NEWSGOVERNMENT Commission report to focus on real-world needs of risk managers Zero-emission vehicles "will define the General Motors of the future," said GM Chair John Smith, when announcing early this year that the EV1 will be marketed in four southwestern cities this fall.
it. They need the emissions reduction to comply with the Air Act, sources close to OTC said, and without them they may face federal sanctions. However, automakers believe Northeastern states will have to change their approach. "Under the Clean Air Act, there are only the federal law and the California law," said Max Gates, AAMA communications director. "You can't do your own law, and we are convinced that when California changes its LEV program, any state that has chosen to adopt California's plan must change its own." Massachusetts disagrees, according to John Rodman, assistant secretary of environmental affairs. Because of related court decisions, Rodman said, the governor believes the California revision does not bind Massachusetts. He added, however, the state has "always supported flexible implementation." "We're glad to sit down with automakers and work something out. In fact, we've offered seven proposals, and the automakers have rejected all of them," Rodman said. In response, Gates said, "They want the 49-state LEV program, advanced technology vehicles, and the original California ZEV plan, and they're not going to get it." Rodman predicted that negotiations would start up again once CARB votes. "I can see why automakers would want to wait and keep their powder dry until after the California deal is down," he said. Rodman, Gates, and other EPA and state sources predicted negotiations would begin again in earnest this month. —JEFF JOHNSON
Managing—not assessing—risk will be the main thrust of a draft report from the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management to be released April 24, according to the commission's chair. Created by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the 10member commission has held public hearings or working meetings almost monthly since May 1994. Its report is intended to influence regulatory development, standard setting, legislation, and the gamut of activities to which risk assessment and risk management are now being applied. "For the first time, we've put the spotlight on risk management and the role of risk assessment and scientific information in decision making," said Chair Gilbert Omenn, dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. It is Omenn's hope that the commission's report will fundamentally advance how risk assessments and other scientific information are used to make real-world decisions. In particular, the commission's goal is to provide risk managers with the tools to use risk assessment numbers to determine qualitatively what the effects of a pollution problem are, how serious the ef-
fects may be, and how they should be addressed. "What busy decision makers need to know is whether or not there is a problem," said Omenn. "It this something that has to be on the top of my list or is it deferrable?" Omenn said the commission's report will cover a broad array of topics, such as appropriate exposure scenarios, uncertainty, risk communication, consistency across federal programs, risk comparison, cost-benefit analysis, and ecological risk assessments. The report will recommend significant modifications of current policies, Omenn said in an interview, including moving away from reliance on the theoretical "maximum exposed individual" who lives for 70 years with "his or her nose pressed against a polluting factory's fence line," which he termed "one of the most awkward, truly ridiculous aspects of the way risk assessments have been done routinely for years." Instead, the report will support EPA's move toward high-end exposure estimates. He added that the report will discuss exposure estimates in depth. The commission is strongly considering a safety factor or
REGULATIONS EPA particulate matter review extended The deadline for an EPA decision on revising its air quality standard for particulate matter has been extended to give more time for scientific review of the issue. The new deadline for deciding whether to propose a new standard or stay with current regulations is Nov. 29. Any new regulation would have to be published by June 28,1997. By law, EPA documents establishing the scientific foundation for a new standard have to be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Under a court order stemming from a lawsuit brought by the American Lung Association, the committee had originally been limited to a single look at the documents. But when the committee refused to sign off on the documents last year [ES&T, February 1996, p. 68A), EPA prevailed on the court to allow another chance to comment. The five-month extension was granted on Feb. 7. The final review will take place in May, with a report due to EPA Administrator Carol Browner in June. —TONY REICHHARDT
1 5 8 A • VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
