Any day now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to issue new cleanup standards for dioxin. It won’t be announced with great fanfare, but that doesn’t mean it won’t affect you. Dioxin is a chemical byproduct of incineration, and most dioxin emissions are the result of backyard trash burning and forest fires with a small — and shrinking– fraction from industrial sources.
The current cleanup standards, which are protective of public health and have enabled city leaders and developers to transform desolate lots into thriving communities were established by President Clinton’s EPA.
The current federal cleanup standards are 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt) for residential properties and up to 20,000 ppt for industrial sites. Any site with a higher concentration has to be cleaned up. Now, however, the EPA is prepared to announce that dioxin levels above 3.7 parts per trillion might cause cancer.
Since Mother Nature is a large contributor to dioxin emissions, dioxin is found most everywhere in small concentrations at what are called “background levels.” A standard of 3.7 ppt is actually below background levels. Issuing these proposed standards would be the equivalent of claiming that everyone’s backyard is a cancer risk. That’s not an abundance of caution; it’s an avalanche of regulatory overkill.
It’s no surprise the EPA’s proposed standards have attracted criticism from leading independent scientists. The National Academy of Sciences and other independent scientists question whether the EPA is overstating the risks. In fact, the EPA’s own science advisory board concluded that the agency failed to adequately respond to the academy’s criticism and suggestions.
Being cautious is understandable, but skipping science and setting temporary standards now makes for frighteningly bad public policy.
There would be no need for these temporary standards or consequences to consider if the EPA would just acknowledge the significant progress it has made in cutting man-made dioxin emissions by 92 percent since 1987. This is a remarkable success story, not a justification for further regulations.
In setting these new standards, it’s apparent the EPA is prepared to ignore science and progress. But what about the consequences?
Data from the U.S. Conference of Mayors show brownfields redevelopment is responsible for creating thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues in cities across the country. According to the conference, the proposed dioxin standards would have a “chilling effect” on such redevelopment.
It’s a bit ironic because brownfields redevelopment is another EPA priority, and urban revitalization could suffer with these new standards.
An EPA spokesman said the agency will not perform an economic impact analysis of its proposed standards. That’s unfortunate because policy decisions aren’t made in silos, and this particular policy is likely to have consequences that negatively affect the environment and the economy.
This is no way to conduct public policy. Regulatory progress should be celebrated, not ignored. Science should be the foundation for policy, not an afterthought. Consequences should be considered, not overlooked.
For manufacturers, employees, mayors and taxpayers, the stakes are too high to get it wrong.
Judith Nordgren is the managing director of the American Chemistry Council’s chlorine chemistry division.
Judith Nordgren is the managing director of the American Chemistry Council’s chlorine chemistry division.
