. In 1996, new Federal requirements would raise the bill to $61.26, "this for the most marginal environmental enhancements," the newspaper noted Many of the skyrocketing costs can be attributed to major capital investments local governments will have to make to stay in compliance with Federal mandates. For instance, the EPA has proposed halving the standard for the suspected carcinogen trihalomethane -- from 100 parts per million (ppm) to 50 ppm. Phoenix would have to install $174 million worth of carbon absorbtion fifters, at an annual operating cost of $25 mil6on. In a similar vein, the March 1992 2074144145

9Pd, WA'I`CH PAGE 2 issue of Georgia Counry Government Magazine points out that "there is not a single case recorded in Georgia of someone dying or becoming ill from drinking water from a public system that met the old standards before the new act (Clean Water Act) came along." This notwithstanding, the EPA has proposed a new standard for radon in drinking water that officials in California estimate will cost that state at least $3.7 billion (See related story on p. 4). Underestimating the Cost Local governments also complain that the EPA's estimates of the final cost of implementing environmental regulations are notoriously inaccurate. The city of Colorado Springs, Colorado was told by EPA officials that it would have to spend approximately $49,000 to obtain a stormwater permit. To date, Colorado Springs has spent over $1 million on the permit and is still not yet in compliance with EPA requirements. The agency's estimate was off by a factor of 20. Colorado Springs' experience is by no means unique. Columbus, Ohio has been so overwhelmed by unfunded Federal mandates that the city sent a report to the EPA last year outlining the extent of the problem it faces. The report, "Environmental Legislation: the Increasing Cost of Regulatory Compliance to the City of Columbus," notes that, over the next decade, Columbus will spend $1.3 to $1.6 billion to comply with EPA mandates already in place, not to mention those still in the EPA pipeline. Like Colorado Springs, Columbus has had to wrestle with the consequences of the EPA's inaccurate cost projections. In 1990, the EPA estimated the cost of a stormwater permit for a city the size of Columbus at $76,681, but the lowest bid Columbus received from contractors to implement its stormwater permit was $1.779 million. The EPA miscalculated by a factor of 25. According to EPA Administrator William Reilly, the United States currently spends $115 billion annually on environmental issues, a figure that is expected to rise to at least $171 billion by the year 2000. Since most of the money to be spent has not been appropriated by Congress, and will not be, it will have to be raised at the local level. There, with tax dollars earmarked for environmental cleanup having to compete with education, transportation, hospitals, nutrition programs, and a host of other public expenditures, local officials are demanding that the EPA issue rules that address real rather than "perceived" risks to human health. "We must be able to justify what we do," Tom Curtis of the National Governors' Association told the gathering. As financial pressure mounts on local governments, elected officials can no longer justify taking money away from other health-related programs and spending it on EPA- mandated regulations for the sake of "protecting the eco-systent," he added. Negligeable Effect on Human Health Indeed, one of the greatest frustrations faced by local officials is that most of the unfunded environmental mandates they must implement will have at most only a negligeable effect on human health. That those regulations are based on EPA science which the agency's own internal review released in March found to be "uneven and haphazard" calls into question the scientific basis of those mandates. In fact, the agency's review noted that "EPA often does not scientifically evaluate the impact of its regulations" (See EPA WATCH: March 31, 1992). In Gght of the overwhelming problems they face, the representatives of the local governments made several recommendations to the EPA: -- Write dear regulations that set priorities among those rules which are essential to human health and those which are not; -- issue regulations which allow for site-specific differences in the lV 0 V ~ ~ ~P ..a da tn VOL 1 NUMBIJZ environmental problems to be addressed; ` - make sure that EPA health-rZRRf mandates are based on sound sciene something that has been lacking in e much of EPA's rule-making, -- learn how utilities operate and learn how to differentiate between tf problems faced by large and small utilities; -- work closely with local governments in formulating regulations and developing realistic timetables for their implementation; and -- stop treating local governments ae "just another interest group." Many participants emphasized that the EPA is prone to blame Congress for the regulations it must enforce. "Our people like to hide behind Congress' skirts," an agency source told EPA WATCH. "Sometimes the bills passed by Congress are so II worded that we have plenty of ~ flexibilitywhen it comes to implementation, but we don't use tha flexibility," the source added. "First of Many Steps" Most participants in the meeting were pleased that EPA officials at least agreed to meet with them to discuss what is rapidly becoming an explosive issue. 'his is a critical first step, but many more steps must follow," commented Laurie Westley ol the National School Boards Association. She told EPA WATCH that the agency must stop "dictating to us" and try instead to work with local governments to resolve environmental issues. Mr. Shafroth of the National League of Cities said he was not encouraged by the meeting. Based oe his 8-years experience in dealing with the EPA, Mr. Shafroth believes agency must "change the whol ~~~~~~"'e does business" before any progre can be made. He also was skeptical about the ultimate outcome of a follow-up meeting between EPA officials and representatives of such cities as Columbus; Ohio and

EPA WATCH PAGE 3 Lewiston, Maine held May 15. "We ten't even invited to that meeting," oted. The gathering storm over unfunded Federal environmental mandates has at last caught the EPA's attention. Some in the agency are acutely aware that unless the problem is dealt with seriously and expeditiously, the EPA will be facing a nationwide backlash such that it has never experienced. Indeed, for many local jurisdictions, the issue has already reached critical proportions. On top of their financial woes, their non-compliance with VOL 1 NUMBER 6 Federal environmental regulations makes them liable for suit by their own citizens. In this connection, the comment of one agency official to EPA WATCH bears repeating. "Nothing changes here without pressure from the outside." CONCERN MOUNTS OVER INTERSTATE TRASH DUMPING As more and more American communities find that they have become the dumping ground for out- of-state trash, support is growing in both Houses of Congress for legislation that would place severe restrictions on the interstate transfer of solid waste. The Environmental Protection ncy estimates that Americans rate 180 million tons of trash every year, or about 4 pounds per person daily. That amount is expected to reach 216 million tons by the year 2000. About 80 percent of today's solid waste is disposed in landfills. But, as the amount of trash grows, the number of landfills is rapidly decreasing. Disappearing Landfflls In 1960, approximately 30,000 landfills or open dumps existed in the United States. By 1979, this number had declined to 20,000, and today there are only 6,000 still in operation. An October 1989 report by the Office of Technology Assessment estimates that 80 percent of existing landfills will close within 20 years. New regulations for landfills, promulgated by the EPA in October 1991, are expected to further reduce the 0 ber of operating sites. As a result of this decline in disposal capacity, many states in the Northeast, particularly New York and New Jersey, and the West Coast are experiencing a widening gap between the available disposal capacity and the amount of waste being generated. The gap is being filled by long-haul waste transport to disposal sites in the nation's midsection. Currently, the favorite dumping sites are in Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, and Montana, with other states fearing that they, too, will soon be added to the list. Coats Bill Presently, local communities have virtually no means at their disposal to combat the dumping of interstate trash in landfills in or near their jurisdictions. A bill recently introduced by Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, is designed to give individual communities the right to say "no" to out-of-state trash. The measure (S. 2384) would make it unlawful for a landfill to receive out- of-state trash without permission of the local governing authority. It allows local communities to negotiate host fees that would directly benefit their communities should they choose to allow out-of-state trash to be dumped in their landfills. In addition, the affected local government has to notify the Governor of its decision to receive out-of-state waste. Although the state would not be involved in the decision of each community, the Governor would be allowed to disapprove any authorization that would cause the total volume of out-of-state trash to exceed 30 percent of the total volume disposed in the state during the previous year. The Coats bill does foresee some exceptions to the overall prohibition. To qualify for an exemption, the landfill must be designed and operated in accordance with the recently promulgated Federal landfill regulations as well as comply with all state laws and regulations. Furthermore, it must have received out-of-state garbage during the month of February 1992 pursuant to a written contractual agreement. Landfills qualifying for this exemption could not receive any more out-of- state trash than they received in 1991. The exception would be phased out as of 1997. The bill would also provide for states to develop a 10-year municipal solid waste state management plan which would be reviewed by the Governor every five years. The EPA would be given six months to approve or disapprove of the state plan. If there is no action during that time, the plan is deemed approved. States would also be authorized to impose a flat fee on all out-of-state trash of up to S 10 a ton to be used to implement state solid waste management programs. In addition, 36 months after enactment of this bill, it would become unlawful for a landfill to receive out-of-state waste if the exporting state does not have a solid waste management plan of its own.

EPA WATCH PAGE 4 Taking Responsibility for Waste With over 15 million tons of garbage crossing state lines annually, and with the number of landfills steadily shrinking, the bill's supporters stress the urgency of the situation. "In the future," notes Senator Charles Grassley, Democrat of Iowa, "states can no longer expect to be able to transport their waste half-way across the country to a landfill site in Iowa or Nebraska... They are going to have to make accommodations to deal with their waste themselves. They are going to have to make these accommodations beginning now, not ten years from now when the landfill sites will not be available to them." Saying the bill will "force the producers of waste in our nation to be responsible for administering the proper disposal of that trash," Senator Grassley added that "sending it from New York to Iowa is not dealing with it. It is avoidance of responsibility on the part of the waste producer." Senator Coats' bill is presently before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee where final VO_L_ 1 IYUMBER 6 language is being hammered ou~ this writing, the committee has d that four states -- Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- will be covered by the community right-to- say-no provisions of the bill. However, Senator Coats' office is still trying to see to it that the other 46 states are also included in the measure's final language, otherwise they run the risk of becoming prime dumping targets for out-of-state trash. In the House, Congressman Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky, has introduced a bill (H.R. 5089) that also aims to put curbs on interstate transport of solid waste. LEGISLATORS CALL ON BUSH TO INTERVENE IN PROPOSED EPA RADON RULE Twenty-seven Members of Congress have called on President Bush to intervene in the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to regulate radon in drinking water. The appeal comes at a time when the EPA is already under fire by local communities for the exorbitant cost of its unfunded environmental mandates. The May 18 letter from a bipartisan group of legislators was made public by the Alliance for Radon Reduction, a Washington-based organization that is opposed to the proposed radon rule. The letter states in part,'The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a very stringent and costly standard for radon in drinking water that will reduce, on average, only about 1 percent of the public's total exposure to radon, according the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)•" Very Small Risk In a January 29 letter to EPA Administrator William Reilly, the SAB questioned the appropriateness of EPA's Drinking Water Proposal because drinking water "is a very small contributor to radon risk." With this in mind, the lawmakers asked the President to direct EPA Administrator William Reilly to: 1.) promptly address the issue raised in the SAB's January 29 letter and consider more thoroughly the uncertainties in the parameters and models employed by EPA in these risk assessments; 2.) conduct a full multi-media risk assessment to develop a comprehensive and cost-effective program to reduce radon risk; and 3.) direct the EPA to adopt a radon standard in drinking water that is consistent with the goals of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988. Intolerable Costs Underscoring the intolerable cost of the proposed regulatory standard, the Congressmen noted that a detailed study by public water agencies in California found that implementation of the rule, as proposed, could cost the state more than $3.7 billion. National costs have been estimated at between $12 billioa and $20 billion. a Among those signing the lette were Republicans Christopher Cox (California), Guy Vander Jagt (Michigan), and Don Schaefer (Colorado), as well as Democrats Robert Matsui, Vic Fazio, and Leon Panetta (all of California). FA WATCH cfi 1s a twlcc-nqnth)y ~ of the Americin Centar, a vwn-prafit OnnCerned with~ tolY PAcy. krns to EPA Wat~;L .04 per yw. P~Gl1cy Ccoter ka Lonj Court Virg(nla 22021 9768 - OfHoe 968-9771 - hAX 'Iloatss al. DcWeax, Pr PiLd he~ct~ he ,l. McC'ulca ~, Eiccetive Dircaor 1?r. $onner R. Cobca, Pdittv