=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #395
—June 23, 1994—
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===
Risk Assessment — PART 3: WHICH PROBLEMS SHALL WE IGNORE?
Risk assessment became a hot topic in Congress in 1994. Earlier
this year when the Senate passed a bill to elevate EPA [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency] to cabinet status, Bennett
Johnston –a petrochemical senator from Louisiana –tacked on an
amendment requiring EPA to conduct a risk assessment for every
regulation the agency issues. The House of Representatives has
not acted on the “EPA elevation bill” for fear that the Johnston
amendment would snarl EPA in paper, making the agency even less
effective. [1]
Representative Herb Klein has sponsored a new bill, H.R. 4306,
called the “Risk Assessment Improvement Act of 1994,” hoping to
make EPA conduct all its risk assessments according to fixed
guidelines.
The National Academy of Sciences in January issued a fat volume
called SCIENCE AND JUDGMENT IN RISK ASSESSMENT that aims to
improve EPA’s risk assessments. Yes, risk assessment is enjoying
great attention in Washington these days. Why?
The premier think tank on risk assessment –the Center for Risk
Management in Washington, operated by Resources for the Future
(RFF) –explains it this way: “The subject of risk assessment has
leaped to prominence during the past year, both in Washington,
D.C. and at the grass roots…. There are several reasons for the
sudden interest in risk assessment, but the major underlying
reason is the general recognition that government and private
sector resources are scarce and that it is therefore necessary to
understand what society gains from environmental laws and
regulations. The only analytical method for determining this is
risk assessment. Once the premise of scarce resources is
accepted, the need to set priorities is unavoidable.”
Really? Is it really true that in 1994, for the first time,
people recognized that resources are scarce? As H.L. Mencken
liked to say, “Balderdash.” Resources have always been limited
and people have always known it. The point of developing a
Constitutional democracy in the 18th century was to allocate
resources more fairly than a monarchy had ever managed to do.
The whole point of “politics” is to influence the allocation of
scarce resources. Will our town have a new nursing home or a new
golf course? Will we subsidize public housing or give a tax
break to the new incinerator? These are typical political
choices in a world where resources are scarce. There is nothing
new about scarce resources.
But risk assessment as a substitute for the political process is
new. And think tanks to promote risk assessment as “the only
analytical method” for learning what we gain from environmental
laws are CERTAINLY new. Is risk assessment the ONLY way to
analyze the benefits we get from environmental laws? What a
silly idea. Who would support a think tank to promote such a
silly, undemocratic idea? A recent newsletter from the Center
for Risk Management lists the following “major corporate
supporters:” Browning-Ferris Industries; the Chemical
Manufacturers Association; the Dow Chemical Company; E.I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co.; Monsanto Company; WMX Technologies [formerly
Waste Management, Inc.]; the General Electric Foundation; and
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., among others. “Other corporate
contributors” listed in the newsletter are the American Petroleum
Institute and the Union Carbide Foundation. In sum, the Center
for Risk Management is supported by many of the corporations that
have fostered environmental destruction on a global scale for 50
years. Why might these corporations want to promote risk
assessment as a way of establishing environmental priorities?
When risk assessment is used to establish environmental
priorities, the effect is to decide which problems will be
ignored, which destructive behaviors will be tolerated. As we
saw last week (RHWN #394), Judge Stephen Breyer, President
Clinton’s choice for Supreme Court justice and a self-styled
expert on risk, says the nation is wasting money worrying about
old chemical dumps, pesticides, and nuclear power. It is evident
that Mr. Breyer has reached a personal political conclusion that
people exposed to pesticides and industrial chemicals from old
dumps don’t matter much, and that nuclear power is safe. He
believes the American people should ignore these problems and
focus resources elsewhere. Naturally he’s entitled to his views.
Unfortunately, he wants to impose those views on the rest of us,
and he proposes a vehicle for doing just that: an elite corps of
risk assessment “experts” who will be “politically insulated”
from Congress and from the American people. This elite corps
would make risk decisions for the rest of us. The public would
be less involved than presently.
For example, Judge Breyer says, “For reasons I have mentioned, to
achieve the public’s broader health and safety goals may require
forgoing direct public control of, say, individual toxic waste
dumps.” (African Americans and native people, beware.) And
Judge Breyer explains how the elite corps group could defuse
public concerns at the local level: the Judge says his system
“offers the local [EPA] administrators insulation and protection
from criticism. They can answer the locally posed question, ‘Is
our swamp clean now?’ with, ‘Yes, the swamp is clean; the risks
are insignificant and national technical (system-based) standards
say that is so.’” [2] Unfortunately, all the scientists in the
world will never be able to determine by scientific methods that
the risks of a contaminated swamp are “insignificant.” Science
cannot determine that. Chemicals that seem safe today are often
recognized as dangerous tomorrow, and that will always be the
case. Furthermore, science has no way to judge the consequences
of exposure to many pollutants simultaneously. Therefore,
decisions about how to treat contaminated swamps will always be
largely political. Scientists are welcome to join the debate,
just like any other citizens. The plain fact is, people are
uneasy about strange, unnatural chemicals in their food and
water, and even in their local swamp. (Most people are also
aware that nuclear power plants can be used to make bombs, and
that the threat of nuclear war, even as far from home as North
Korea, is a big problem.) People are aware of evidence of
increased birth defects, developmental disorders, cancer, and
other illnesses associated with pesticides, and with strange
chemicals leaking from Superfund dumps. Men today produce half
the sperm their grandfathers did, most likely as a result of
exposure to “acceptable” levels of unnatural industrial
chemicals. (See RHWN #343.) IT IS RATIONAL TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT SUCH THINGS. In a democracy, people have a right to be
concerned, and to advocate that resources be applied to their
concerns. That is politics. That is the American democratic
system. It is perhaps understandable that Dow and DuPont might
want to substitute risk assessment for the political process
because they can “talk turkey” with the risk experts, whereas the
public cannot, and thus in a less democratic system these
polluters might be spared the costs of cleaning up the massive
quantities of environmental poisons they have released for 50
years.
Comparative risk assessment –or CRA, as it is know in the risk
biz –is chiefly a means for increasing the political power of
“experts” and reducing the political power of the general public.
The experts will decide what is important and what is safe,
and–if people like Judge Breyer have their way–the experts will
be allowed to impose their views on the public. But CRA is not
an objective, scientific enterprise; for reasons given in RHWN
#393 and #394, it is distinctly a political process. CRA
“experts” have no more legitimate claim to authority or power
than anyone else in society.
Furthermore, CRA simply will not work: who expects people living
near a Superfund dump to sit by while the risk experts tell them
their problem is insignificant compared to global warming, or
that society is better served by spending its money, say,
subsidizing nuclear power? Using CRA to set environmental
priorities is an invitation to continuous warfare at the local
level. It will inevitably lead to new environmental injustices,
as the voices of the public are excluded from the debate, and the
“experts” –many of them the same people who created major
environmental problems we now face –make more bad decisions in a
political vacuum. CRA simply will not fly, unless we are willing
to abandon democracy. It is apparent that Judge Breyer
understands this and is willing to shrink our democratic freedoms
so the experts can have their way with us. Is CRA really the
“only” way to analyze problems of risk in a complex society? Of
course not.
Instead of prioritizing environmental problems, thus admitting
that certain problems will be ignored (and certain destructive
behaviors will be tolerated), we could instead make a national
commitment to solve all environmental problems. Every county (or
even municipal) government could produce a “state of the
environment” report that assessed what problems existed and what
progress was being made toward (or away from) solutions.
Environmental goals could be thrashed out as part of this report,
which might be updated every 2 or 3 years. New information would
be factored into each update.
As part of this process, every business might be required to
complete an environmental audit that would discuss THEIR
alternatives to reduce THEIR impact on the environment and public
health. No one would be required to implement the alternatives,
but merely to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were
eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated,” as is required now of federal
agencies preparing environmental impact statements under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
The publication of environmental audits discussing all available
alternatives might lead to public pressure on businesses to adopt
environmentally sustainable practices. The pressure might
consist of green labeling, taxes on toxics, consumer boycotts,
laws, initiatives, or regulations. But these are simply the
processes of an informed citizenry in a democracy and THAT is
where debate about economic feasibility should come in.
There are many other possible ways to promote rational behavior
toward the environment. The point here is not to insist on one
particular approach, but to examine the most sensible means of
addressing all environmental problems rather than claiming
rationality for comparative risk assessment, an inherently
irrational system of deciding which problems to ignore. [3]
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[1] Terry Davies, “Message From the Director,” CENTER FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT NEWSLETTER (Spring, 1994), pg. 1. Available free
from: Resources for the Future, 1616 P St., N.W., Washington, DC
20036; phone: (202) 328-5060.
Descriptor terms: risk assessment; stephen breyer; epa;
comparative risk assessment; bennett johnston; petroleum
industry; us senate; house of representatives; congress;
legislation; herb klein; national academy of sciences; nas;
center for risk management; resources for the future; bfi;
browning-ferris industrieindustries; cma; chemical manufacturers
association; dow chemical; dupont; monsanto; wmx technologies;
waste management, inc.; ge; general electric; philip morris;
american petroleum institute; api; union carbide; superfund;
radiation; nuclear power; pesticides; science; nepa; national
environmental policy act; alternatives assessment; environmental
audits; mary o’brien; terry davies;