In reference to "bashing the EPA", these stories are published by Garcia
Consulting under contract to EPA. The Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics of EPA are the people who are bringing this information to light.
If anything, these stories show that EPA is definitely even-handed in
its coverage of environmental issues. They are not "skimming" the news
looking for stories that only show EPA in a good light.
However, in all fairness, I am not sending out the entire OPPT Newsbreak
letter. I DO SKIM the Newsbreak, looking only for articles concerning
EPA, or environmental issues such as Toxic Release Inventory reporting.
I get the Newsbreak every day, and I do not wish to clog everyone's
email system with yet more junk.
As far as "bashing regulation in general", the purpose in sending this
information out to the ComplianceNet, is to let environmental managers
around the country (and some from outside the country) know what is going
on, and what is being published in various newspapers. In general, any
article about regulations is going to be anti-regulation. I can't think
of anyone who would say "What we need is a bunch of government people in
here to help!" So I can't help the tone of the articles that are
published. It just increases my respect for EPA that they publish
information both positive and negative about regulations.
It is possible to be negative about certain regulations and still be
proactive about the topic the regulations are covering. In fact, it is
possible to be completely anti-regulation and still be extremely
proactive in environmental affairs. A lot of the companies pursuing ISO
14000 hope to become less-regulated as a result of registration.
Regulations are as much political as they are scientific. And bad
regulations need to be fought and defeated if possible. Killing them
helps everyone involved, from industry to EPA to the environment. There
are more than enough bad regulations out there already. Which EPA agrees
to, otherwise why would we have the Common Sense Initiative, or XL
Projects, etc.?
Sorry to be so long-winded on a Monday morning. It was a simple question
that I was responding to, but it needed a complicated answer.
John Sharp
Merix Corp., Forest Grove, OR
503-992-4351 Telephone
503-359-1040 FAX
[log in to unmask]
From: Karl_Rockwell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 1997 5:59 PM
To: johnsha; johnsha
Subject: Re: Environmental News Items from OPPT Newsbreak
Karl Rockwell@3COM
04/04/97 06:00 PM
I don't know how these stories bashing the EPA and regulation in general
help us to proactively comply with regulations.
----- Previous Message
----------------------------------------------------
To: ComplianceNet @ ipc.org
cc:
From: ComplianceNet @ ipc.org @ UGATE
Date: Thursday April 3, 1997 01:31 PM
Subject: Environmental News Items from OPPT Newsbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----------------------------------------------
Below are a few summaries on Environmental issues gathered by EPA, with
references to the periodicals that they came from. Enjoy.
John Sharp
Merix Corp., Forest Grove, OR
503-992-4351 Telephone
503-359-1040 FAX
[log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
OPPT NEWSBREAK Thursday, 3 April 1997
Today's "Toxic News for the Net" brought to you by the OPPT
Library
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/oppt_nb.txt
NEWS
"Schools Skimp on Facts in Teaching on Environment, Panel
Says."
Washington Times, 3 April 97, A3.
The Independent Commission on Environmental Education, a
panel of scientists, economists, and educators assembled
by
the George C. Marshall Institute, has issued a report
stating that environmental education in grades K-12 is
"long
on advocacy, short on science, and often just plain wrong"
and recommended "a curriculum that stresses knowledge over
promoting specific actions." Two of the texts
specifically
criticized by the group are "Environmental Science:
Working
With the Earth" and "Earth Matters," both promoted by a
manual funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.
"EPA's Obstruction of Pollution Control [Review & Outlook]."
Wall Street Journal, 3 April 97, A18.
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) calls on EPA to take the
states'
lead and adopt environmental audit legislation which
encourages industries "to perform their own thorough
environmental self-examinations by granting them certain
privileges and immunities from fines and prosecution if
they
discover themselves to be out of environmental
compliance."
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS: CLEAN AIR ACT
"EPA Concedes Error in Air Pollution Claim. Estimate of Lives
Saved by New Rules Is Lowered." Washington Post, 3 April 97,
A19. "U.S. Scales Back Estimates on Air Rules [National News
Briefs]." New York Times, 3 April 97, A21.
EPA acknowledged yesterday that it overestimated by 5,000
the number of premature deaths that would be prevented by
new air pollution standards the agency wants to impose
this
year. The revised estimate has 15,000 premature deaths
being prevented each year instead of the 20,000 in the
original projection. "Agency officials blamed the mistake
on a mislabeled chart in one of the 86 scientific studies
on
particulates that the agency reviewed. In a kind of error
that routinely trips up high school math students, a
number
in the chart that was labeled as an arithmetic `median,'
when it actually represented a `mean,' or average" [sic].
The error was discovered by an independent scientist
reviewing the agency's files. "Agency officials said the
error did nothing to change the basic assumptions on which
the proposed regulations were based."
"When the Benefits Are Mostly Modest, What Price Clean Air?
[Economic Scene]." New York Times, 3 April 97, D2.
Columnist Peter Passell writes about the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed clean air standards for ozone
and soot, emphasizing how "[c]riticism from insiders,"
notably the President's Council of Economic Advisors, has
exposed the difficulties of translating the Clean Air Act
into workable environmental policy. He focuses on the
lack
of scientific consensus about the standards and the
arguments that "the costs of the ozone standard would
exceed
the measurable benefits by at least 11 to 1."
"Cost-Benefits of Enviro-Purity [Commentary]." Washington
Times,
3 April 97, A13.
Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, begins
his
discussion of the proposed standards for ozone and
particulate matter emissions by stating that "the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long embodied
the
worst regulatory extremism found in the federal
bureaucracy." He opines that the "initiative is pure
politics," as EPA Administrator Carol Browner "has proudly
proclaimed that she will not compromise," despite
opposition
to the new rules from within the Clinton administration.
Bandow discusses the costs and benefits of the proposals,
concluding that "the American people will pay the price"
of
"extremists...setting EPA policy."
* All items, unless indicated otherwise, are available at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Library
Northeast Mall, Room B606 (Mailcode 7407)
(202) 260-3944; FAX x4659;
email for comments: [log in to unmask]
(Due to copyright restrictions, the library cannot provide
photocopies of articles.)
* Viewpoints expressed in the above articles do not necessarily
reflect EPA policy. Mention of products does not indicate
endorsement.
To subscribe to OPPT Newsbreak, send the command
subscribe OPPT-NEWSBREAK Firstname Lastname
to: [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send the command
signoff OPPT-NEWSBREAK
Also available on the World Wide Web (see banner for address)
The OPPT Library is operated by Garcia Consulting,
Incorporated.
**************************************************************************
* The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05
*
**************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:
*
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.
*
**************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the ComplianceNet forum, please call
*
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]
*
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
* The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05
*
**************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:
*
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.
*
**************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the ComplianceNet forum, please call
*
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]
*
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
* The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
**************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
**************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the ComplianceNet forum, please call *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask] *
**************************************************************************
|
