Excerpts from Fort Freedom BBS, 914/941-1319 -- a pro-science,
pro-technology, pro-free enterprise oasis. Call in, its free!

TRILLION DOLLAR LIES 

           [From Consumers' Research 76(5):10-15 (1993 May)]

The [EPA-appointed expert] panel's March 1992 report, SAFEGUARDING THE
FUTURE: CREDITABLE SCIENCE, CREDITABLE DECISIONS, found a ``climate and
culture'' within the EPA that cast serious doubt on the quality of
science used by the agency to justify its programs. Indeed, scientists
play a minor role inside the agency, which tends to be dominated by
lawyers and other non-scientists. Even many agency personnel perceived
that EPA science was ``adjusted to fit policy.'' Among its specific
findings:

o   EPA's ``science activities to support regulatory development ... do
not always have adequate, credible quality assurance, quality control,
or peer review.'' And although the agency receives ``sound advice'' it
``is not always heeded.''

o   The 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.'' Instead, ``studies
are frequently carried out without the benefit of peer review or
quality assurance. They sometimes escalate into regulatory proposals
with no further scientific input, leaving EPA initiatives on shaky
grounds.''

o   The agency ``does not scientifically evaluate the impact of its
regulations,'' and ``scientists at all levels throughout EPA believe
that the agency does not use their science effectively.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Pathological Growth of Regulations
                         [By Philip H. Abelson]

                 [From Science 260:1859 (1993 Jun 25).]

The  Congress  of  the United States has created a huge,  multistatutory
regulatory  machine.  As  an  example, in the  1970s  the  Environmental
Protection  Agency  (EPA) was answerable to 15 congressional  committees
and  subcommittees.  That figure now exceeds  90.  In  1989  alone,  EPA
officials made 168 appearances before congressional committees. By 1990,
EPA  was  required  to  administer  11  major  statutes  and  over  9000
regulations. Since then, some of the statutes have been amended, and the
number of regulations continues to grow. Other agencies are required  to
issue  regulations, and in total, agencies employing 125,000 bureaucrats
are  busily  engaged in formulating additional regulations.  The  direct
annual  cost  of  meeting  these mandates is  more  than  $500  billion.
Additional  indirect costs have been estimated at another $500  billion.
Some  benefits  have  resulted  from this federal  command  and  control
legislation. However, the easy, cost-effective changes have largely been
made,  and  additional federal requirements will result  in  diminishing
returns.

In the 1970s, industry was the principal target of regulations issued by
EPA. By now, the major chemical companies are accustomed to dealing with
EPA  mandates. They have long had health and safety programs solidly  in
place;  they  have  chemical engineers to improve processes  to  curtail
emissions  and  a  legal  staff  to  fight  onerous  interpretations  of
statutes,  The  new  targets of the EPA enforcers are  state  and  local
governments and small companies.

The EPA estimate of the costs to companies, public works facilities, and
taxpayers   of  meeting  its  regulations  in  1990  was  $115   billion
nationwide. The EPA projection for the year 2000 is that the cost  could
be   $180   billion.  However,  estimates  by  EPA  tend  to   be   low.
Municipalities have reported instances in which real costs exceeded  EPA
estimates by a factor of 20 or more. Moreover, the estimates do not take
into  consideration  the  disruptive effects  of  regulations  on  local
governances.  They are expected to comply with what EPA  as  termed  419
"essential" regulations for which the local governments are required  to
provide  funds. Not only do the local governments not have the money  to
carry out environmental mandates, they frequently do not know what it is
they are supposed to implement. Frank Shafroth of the National League of
Cities  has said, "EPA rules are written in Latin with Greek footnotes."
The  cities  and towns are required to achieve objectives of which  they
have previously been incapable. For example, they must monitor more than
130  chemicals  in their water supplies, some of them in  the  part  per
billion or lower range.

Regulations are having an increasing impact on small businesses. EPA  is
now  enforcing  standards on smaller companies  that  cannot  afford  to
develop environmental expertise. One mandate regulates 328 chemicals and
requires firms to keep inventories of their use, report the presence  to
local   safety  officials  and  federal  authorities,  and  train  their
employees  for emergencies involving hazardous materials. This  is  only
one  of  hundreds  of regulations that small companies  must  implement.
Moreover,  changes in regulations occur frequently, making it  difficult
to  plan ahead. Failure to comply with environmental laws can mean  huge
fines  and  jail sentences for company owners, managers, and  employees.
Companies  are being counted on to create jobs. The regulatory pathology
impairs their health. Last year during the electoral campaign, candidate
Clinton  stated,  "Expanding  regulations  threaten  to  overwhelm   the
nation's entrepreneurs and divert them from the task of building  strong
innovative companies."

In its implementation of statutes EPA can be criticized on many grounds.
Its  performance  in  dealing with Superfund sites has  been  less  than
mediocre. Risk assessments of chemicals by EPA often exaggerate  hazards
by  a  factor  of 100 or more, and its risk management is  questionable.
However,  EPA  is faced with interpreting and implementing  complex  and
fuzzy  congressional legislation. For instance, under the Safe  Drinking
Water  Act, EPA is required to set maximum contamination level goals  to
prevent  known or anticipated adverse health effects with  an  "adequate
margin of safety." Accordingly, EPA has set maximum concentration  level
goals  of zero for some major chemicals of doubtful carcinogenicity.  By
law,  cleanup levels of Superfund sites must under certain circumstances
meet standards set by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has
an  invitation to require expenditures of trillions of dollars at  sites
around which few if any excess deaths have been seen.
                                                       Philip H. Abelson
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Regulatory Costs
                          By Philip H. Abelson

                [Editorial, Science 259:159 (1993 Jan 8)]

On  20  January,  the  Democrats become sole heirs to  a  phenomenon  of
regulation  gone amok. In April 1992, 59 regulatory agencies with  about
125,000  employees were at work on 4,186 pending regulations.  The  cost
during  1991  of  mandates already in place has been estimated  at  $542
billion.  The  fastest  growing  component  of  costs  is  environmental
regulations,  which amounted to $115 billion in 1991 but are  slated  to
grow by more than 50 percent in constant dollars by the year 2000.

Twenty  years ago, costs of federal environmental regulations  were  not
visible  to  the public. However, the number and stringency of  unfunded
federal  requirements  have since increased markedly.  New  and  tighter
regulations have drained funds from cities, towns, school districts, and
individuals. A result is the beginning of a revolt. There is  a  growing
questioning of the factual basis for federal command and control actions
and of the scientific competence of the regulators.

Two  examples will be cited. Nine participating cities in Ohio have made
an  important,  detailed study of impacts on them  of  14  environmental
regulations  or  issues. They estimate their compliance costs  (1992  to
2001) at about $3 billion.* One of the cities, Columbus, had a budget of
$591 million in 1991, of which $62 million [10.5%] went to environmental
compliance.  Projected compliance costs in 1995 are $107  million  (1991
dollars).  Faced  with difficult funding choices,  Mayor  Greg  Lashutka
decided  that  Columbus  should  create its  own  Environmental  Science
Advisory  Committee.  The mayor had rich scientific resources  including
Ohio  State  University,  Battelle, Columbus,  and  Chemical  Abstracts.
Edward  F.  Hayes, Vice President for Research of Ohio State University,
was named chairman of the committee.

Hayes  has  questioned  the judgment inherent in  some  of  the  federal
command  and  control  regulations. As one example  he  cited  the  Safe
Drinking Water Act, which requires that at least 133 specified pollutant
be  monitored.  Many  of the substances are not present  in  significant
quantities  in Ohio. In other instances, mandated regulatory levels  are
extremely  tight. He cited the herbicide Atrazine. Although its  average
level at water intakes is far below 3 parts per billion, the city may be
required  to install ``best available technology'' for Atrazine  removal
at a cost of $80 million for each of two surface water plants. Hayes has
stated  that the action level is 3 parts per billion because effects  of
massive doses to rats are extrapolated to infinitesimal doses in humans,
and  regulators included a thousandfold factor of safety. If the  factor
of  safety  were set at 100, then a major uncertainty would be  removed,
and  Columbus would be more free to address real health problems in  the
community.

Another  example  of  questioning of the judgment of federal  regulators
involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its proposal
to  limit levels of radon in drinking water to 300 picocuries per liter.
The  EPA  estimated  that the cost to achieve this  standard  nationwide
would be $1.6 billion in capital costs and additional annual expenses of
$180  million. The association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) found
that  the cost for meeting the radon water standard in California  alone
would approach $3.7 billion. National costs were estimated at $12 to $20
billion,  and  only  1  percent of the public radon  exposure  would  be
reduced.  The  ACWA lined up support from 27 California members  of  the
House  of  Representatives. A letter dispatched to  President  Bush  and
signed by them included: ``We are deeply concerned about new regulations
which  place  a  considerable financial burden on our  citizens  without
providing appreciable public benefit.''

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) has been aware of deficiencies at
EPA.  In  the  102nd session of congress he introduced S. 2132,  a  bill
designed  ``To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency  to  seek  ongoing  advice from independent  experts  in  ranking
relative  environmental  risks; to conduct the research  and  monitoring
necessary to ensure a sound scientific basis for decision-making; and to
use  such information in managing available resources to protect society
from  the  greatest  risks  to  human health,  welfare,  and  ecological
resources.'' The bill was not acted on, but a modified version  will  be
introduced in the new Congress and should receive widespread support.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

*``Ohio  Metropolitan  Area  Cost Report for Environmental  Compliance''
(Columbus  Health Department, Columbus, OH, 1992). Copies of the  report
may  be obtained form Michael J. Pompili, Assistant Health Commissioner;
telephone: 614-645-6181.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        SCARE OF THE WEEK
         [By Daniel E. Koshland, Jr., editor of Science]

             [From Science 244, p. 9 (7 April 1989)]
                           [768 words]

The fable of the  boy who cried wolf is  as pertinent today as it
was in Aesop's time.  We are being subjected  to the scare of the
week. Some of these scares may reflect real dangers, but they are
becoming obscured  by a cacophany  [sic] of  false or exaggerated
ones.  Two  that  hit  the  headlines  recently  illustrate quite
different problems.

The first  was a  highly publicized  announcement by  the Natural
Resources Defense  Council that  Alar-treated apples  would cause
thousands  of  cancer  deaths   to  children.  The  reaction  was
predictable: school districts quickly canceled apple distribution
and the fruit  piled up on  grocery shelves. The  facts came more
slowly. Only 5% of  apples are treated with  Alar, and in that 5%
the  levels of  Alar  are well  below  conservative Environmental
Protection Agency tolerances.  Even in a  worst case scenario the
probability of cancer among the  affected group would change from
25% to  25.025%. When  health commissioners  announced the facts,
the country returned to normal and apples were returned to school
districts and grocery shelves. However, serious psychological and
financial damage was sustained.

It  is  time  to  recognize  that  public  interest  groups  have
conflicts of  interest, just as  do business  groups, even though
their public  positions are  orthogonal. Businesses  prefer to be
out of the  limelight; public interest  groups like to  be in it.
Because they are selling  products in the marketplace, businesses
downplay discussions  of hazards. Because  public interest groups
acquire members by publicity,  they emphasize hazards. Each group
convinces itself that its worthy goals justify oversimplification
to  an   ``ignorant''  public.  Businesses   today  have  product
liability and can  incur legal damages if  they place a dangerous
product  on  the  market. Public  interest  groups  have  no such
constraints at the moment; it  may be time to develop appropriate
ones so that  victims of irresponsible  information have redress.
Public  interest groups,  as  well as  apple  growers, contribute
importantly to our society, but both groups should be accountable
for their acts.

The  second  scare was  the  banning  of Chilean  grapes  after a
terrorist threat and the finding of traces of a little cyanide in
two  grapes. On  the  surface it  resembles  the Alar  scare: the
amounts of cyanide were found to be negligible, so the job losses
and the  ensuing ill  will created  among Chilean  farmers seemed
disproportionate in retrospect. The difference is that eating too
much cyanide  can cause  instant death,  whereas Alar  presents a
possible  danger only  over a  lifetime  of consumption  and that
scare  required  no instantaneous  action.  Although  the Chilean
grape  scare  may  have  been  more  justifiable,  a reevaluation
suggests  that  a  less extreme  reaction  would  have  been more
appropriate.

The overreaction in these cases has as its background the present
climate in our  society in which complete  safety without cost is
seen as a feasible goal. The possibility of danger, therefore, is
perceived to result from  chicanery, negligence, or incompetence.
In  such  a  climate, officials  respond  with  extreme measures.
Because increased  costs in  either the  affected products  or in
taxes are  not obviously  linked to  these official  actions, the
system  becomes  tilted  to overreaction.  A  certain  balance is
necessary to prevent the costs of legitimate safety measures from
becoming  prohibitive.  A graphic  illustration  of  this problem
surfaced recently with the arrest in  Los Angeles of a person who
admitted having  made about a  hundred bomb  threats to airlines,
all false, each  of which had to  be investigated by authorities.
If every  threat causes  flights to  be canceled  or fruit  to be
removed from grocery shelves, terrorists and psychotics will soon
be  able to  grind  society to  a halt.  On  the other  hand, the
alternative  of broadcasting  each threat,  caveat emptor  with a
vengeance, would soon cause all warnings to be ignored.

To thread our way between real  dangers and false alarms, we must
often let officials  decide which terrorist  threats deserve wide
publicity, and the public must be understanding of risks as well.
Because these officials cannot always be right they deserve to be
judged on an overall record, not from any certainty of hindsight.
The public  must recognize that  a risk-free society  is not only
impossible,  but intolerably  expensive. At  some point  the real
danger of too  much pesticide must be  balanced against the value
to poor people  of cheaper fruit. There  are numerous deaths from
falls down stairs in the home  every year, but we do not advocate
that all staircases be replaced  by elevators. Scares of the week
are in the same category. We cannot afford to be complacent about
real threats, but we  must remember that to be  alive is to be at
risk.  -- Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.

