aggregate impact of air regulations on society. The prospective study, on the other hand, will break data down by industrial sector, sections of the act, regulations, and regions, according to EPA staff. It looks at cost-benefit estimates for the projected effect of the act's implementation versus a scenario in which no 1990 act was passed. One of the most difficult problems will be establishing a 1990 baseline for emissions, benefits, and costs. For instance, council member Morton Lippmann of the New York University Institute of Environmental Medicine said that because ozone reduction goals were in place before the 1990 amendments passed, they should not be considered. However, several EPA staff members noted that the failure of states to achieve those requirements helped drive the amendments through Congress, and the act as passed provided a new ozone compliance schedule. "The trick is going to be to figure out what would have happened without the amendments,"
Emission reductions: 1990 control and no-control scenarios
said Jim DeMocker, EPA project manager. As an example, he pointed to today's growing use of low-sulfur western coal that is shipped east by rail from Montana's Powder River Basin. Many coal-burning utilities have switched to this coal and through its use have met sulfur dioxide emissions limits in the 1990 amendments. But the coal is also cheap and readily available because of railroad infrastructure changes. "In this case," DeMocker
said, "even without the amendments, utilities might have switched just because of economics." Sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants figured big in economic benefits of the retrospective study. Their loss to economic drivers could significantiy change benefits in the prospective study. More than half the monetized benefits for the retrospective study were attributable to reductions in fine particulates, through regulations that curtailed its precursors: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and organic compounds. And about 35% of benefits resulted from reductions in lead emissions, DeMocker estimated. Because most lead emissions have been eliminated, they would also not figure in the prospective study. However, air toxics emissions, further auto emissions reductions, and other cuts will be factored in as a result of the 1990 act. Still, council members predicted that benefits for the 1990 amendments will be much lower. —JEFF JOHNSON
N.J. hazardous waste cleanup funds now guaranteed by constitution New Jersey voters have taken the unusual step of amending the state constitution to guarantee that funds for hazardous waste cleanups are not dependent on economic conditions or shifting political priorities. The amendment, approved on Nov. 4, also doubles the money used for cleanups. State environmentalists depicted the constitutional amendment as a referendum on Gov. Christine Todd Whitman's (R) environmental record, which they say has resulted in relaxed enforcement and a reduction in cleanups. The "drastic measure" of amending the constitution proves citizens want hazardous sites cleaned up, regardless of a tight budget atmosphere, said Curtis Fischer of the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group. However, Rick Gimello, assistant commissioner for site remediation at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), defended the state-run cleanup program. "We had some downsizing, but we are
maintaining the workload despite those cuts," he said. The amendment sets aside 4% from a long-standing corporate income tax. One-half is earmarked for the site remediation program and the state's share at federal Superfund sites. These funds will be added to the $15 million received from a separate spill fund, said Gimello. The other half is dedicated to leaking underground storage tank sites and water quality programs. New Jersey has more hazardous waste sites identified for cleanup than any other state: 23,104, according to DEP figures. But in recent years the department's budget, along with those of other government agencies, has been under fire as the governor and state legislature moved to balance the state budget. A reduction in force last summer sigriificandy cut the department's pollution prevention and science programs {ES&T, July 1996, p. 287A). Between fiscal years 1994 and 1996, the number of employees at DEP dropped from
4000 to approximately 3200. Under previous governors, the department's operations were funded directiy through operating fees paid by the regulated community. Environmentalists charge that the governor cut DEP's budget by 30% over the past three years when she moved the operating fees from department programs into the general state treasury, said Bob Wolfe of the Sierra Club. An unnamed DEP budget official confirmed DEP's new funding structure under Whitman. But DEP spokesperson Bob Friant maintained that state appropriations for DEP have increased in the three years of Whitman's tenure from $156 million in fiscal year 1994 to $182 million in FY96. And New Jersey businesses are pleased with Whitman's record, said Jim Sinclair, vice president of the state's largest business coalition, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. According to Sinclair, the state's business community neither opposed nor supported the constitutional amendment. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
VOL.31, NO. 1, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 7 A
