March 20, 1997

EPA's Browner Blindly Pursues Plan

"My response is . . . we have a cause -- air pollution.

We have an effect -- [respiratory health problems]. Why wait?"

EPA Administrator Browner

(from a speech quoted by AP in the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 3/11/97)

The more that is understood about the epidemiological studies underlying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s controversial proposed changes to control small air particles (sometimes called soot), the more bipartisan is the chorus of concern. And, that chorus is singing loud and clear that the existing scientific evidence is insufficient and too imprecise to set a health standard for particulates 2.5 microns and smaller with a price tag of $6 billion to $55 billion a year.

Deadline is Court-Ordered, Not Science-Driven. EPA is under court order to issue a final rule by July 19, 1997, deciding whether to change the current particulate standard, which controls particulates of 10 microns and smaller. On November 27, 1996, EPA issued a proposed rule to launch a new regulatory program for particulates 2.5 microns and smaller, and added a proposal to increase dramatically the stringency of the current urban ozone standard.

During the public comment period that ended March 12, EPA Administrator Browner ended EPA's research on the health effects of particulates and -- stunningly -- made clear her adamant refusal even to consider making improvements to the proposal. Regrettably, since issuing the proposed rules, Browner has bunkered attempts to dispatch serious comments with a blast of emotional rhetoric and false assurances.

The Administrator's public comments have been so absolute in defense of the proposed rules that the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest legal organization, petitioned EPA this week that she disqualify herself from the rulemaking on the grounds that "she has a closed mind" as to what should be the appropriate standard. The foundation argues that in her position as the decisionmaker on this rulemaking, her prejudice makes a sham of the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act and "taints the proceedings."

Republicans Exploring Better Options to Protect Health

The three hearings conducted by the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee in February examined the current science which indicates an "association" between days in

which there is high air pollution in an area, and increased hospital admissions and hastened deaths of ill people in that same area. It is generally accepted -- and there is no partisan debate on this point --that there is enough epidemiological evidence to warrant aggressive action to determine the actual cause of the adverse health effects. EPA's Browner, however, insists that the adverse health effects are "caused" by high concentrations of fine combustion particles and that these very small particles should be regulated. This position ignores alternative or contributory causation by other factors such as humidity, ultra-fine particles (1 micron or smaller), and indoor air. Scientists do not know whether the particulates of the 2.5 micron size are the "cause" of the observed premature deaths, and so there is no guarantee that Browner's proposal will produce anywhere near the agency's promise of avoiding the 4,000 to 17,000 premature deaths and 63,000 cases of chronic bronchitis per year. In fact, the proposal could divert research and remedies away from the real culprits. And, the compliance costs are likely to be astronomical -- $55 billion per year, according to the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

An alternative has been suggested by Senator Chafee that will not delay reasonable regulation of particulates to prevent premature deaths, but will not waste resources regulating the wrong culprits either. Under current law, EPA may not even ask the states for revised State Implementation Plans based on a new particulate standard until there has been time for monitors to be set up across the nation, estimated to take at least two years, and an additional three years of monitoring data to be accumulated in order to determine which areas are in nonattainment. Senator Chafee is considering requiring EPA to use these five years to monitor for 2.5-micron particulates and to perform more toxicological and epidemiological research prior to actually establishing the pollution standard. Since it will take EPA five years under current law before the designated nonattainment areas must begin complying with the new particulate standard, the Chafee approach would allow a credible and effective pollution program to be devised without losing a day of the health protection promised by the EPA version.

Concern Is Increasingly Bipartisan

Although reluctant at first to criticize the EPA, an increasing number of Democrats are publicly sharing Republican concerns over the proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) rules. During his subcommittee hearing in Oklahoma City on March 3, 1997, Senator Inhofe and others heard testimony from Democratic spokesmen from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the League of Cities. At the state or local level in numerous states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia, actions are being taken to oppose the proposed rules. On March 4, 1997, Senators Byrd, Ford, Glenn, Rockefeller, and Robb sent a strongly worded letter to Administrator Browner urging the agency to reaffirm the current particulate standard when the court-ordered deadline occurs on July 19. And, during a House Science Committee hearing on March 12, Members from both sides of the aisle expressed concern about the uncertainties in the epidemiological data on which the rules are based.

_________________________________________