NEWS GOVERNMENT President's Risk Commission revises draft report, release set for January Although lauded by most reviewers as a courageous effort to reach a consensus on the perennially thorny issue of risk, the draft report of the President's Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management is being revised to address dozens of detailed comments. "We're delighted with the comments, and the fact that we've stirred people up," commission Chair Gilbert Omenn, dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, said in an interview. "We also know there are certain problems." Omenn said the final report will be released in January, along with a brief booklet explaining risk science in layman's terms. The 10-member commission's draft, "Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making," was issued June 13. Mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, die commission's work got under way in mid1994 with the goal of proposing a comprehensive framework to guide federal agencies in making decisions about the risks of cancer and other health effects caused by exposure to hazardous substances (ES&T, April 1996, p. 158A).
The more than 110 written comments received by the commission demonstrate the complexity and far-reaching implications of their effort. "A significant step forward" was how John Graham, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, termed the 147-page draft. The Chemical Manufacturers Association also praised the commission for developing an "intriguing framework" that "tops a prestigious list of similar documents." Yet the American Petroleum Institute complained that recommendations "fall considerably short of what is necessary to develop a coherent risk management program across federal agencies," and the Cancer Prevention Coalition expressed "grave concerns." Even EPA's responses were mixed. Dorothy Patton, executive director of EPA's Science Policy Council, said, "We were disappointed that so litde new ground was broken." Her greatest concern was the lack of substantial new guidance on the use of economic, social, risk perception, and political analyses. But in EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, director Stephen Luftig
commended the report's "generally appropriate breadth and depth, focusing on the most pressing problems." The Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory called the report excellent and comprehensive while pointing out issues needing clarification, such as implementation costs, environmental equity, and population risks. Department of Agriculture officials complained that the commission failed to fully acknowledge its role in ecology and conservation and the urgent need for systematic monitoring and evaluation of the environmental programs managed by USDA. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) agreed with the commission that problems should be solved comprehensively rather than on a chemical-by-chemical basis but chided the commission for its "near-complete failure" to offer solutions to problems it identifies. "The draft focuses on 'what' to the exclusion of 'how,'" EDF staff scientist William Pease wrote. In remarks echoed by other commenters, Pease urged the commission to provide more details on implementation of their risk framework, including how to incorporate a comprehensive approach to hazard identification, provide incentives for generating scientific information, and address the resource constraints that limit stakeholder participacontinued on page 480A
Pressure mounts as particulate, ozone proposal deadline nears As the deadline approaches for EPA to propose revisions to national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, business groups are pressuring the administration to leave the standards as they are. Industry groups representing utilities, oil refiners, manufacturers, and others have formed a coalition and approached members of Congress and several federal agencies with pleas that the standards be left alone. EPA announced in May that it will issue decisions on revising national particulate matter and ozone standards by Nov. 29, the courtordered deadline for the particulate standard. A final decision on bom
standards is expected by June 1997 [ES&T, July 1996, 280A). Members of the industry coalition argue that a tighter ozone standard will be too expensive to implement. Public health groups complain that opponents of tougher standards are "politicizing" the issue and confusing the stringency of the standards, which is a public health issue, with implementation problems associated with new control levels. In an Oct. 2 letter, 102 public health, consumer, and community groups entreated President Clinton to support strong standards. The administration also is receiving fire from Congress. Included in EPA's 1997 budget is
language that "encourages" the agency to propose a "no change" option for particulate matter. The agency may propose an ozone standard that replaces the current standard with a tighter 8-hour rule in the range of 0.070.09 parts per million but increases the number of days an area can exceed the standard, making compliance easier, business and environmental sources said. The new particulate standard is expected to be tighter than the current rule, although sources said they believe the impact of the new particulate standard will be softened by flexible enforcement measures. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/ NEWS « 4 7 9 A
