=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #95
—September 19, 1988—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous issue==========================================Next issue===
URGENT ACTION ALERT: EPA SETTING DEADLY AIR STANDARDS.
We rarely ask our readers to write their government, but today we
urge you to take up the pen IMMEDIATELY and write two sentences.
The health of your family is at stake, and you only have until
October 3rd to act. Mr. Reagan’s EPA (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) is about to decide how much risk the American
public is willing to accept from toxic industrial air pollution.
The decision will have far reaching consequences; as many as
25,000 people may be legally killed or injured each year by each
air pollutant if the decision goes the wrong way.
Congress passed the federal Clean Air Act in 1970 and within a
few years the EPA set regulations for six kinds of air pollution:
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (soot), carbon monoxide,
ozone, nitrogen oxides, and lead.
In 1977, Congress was not satisfied by the “progress” EPA was
making toward cleaning up the nation’s air and they passed
Section 112, requiring the EPA to control toxic air emissions.
Since then (11 years later), EPA has used Section 112 to set air
regulations for six more pollutants: radionuclides, beryllium,
mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, and arsenic. So in 18 years,
EPA has set regulations for 12 air pollutants (out the thousands
that exist).
Some of these Section 112 standards (national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants, or NESHAPS) were challenged in
court, and the judge decided the EPA really wasn’t doing its job.
The judge told the EPA to go back and start over on toxic air
pollutants.
The judge said the EPA must take two steps whenever they regulate
the emission of a toxic air pollutant: (1) the EPA must determine
a “safe” or “acceptable risk” level (the judge used the terms
interchangeably); and (2) the EPA must then set an emission level
that may not be higher than (but may be lower than) the “safe”
level and that protects public health with an ample margin of
safety. The judge said that the EPA may not consider economic
factors, or feasibility, in determining what is a “safe” level,
though they may consider economics and feasibility in the second
step (deciding on an ample margin of safety).
Now the EPA wants YOU to tell them what YOU consider a “safe”
level or an “acceptable risk” level for toxic air pollutants. On
July 28, 1988, EPA published a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER
(pgs. 28496-28592), seeking comments on how much risk the public
is willing to endure from toxic industrial air pollutants. The
immediate goal is to set a standard for benzene, a known human
carcinogen, but EPA says this will form the basis for all their
toxic air pollutant standards from now on. Since 75% of the
American people live near an industrial facility, the EPA’s
current effort may directly affect 180 million people.
Indirectly, it will affect all 245 million Americans, so this is
an enormously important decision.
The EPA is considering four different ways of deciding what risk
is “acceptable.” They label these Methods A, B, C, and D.
Method A is the “case by case” method. Method A would leave the
EPA free to decide for itself how much pollution was OK.
Basically, this is the “trust me, I know what’s best for you”
method.
Method B considers only the “total incidence” of disease. Under
Method B, the EPA would not consider the risk to any individual
but would only consider the total number of people made sick or
killed. They propose that one death per year from each kind of
regulated pollutant would be acceptable. This method would allow
small groups of individuals all over the country to be subjected
to very high individual risks–literally comparable to Russian
roulette in our neighborhoods. Failure to limit the risks to
individuals would allow a few individuals to endure a much higher
risk than the general public would endure.
Method C would consider ONLY the risk to individuals, and the
“acceptable” lifetime risk of death from each pollutant would be
one chance in ten thousand. This means if you exposed 10,000
people to the legal amount of that pollutant, one of those 10,000
people would die. Since there are about 245 million Americans,
this method says (in simplest terms) it’s OK for each regulated
pollutant to kill 24,500 people each year.
Method D is the same as Method C except that it’s 100 times
stricter: Method D considers ONLY the risk to individuals and it
says the “acceptable” risk is one in a million. In effect, this
method says its OK for each regulated pollutant to cause disease
or death in 245 Americans each year.
The EPA reportedly favors Method C, the one that would limit
individual risk to one in ten thousand, thus allowing each
pollutant to kill or injure up to 24,500 Americans each year.
You may be shocked that your government might propose air
standards that seem so lax. However, EPA considers that they are
beefing up some earlier positions they have taken. For example,
in 1985, they published the opinion (FEDERAL REGISTER, Feb. 6,
pgs. 5191, 5193) that an individual’s lifetime cancer risk of one
chance in a thousand was too insignificant to regulate. Compared
to this 1985 approach, the Method C proposal, which would limit
an individual’s cancer risk to one in ten thousand, can be
considered an improvement.
Method A, which would allow the EPA to decide what’s an
“acceptable risk” on a case by case basis, gives the agency too
much leeway. Almost everyone familiar with EPA will agree that
the agency cannot be trusted to make decisions consistently to
protect public health and safety. EPA’s discretion should be
limited.
Method B could also be rejected because it fails to protect the
lives of individuals. Method B would allow small numbers of
people in isolated neighborhoods to be sacrificed. Recent
history tells us the sacrifice would occur in neighborhoods
inhabited by the poor, the poorly educated, the politically
unorganized, and by minorities. WE BELIEVE NO INDIVIDUALS SHOULD
BE SUBJECTED TO HIGH RISK.
Of the four methods proposed, only Method D, which limits the
risks endured by individuals, comes close to being satisfactory,
in our view, and even Method D seems highly questionable.
Killing people is wrong. It is also unconstitutional. The U.S.
Constitution says no one may be deprived of life or liberty
without “due process.” Method D seems to say it’s OK for each
regulated pollutant to kill a few hundred people each year
without due process. No indictment, no trial, nothing. Their
“crime” is living near an industrial facility, which most of us
are “guilty” of.
We ask you to take 3 minutes to write a brief note to the EPA
saying something like, “I don’t think it’s acceptable to kill
anyone with industrial air pollution. Of the methods you
proposed July 28 for deciding what’s an acceptable risk for
benzene, I favor the approach of Method D, limiting individual
risk, but I want something stricter than one in a million.” Or
tell them whatever you like. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THEY
KNOW YOU’RE WATCHING THEM. We’ll keep you posted.
Send your letters BEFORE OCTOBER 3 to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Docket No. OAQPS 79-3 Part I, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. You can bet
industry will send comments, so we had better do the same.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: air; air quality; standards; epa; air
pollution; health; congress; legislation; clean air act; sulfur
dioxide; particulates; carbon monoxide; ozone; nitrogen oxide;
lead; regulations; enforcement; neshaps; risk assessment; health
statistics; benzene; carcinogens; strategies; disease statistics;
regulation; cancer; acceptable risk;