can regulatory institutions cope with cross media …i can regulatory institutions cope with cross...

I

Can Regulatory Institutions Cope with Cross Media Pollution?

Robert W. Hahn Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Eric H. Males Jellinek, Schwartz, Connolly & Freshman, Inc

Washington, D. C.

This paper critically examines attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider cross media shifts in regulatory analysis and decision making. We find that EPA has only rarely evaluated cross media shifts and that there appear to be no significant cases in which regulations have been modified as a result. Because cross media shifts have been evaluated so rarely, it is difficult to make definitive statements about their importance or about effective strategies for addressing them. Our more general concern is that the fragmentation fostered by the current regulatory system prevents proper evaluation of more integrated, multi-media strategies, such as pollution prevention. We recommend more careful assessment of the size and dynamics of cross media shifts before substantial changes are made to the existing regulatory framework.

The current framework of environmental regulation is the product of a series of independently established statutes and programs. One result of this approach is that environmental efforts are largely divided by environmental medium, such as air, water, and soil. This sequential, independent focus on each single environmental medium results in pollution shifts across media, which in some cases are sizable. For example, one study estimated that in Philadelphia, wastewater treatment plants generate twenty-five percent of the region’s airborne toxic organics by shifting pollutants from water to air.l Cross media shifts have been recognized by several researchers, professional organizations, the Congress, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2-7

The nature of this environmental management problem has been clearly articulated by former EPA Adminis- trator Lee Thomas:

[Elnvironmental protection consists largely o f . . . moving stuff from a place where it may do harm to a place where it won’t-EPA’s role is to define when,

Copyright 1990-Air & Waste Management Association

24

where, and how the move should take place. Doing this sort of work requires an enormous amount of careful thought. “Careful” because the laws of nature, which rule that work, are unfor- giving, and not subject to amendment on Capitol Hill.7

Past environmental policies have not given careful thought to the interac- tions between environmental media- thus the “solutions for one pollution problem often [have] generated new pollution problems in different local- ities or in different media.”

Former Administrator Thomas has suggested that a key element in planning control solutions is to adopt a “multimedia perspective.’’ Taking such a perspective is, unfortunately, more easily said than done. It would not only require fundamental changes in the framework used by policy makers, but it would also have potentially far-reaching effects on engineers designing control or production technologies, on scientists conducting research, and on industries designing compliance strategies.

This research critically examines recent federal attempts to consider cross media shifts in regulatory analysis and

decision making. We find that EPA has only rarely evaluated cross media shifts and that there appear to be no significant cases in which regulations have been modifed as a result. Instead, in the few instances where cross media problems were identified, this information was passed on to other regulatory programs. EPA’s general commitment to improving analysis and preventing cross media shifts has been inadequate to overcome the pressures to promulgate regulations within the current single medium statutory framework.

While cross media shifts are believed to be important for a wide range of problems, the paucity of data and analysis on these shifts means that it is im- possible to tell just how important they are. A research strategy needs to be developed that would help identify the classes of problems for which cross media issues are likely to be critical. We offer such a strategy, but are not overly optimistic about the prospects for developing and integrating such knowl- edge in the current political environment.

Section 2 of the paper examines the current approach to environmental regulation, focusing on why cross media issues receive short shrift. EPA’s efforts to adopt a multi-media perspective are chronicled and evaluated in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes the key results of the analysis. Finally, Sec- tion 5 discusses factors that could lead to a change in the dominant single medium approach to regulation and suggests a research agenda that would help enable policymakers to better understand the nature of the problem.

The Single Medium Approach to Problem Solving

Definltlon of the Problem

In this review we focus on “cross media shifts” (i.e., the movement of pol-

J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.

lutants from one environmental medium to created by environmental regulations. “Direct shifts” can result from pollution control technologies used to meet regulatory requirements. “Indirect shifts” can result from other “voluntary” changes made t o avoid regulatory burdens. Both kinds of shifts tend to be overlooked in the predominant single medium approach to regulation. (The term “cross media shifts” also has been used to de- scribe transfers that occur “naturally” in the environment. For example, airborne lead may move from the air to soil or surface water through deposi- tion. Although such transformation and transport processes are important, this research focuses on shifts related to pollution control.)

Direct shifts occur because many pollution control technologies are designed to reduce discharges of a particular pollutant to a single medium, without much attention given to the effects on other media. For example, sc rubber water is discharged t o streams; settled sludge is discharged to land; and stripped organics are discharged to the air. Mass balance proce- dures can be applied to estimate the magnitude of these transfers.

Indirect shifts occur when firms, in response to a regulation that increases the cost of a particular practice, choose to use other, less expensive, practices. For example, stringent regulation of land disposal may increase the use of alternative disposal methods, such as incineration. Such a change can result in the shift of pollutants from groundwater to air. Economic analyses provide a means of gaining a better understanding of the impact of regulations on indirect cross media shifts.

Causes of the Problem

Cross media shifts arise from the single medium structure and the narrow, independent focus of environmental programs. This structure is a direct result of the design of environmental statutes, which is the most critical de- terminant of the structure of environmental program^.^ Most environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, are designed to address only a single environmental medium. For example, Clean Water Act regulations are designed to reduce discharges to waterways, with the goal of eliminating all waterborne discharges of pollutants. The independent focus of each statute on a single medium dis- courages considering cross media shifts in environmental programs.

Once Congress has specified an approach, subsequent activities are tai- lored to fulfill those requirements. The internal organization of EPA largely mimics statutory definitions. Even

January 1990 Volume 40, No. 1

though EPA was created to integrate pollution control efforts, the Agency was organized in accord with the statutes in order to facilitate quick action in its early years.1° Since that time, pressures on EPA to narrowly respond to increasingly detailed statutory mandates have increased. “. . , The diverse and highly specific standards and dir- ectives contained in the media-specific statutes governing EPA programs con- strain management flexibility and dis- cretion and impede the ability of top management to foster a cross-media perspective on environmental problems and a consistent, coherent approach for dealing with them.”

State programs usually adopt a simi- lar organization for addressing environmental needs. Some states have attempted t o increase coordination across their programs. These reforms, however, have focused almost exclu- sively on reducing administrative burdens rather than adopting a more integrated regulatory framework.”

The inattention to cross media shifts that occurs within this structure is ex- acerbated by the pressure to expedi- tiously promulgate regulations. This influence is most important in the program offices that are directly responsible for implementing the statutes. The simpler the definition and scope of a problem, the easier it is to design, evaluate, and promulgate a regulation. Considering cross media shifts tends to make regulatory decision making and information needs more complex, slow- ing the pace a t which regulations are developed. Thus, in part to speed and simplify decision making, federal and state regulatory decisions and analyses closely parallel the statutes, fully em- bracing the single medium philosophy.

Yet, a number of single medium statutes acknowledge the potential for cross media problems. Even when ac- knowledged, however, environmental statutes provide little guidance on how to address such issues. Agencies must struggle with the multiple, often vague, and sometimes contradictory requirements in environmental statutes.12 In practice, the single medium goals and requirements inevitably take prece- dence. (Indeed, no environmental statute has major provisions that address cross media shifts.) For example, the Clean Air Act includes “nonair quality health and environmental impacts” as one of the factors to be considered in choosing “best available control technologies” [$I1 l(a)]-but in practice, the technology chosen is the one that achieves the greatest reduction in airborne emissions without causing major economic dislocation.I3 If “nonair impacts” were truly considered, it would be clear tha t the technology tha t achieves maximum reduction of emissions to a given medium may not be the

technology that provides maximum reduction of all emissions, nor the technology that minimizes risks. In other words, a technology that is “less efficient” from an engineering perspective could well be safer because i t may leave pollutants in a medium where they pose fewer risks. For example, in terms of risks to human health, a technology that treats a smaller percentage of con- taminated groundwater within an aquifer may reduce risks more than a technology that moves a greater percentage of the pollutants from groundwater into the air.

This example demonstrates the importance of evaluating cross media shifts in terms of risks (Le., adverse effects on human health or the environment) rather than emissions. (This is not to suggest, however, that risk should be the only basis for regulation.) Emissions alone are a poor measure because different pollutants create different effects and because a given pollutant may create different effects in different envi ronmenta l media or locations. Cross media shifts are particularly important for toxics because even small, inconspicuous shifts can create sizable effects. Thus, in addition to understanding the magnitude of cross media shifts of pollutants created by regulations, the consequences of these shifts need to be understood.

The system of independent regulatory program also fosters inconsisten- cies in risk management and discour- ages comparisons between media. En- vironmental priorities are largely driven by statutory mandates and deadlines. Other criteria, such as comparative risks, are used infrequently. In a rare exception, EPA senior managers judged that programs (and media) that received the greatest resources generally posed lower health and environmental risks; moreover, several high risk problems (and media) received small resource ~ommitments.’~

Many argue that “significant” cross media shifts cannot occur because any shift of pollution will be subject to regulatory requirements of the relevant program. Thus, for example, the discharges from scrubbers designed to reduce air pollution are subject to water effluent limitations. This reliance on standards created by other regulatory programs may lead to ineffective and/ or inefficient management of the environment. For example, the Superfund program relies on drinking water standards to define the level of groundwater treatment required as part of reme- diation. These drinking water standards, however, are established in their own context, which may consider factors not relevant to a Superfund site cleanup. Likewise, Superfund activities may involve factors that are not adequately captured in the process of

25

Table 1. Taxonomy of multi-media regulations et EPA.8

Federal Multi- Analysis of Evaluation of Designed to Regulatory register media regulatory cross media mitigate cross

Regulatory programh status date analysis impacts shifts media shifts

Used oil proposed 11/29/85 yes Yes Yes yesr Arsenic NESHAP (Ar plants) final 8/4/86 no Yes no yesd

Superfund cleanups ongoing - Yes Yes sometimes sometimes Land disposal restrictions final 11/7/86 yes Yes Yes no Sewage sludge proposed 2/6/89 yes yes yes no Effluent guidelines (OCPSF) final 11/5/87 yes yes Yes no Drinking water standard (8 VOCs) final 1/8/87 yes Yes Yes no Ocean incineration proposed 2/28/85 yes Yes no no Municipal incinerators pre-proposal yes yes no no

Chlorinated solvents pre-proposal 10/17/85 yes yes Ye! Yes

a Emphasis on efforts since 1985. bNESHAP = national emission standard for a hazardous air pollutant; OCPSF = organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers; VOCs = volatile organic compounds. c Cross media shifts considered, but only as part of mitigating recycling impacts.

Cross media provision in regulation has no practical effect.

establishing drinking water standards. In addition, since most of the efforts

to evaluate environmental problems are organized around these smaller, fragmented problem definitions, the information that might provide insights into limitations of the fragmented approach is rarely developed. In other words, these single medium approaches become self perpetuating, even when the successful handling of pollution problems might require an integrated perspective. Thus more comprehensive approaches, such as source reduction, may not appear to be a “competitive” option to reduce risks to a single medium (when compared to single medium regulatory strategies), but may be “competitive” when compared to a series of single medium regulatory requirements necessary to achieve the same net reduction in risk.

There are, however, some good reasons for the single medium perspective on regulation. It helps to facilitate action and respond to concerns about a specific problem. The single medium perspective also reflects the understanding of early air and water pollution problems, and the division of the sciences into single medium disci- plines. “[Such] fragmentation is consistent with a large body of scholarly research that emphasizes the incremental nature of policy decision making. Rather than addressing all relevant variables in a rational fashion, public policy tends to be made on a ‘remedial,’ ‘serial,’ and ‘exploratory’ basis . . . .” l1

Cross Media Shifts in EPA’s Regulatory Analysis and Decision Making

In 1985 then-Administrator Thomas committed EPA to a program of improved and better coordinated management to better achieve true “environmental results.” One of the specific problems t h a t motivated this

26

program was cross media shifts of pollution. Our research evaluates EPA’s efforts to consider cross media shifts in its regulatory efforts, focusing on regulations proposed since that commitment.

Even before 1985-in the late 1970s and early 1980s-EPA’s policy integration programs were committed to evaluating more integrated strategies. “They became, in sum, a lot of talk. . . and little action,” primarily because program office staff had no incentive to risk violating the requirements of the single medium statutes for “an amor- phous larger purpose.’’ l5 In the mean- time, the funding and staff for integration studies have shifted to projects designed t o identify and compare environmental problems with one an- other. These more recent projects do not develop integrated regulatory strategies, nor do they model cross media shifts created by prospective control strategies.1618

The Agency’s most recent discus- sions of integrated strategies occur in the context of pollution prevention. The concept is based in part on concerns about the ineffectiveness of pollution control that merely moves pollution around. EPA has recently estab- l ished an Office of Pollution Prevention to promote and study waste reduction efforts.lg It remains to be seen how multi-media aspects will be considered. Early work in this area suggests, however, that multi-media and cross media impacts are not likely to receive much attention.20 Initial plans for pollution prevention legislation included some attempts at inter-media tradeoffs, emphasizing reductions in media where a) pollution was more damaging; or b) control was more achievable; or c) cross media shifts could be reduced.*l Yet EPA had little idea where to target such efforts and faced opposition to reducing the stringency of any current controls.

A Framework for Evaluation

The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the extent to which regulations take an integrated approach to environmental management-that is, whether they are designed to mitigate cross media shifts.

For cross media shifts to be considered in regulations they must first be evaluated. The nature of the evaluation available to the decision maker is critical. There are three kinds of anaIy- ses that have been used in these programs: multi-media analyses, analyses of regulatory impacts, and evaluations of cross media shifts:

M u l t i - m e d i a a n a l y s e s include more than one environmental medium. For example, in evaluating risks of the application of sludge to land, the Agency included fourteen pathways, such as volatilization to air and leaching to groundwater.22 Analyses of regulatory impacts estimate the differences in risks (and other attributes) before and after regulation. Because regulations usually focus on one environmental medium of interest, regulatory analyses usually evaluate the changes in risks or emissions in only one medium. Evaluations of cross media shifts are more integrated, and typically include elements of both regulatory and multi-media analysis. Cross media analyses evaluate the changes in all environmental media created by a regulation.

Table I provides a selective summary of EPA’s regulatory efforts from 1985 to early 1989, drawing distinctions based on the type of analysis as well as on whether the regulations were designed to mitigate cross media shifts. The table reveals that regulatory consideration of cross media shifts was the exception rather than the rule. From

J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.

1985 to 1988, EPA proposed approxi- mately twenty major regulations. Ta- ble I contains the few examples of cross media analysis and the rare instances of cross media regulations. (From 1981 to 1986, EPA proposed eighteen major rules. Only three of the regulatory impact analyses conducted (land disposal restrictions, used oil, and organic chemicals) included explicit analysis of cross media shifts (based on information in Reference 23).)

Even when cross media shifts were identified, it was difficult to consider them in regulations. Instead, cross media shifts were delegated to other regulatory programs. For example, in the development of the sewage sludge rules (discussed below) and the upcoming standards for municipal waste combus- tion, cross media shifts were identified as an important aspect of the problem, but were not considered in the design of regulations.

In rare instances, such as the land disposal restrictions program (discussed below) and the effluent guidelines for organic chemicals plants, EPA attempted to consider cross media shifts in regulatory decisions. (An early description of future regulation of chlorinated solvents under the Toxic Sub- stances Control Act promises to consider cross media shifts.24) The other regulations in Table I that appear to be designed to mitigate cross media shifts do not represent specific commitments to considering cross media shifts. The used oil regulations were designed to mitigate recycling impacts, not cross media shifts per se; and the air stan-

dards for arsenic contain only a pro for- ma requirement to prevent cross media shifts-a requirement that has no practical effect since arsenic dust (the subject of the regulation) is already re- cycled within the production process, according to EPA staffers.

A Closer Look at the^ Regulatory Process

While Table I provides an overview of multi-media efforts, it does not do justice to some of the stumbling blocks that are likely to be encountered in per- forming such analysis and taking a more integrated regulatory perspective. In this section we draw on two case studies to provide a more careful state- ment of the strengths and limitations of such efforts in the current regulatory context.

The hazardous waste land disposal restrictions program represents the Agency’s most serious attempt to consider cross media shifts in regulatory analysis and decision making, but only in the proposed rules.25 In the proposal, EPA identified cross media shifts through a “comparative risk analysis” and included consideration of these shifts in the proposed regulatory definition of “available treatment technologies.”

The statutory mandate to prohibit the untreated disposal of hazardous wastes on the land was part of the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act.26 This mandate typified the single medium approach-focusing narrowly on “mini- mizing or eliminating” the problems of

land disposal (particularly groundwater contamination). The Agency was directed to implement this program on a schedule of short and strict deadlines. In some instances, the restrictions would be imposed statutorily if EPA missed the Congressional deadlines. More precisely, EPA was responsible for implementing these restrictions by specifying standards for treatment technologies. Congress required that these technology standards be designed to minimize the threats result- ing from the land disposal of treatment residues.

During early formulation of the land disposal restrictions program at EPA, however, several policy and risk ana- lysts recognized the potentia1 for land disposal restrictions to create cross media shifts. Risk analysis demonstrated that treatment (i.e., incineration) of a waste containing organics and metals could pose a greater risk than land disposal. As Figure 1 illustrates, EPA estimated that this could occur in approxi- mately half of the “sites” designed to represent the range of geographic set- tings in the United States.27 The curves in the figure represent distributions of estimated risks, ordered from highest to lowest. The vertical scale is estimated population risk (i.e., incidence). The horizontal scale represents the percentage of “sites” that exceed the cor- responding risk level. The “sites” in thc analysis are combinations of environmental conditions in the United States, generated randomly by a Monte Carlo routine. For the highest risk “sites” (to the left of where the curves cross), the

Land Dlsposal R l s k s Exceed

Cross M e d l a S h l f t s Cause Treatment R i s k s to Exceed Land Disposal R i s k s

I I , I

Treatment R l s k s

/ + !

-

I I I I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of ‘Sites’ Exceeding Risk Level

Land Disposa l + Treatment - Figure 1. Cornparison of treatment and land disposal risks (cross media shifts dominate treatment risks). Units are intentionally omitted from the vertical scale to emphasize the comparison of estimated relative risks. Source: Redrawn from Reference 27 (Fig. G#21).

January 1990 Volume 40, No. 1 27

estimated risks of land disposal exceed those of treatment. For the lower risk cases (to the right of where the curves cross), estimated treatment risks exceed estimated land disposal risks. The curves cross at about 50 percent, or at about half of the simulations.

The concern about cross media shifts became the subject of acrimonious de- bates within the Agency between EPA’s policy office, whose mission was not linked to statutory requirements, and the program office and lawyers responsible for implementing the Con- gressional mandate. Unable to resolve their disagreements in the agencywide review process, the issue was taken to the Administrator. He decided that the program office would have to evaluate these cross media shifts and consider them in the regulation.

This evaluation involved a consider- able commitment of program office resources. EPA first had to develop a risk assessment methodology specifically designed to compare the risks of the land disposal of untreated wastes to the risks of treatment of those same wastes.27 This assessment had to include all hazardous wastes disposed on the land, many different land disposal and treatment technologies, and a number of environmental pathways. Among the releases included were landfill and surface impoundment leachates, landfill and surface impoundment air emissions, landfill and surface impoundment surface water runoff, incinerator air emissions, incinerator scrubber water discharge, and incinerator scrubber sludge and ash disposal.

Once cross media shifts were identified, the program office also had to find a way to consider them in the regulations without violating the statutory requirements. This was particularly challenging because, rather than using the results of the comparative risk analysis to specify optimal (e.g., least risk) disposal or treatment practices, EPA interpreted the statutory provisions to require waste treatment, cross media effects notwithstanding. Thus, EPA contrived a regulatory structure to deal with these cross media shifts within the statutory framework. That is, the treatment standards (which applied to residuals to be land disposed) would be based only on the perform- ance of technologies less risky than land disposal. This change explicitly complicated and slowed decision making; it also highlighted some of the complex tradeoffs that had to be made. The change did not, however, prohibit facilities from using the riskier technologies to comply with the land restrictions. Rather, the Agency promised to conduct additional analyses that might support future regulation of the treatment technologies that increased risks.

In spite of the demonstrated potential for increased risks, several parties criticized the Agency’s proposed approach, fearing that considering cross media shifts would weaken the restrictions on land disposal (e.g., Reference 28). EPA was accused of violating the narrow statutory mandate that required expeditious elimination of the land disposal of untreated wastes. In response to these pressures, consideration of cross media shifts was removed entirely from the land disposal restrictions program using the rationale that “. . . other regulatory standards . . . as- sure protection of human health and the environment.” 29 In other words, the cross media shifts created were delegated to other regulatory programs.

The proposed standards for management of sewage sludges represent a case in which multi-media analysis and regulatory impact analysis were conducted, but cross media shifts were not considered in regulatory decisions.3o Cross media shifts occurred because, in spite of all of the analysis involved, the regulatory framework for sludge was not truly integrated, nor entirely comprehensive.

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop a “comprehensive framework to regulate the disposal and utili- zation of sewage sludge” under statutory and, subsequently, court-imposed deadlines.3l Through the Agency’s internal review process, it was decided that these rules would be based on multi-media risk assessments of five sludge management practices. The analyses developed for this effort evaluated the risks that emissions from each practice posed through multiple media. The risk assessments used sophisticated methodologies, represent- ing several years of cooperative efforts between the program office and agency research scientists, as well as in-depth peer reviews (e.g., Reference 32). For each technology, chemical, and expo- sure pathway combination that posed unacceptable risks, the Agency developed regulatory requirements to reduce those risks.

Cross media shifts could still occur, however, for two reasons: First, the technology evaluations were not entirely comprehensive. For example, the evaluation of sewage sludge incineration did not include incinerator ash. Second, each technology was regulated independently. For example, EPA’s regulatory impact analysis indicated that cancer and non-cancer risks from sludge applied to non-agricultural lands would increase when regulated, because of the assumed shifts in disposal practices created by the relative stringency of the regulation of each technology. These shifts decreased the reductions in cancer risks (i.e., benefits) of regulating all sewage sludge

land application (agricultural and non- agricultural) by 60 percent-see Figure 2, The reductions in Cancer risks are the differences between estimated cancer risks from current (i.e., baseline) practices and the risks from predicted practices after regulation. Risk reductions are also referred to as “benefits” of a regulation. In Figure 2 the shaded bars represent estimated cancer risk. The cross hatched bars represent estimated risk reductions achieved by the regulation. Because regulating agricultural land application creates cross media shifts that increase risks, the benefits of regulating all land application practices are reduced.

Although this reduction in cancer benefits is substantial, in the larger context of all of the practices addressed by the sludge regulation (e.g., sewage sludge landfilling and incineration), they are less so: These reduced benefits represent only 1 percent of the net total reduction in estimated cancer risks from all sludge practices affected by the r e g ~ l a t i o n . ~ ~ In the next section we further discuss whether cross media shifts are “significant.”

Key Findings

Our major finding is that, although there has been an increased recognition of multi-media issues at EPA, cross media shifts are rarely evaluated in regulatory analysis. Given the single medium definitions of environmental problems created by statutes, institutions, regulations, and constituencies that have developed, this is not surpris- ing. Since most of the efforts to evaluate environmental problems are organized around these problem definitions, the information that might provide insights into limitations of the fragmented approach is rarely developed. In spite of the growing concern about their importance, there have been only limited, primarily anecdotal, analyses that support this view.

Are cross media shifts “significant” at all? The question is difficult to an- swer definitively for several reasons. First, it is hard to judge how large cross media shifts are or how often they occur because they are rarely evaluated. Second, because of the regulatory requirements that do exist, and from the few cases of analysis that have been conducted, most cross media shifts would be expected to be small. Third, whether such shifts are significant de- pends on the definition of the term “significant.” The risks associated with cross media shifts could be comparable to the risks of the original target of the regulatory action that created the cross media shift. In the cases reviewed here, cross media shifts represent a small part of a larger regulation-that is, they result from a subset of the facili-

28 J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.

0.2 - I

I

0.1

0.05

0

I I

i 1 Risk Reductions

1 Residual Risks I 1

Baseline Regulate Only Regulate All (No Regulation) Non-Agricultural Land Application

Land Application (As Proposed)

Increased Risks (Lost Benefits) from Cross Media Shifts

Figure 2. SI- RIA.33

Estimated risks and benefits of regulating land application. Source: Sewage

ties affected by a regulation, such as facilities incinerating solvent wastes containing metals (for the land disposal restrictions). The point is not that risks from cross media shifts are neces- w i l y significant or greater than risks from practices before regulation; rather we are arguing that 1) the question cannot be answered without further analysis; and 2) the more integrated approach is likely to suggest more effective and efficient solutions. In other words, cross media shifts may be avoid- able if the regulation were structured differently.

Proponents of the existing framework for regulation might argue that the single medium approach can adequately address cross media shifts. We would argue that this may be true, but i t is difficult to be confident without an explicit evaluation of cross media shifts-an evaluation that is rarely un- dertaken. Our more general concern is that the single medium approach fosters a misleading accounting system- one which fails to account for actual changes in risk created by regulatory actions. Although cross media shifts may not impose “significant” risks, cross media shifts may create other important effects. As discussed above, the single medium framework and the single medium accounting that follows, bias decision makers against more comprehensive approaches, such as

pollution prevention. In addition, the single medium approach and the reliance on other regulatory programs to capture any cross media shifts contrib- ute to the problems that arise when decision makers do not fully appreciate that a decision in one regulatory program affects other regulatory programs.

The relationships between regulatory programs and cross media shifts are discussed in intra-agency regulatory development and review groups. These forums have provided a mecha- nism to identify cross media shifts, but (to date) have not provided a means for considering cross media shifts in regulations. For EPA’s program offices, the key concern remains the viability of one’s own program and standards. Thus, dis- cussions in these intra-agency groups focus on arguments of consistency and “turf,” not on developing integrated solutions.

As the cases in the previous section illustrate, when cross media shifts are identified, either in regulatory analyses, in policy studies, or in working group deliberations, finding ways to consider such shifts in regulations remains difficult. Neither statutes nor the requirement for regulatory impact analyses provide guidance on how to incorporate such information into the single medium regulatory framework. Indeed, multi-media evaluations may

generate information that contradicts the statutory framework. Trying to use criteria not specified by statutes for current decisions creates major disrup- tion and is often judged illegal by the courts (e.g., Reference 34). As statutory requirements become increasingly pre- scriptive, Congress appears to be less receptive to considering “complica- tions” such as cross media shifts.28 Strong political pressures encourage EPA to promulgate regulations quick- ly, strictly conforming with the statutory mandates. Thus, regulatory decisions at EPA have not used information on cross media shifts, even in the rare instances it was available. Instead, decision makers have decided to dele- gate these cross media problems to other program offices.

Winds of Change or Wishful Thinking?

Because there are strong forces that help sustain the single medium approach to regulation, it is unlikely to wither away unless it begins to crumble under its own weight. There are two possible ways for cross media concerns to receive more attention. One is for an environmental catastrophe or crisis to occur-a crisis that motivates a reeval- uation of the current single medium structure. The second is to develop convincing information on the limitations of the current regulatory struc-

January 1990 Volume 40, No. 1 29

i

ture and .on the viability of alterna- tives.

In many ways, the system of environmental policy is under major stresses. These stresses include “new” pollution problems that represent cross media shifts, such as some air toxics sources and incinerator ash disposal. Other non-cross media crises in the current system include the difficulties of siting facilities such as landfills or incinerators, the challenges of nuclear waste disposal, and the controversies of hazardous materials transport and emergency planning. More generally, the regulatory system will come under increasing strains in the coming decades as most of the relatively inexpensive fixes for pollution problems have already been implemented. There will be a need to search for innovative solutions. Unless these environmental concerns are directly linked to cross media shifts, however, they may not lead to more widespread application of integrated environmental management practices.

The sequential, incremental approach of single medium programs may have served well in the past, but it may not be a useful approach for the future. Is it really sensible to reduce the increasingly small increments of pollution permitted in discharges with increasingly sophisticated and expensive requirements? It seems to us that in this situation, decision makers will need more integrated analysis to better understand all of the consequences of their decisions and to ensure that their decisions result in actual risk reductions or environmental improvements.

A Modest Policy Agenda

Improvemenb in information and analysis of cross media problems can be achieved through a concerted effort on the part of regulators, academia, policy makers, and industry. A t present, there is a vast amount of information on vari- ous environmental activities, but its quality is quite variable, and it is of limited usefulness for policy decisions. Moreover, the trend appears to be moving toward increasing the amount of information on a large variety of emissions. A new national “right-to- know” program identifying toxics emissions to all media may provide the information that will make cross media issues more e~plicit.3~ This information, if validated properly, can serve as the basis for identifying important potential problem areas. (To help with the organization of environmental statistics, it has been suggested that the Federal Government establish a cen- tral, non-regulatory organization to compile and report information on the environment and environmental programs, analogous to the Bureau of La-

bor Statistics.% The key mission of such an organization would be one of “environmental truth telling.”)

More generally, government, academia, and industry should continue to improve the conduct, application, and presentation of risk and regulatory assessment techniques. I t has been suggested that EPA establish a “focal point” within the Agency to provide the leadership necessary to “improve the agency’s analytic base beyond its immediate single-media [sic] and short-term needs.” Although many uncertainties exist and will remain, risk assessment provides an invaluable tool to evaluate many important aspects of environmental issues, includ- ing risk comparisons across media.

Providing better information is a key part of the problem, but it is only useful when applied to actual real world decisions. This can be done through analyses of particular regulations as well as through development of integrated regulatory strategies.

Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) are now required on all proposed regulations that have major economic im- p a c t ~ . ~ ~ Where appropriate, cross media considerations should be intro- duced: As a recent review of RIAs at EPA notes, “[RIAs] have increased awareness of the environmental results of EPA’s regulations, provided a framework for comparing regulations both within a single medium and across media, identified cross-media effects, and improved analytic techniques.” 23 Congress and the Executive branch should encourage these analyses to highlight the consequences of decisions made under the current regulatory framework. Such encouragement is important because these analyses are often complex and difficult, and because they generate information that may argue against current decision criteria.

EPA could also renew its commitment to evaluating integrated regulatory strategies. Our research demonstrates, however, that the single medium view, which defeated previous efforts to implement integrated approaches, still dominates regulatory design and decision making. Further research is needed to provide a more systematic understanding of cross media shifts. Such research should evaluate the potential importance of cross media shifts and suggest how information on these shifts could be better in- corporated into regulatory decisions. Because the statutory framework and Agency review processes have not provided adequate mechanisms to consider cross media shifts, research is also needed on the relative effectiveness of different institutions and approaches for addressing a host of complex, and sometimes subtle, environmental problems. Potential sponsors of such re-

eearch include EPA, the National Sci- ence Foundation, other research foun- dations, and professional and industry associations.

condurlonr

In addressing any problem, it is nat- ural and important to simplify the problem into manageable components. The choice of components, however, is critical to achieving a reasonable solu- tion. This paper has argued that the existing federal framework for environmental regulation gives short shrift to cross media problems. Whether this is a serious limitation of the framework or just a minor oversight remains to be seen. We have suggested several modest changes to the existing framework that would help determine the size of the cross media problem.

Although this evaluation may suggest a need for statutory reform and integration as a means to address cross media shifts, this conclusion is a bit premature. Our understanding of the importance of cross media shifts and the effects of delegating such problems among regulatory programs is limited.

While our analysis of existing attempts to address cross media issues suggests that the federal response has been inadequate and ineffective, it is important to recognize that institutions are slow to adapt. Organizations for addressing emerging problems quite naturally lag behind the discov- ery of such problems. The challenge is to make sure that this lag is short enough to allow society to develop a satisfactory response.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Granger Morgan for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Decision, Risk and Management Science Program of the National Sci- ence Foundation. The views in this paper are solely those of the authors.

References

1. Final Re ort of the Philadelphia Inte- grated gnuironmental Management Project, U.S. EPA OPPE, December 1986.

2. R. W. Dunlap, F. C. McMichael, ‘.‘Re- ducing coke plant effluent,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 1 0 654 (1976).

3. A. V. Kneese, B. T. Bower, Environ- mental Quality and Residuals Manage- ment, Baltimore: Resources for the Fu- ture, 1979.

4. Controlling Cross Media Pollution, Conservati& Foundation, Washington, D. C., 1984.

5. G. Hoffnagle, “Advice to congress (president’s message),” JAPCA 38: 985 (1988).

6. Clean Air Standards Attainment Act of 1987, Report of the Committee on Enui-

30 J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.

arative Perspective, K . Bailes, (Ed.). b oston: Univ. Press of Amer., 1985.) 9. Protecting Human Health and the En-

vironment Through Improved Manage- ment US. CAO, (GAO/RCED-88-101), Washington, D. C., August 1988.

10. The Federal Government Role in the Federal System: The Dynamics of Growth. Advisory Commission on Inter- overnmental Relations, Washington, 8. C., 1981, as discussed in Reference 13.

11. B. G. Rabe, Fragmentation and Inte- gration in State Environmental Man- agement, Washington, D. C., Conserva- tion Foundation, 1986.

12. I,. Lave, E. Malib, “At risk: The framework for replating toxic substances,” Environ. Set. Technol. 2 3 386 (1989).

13. R. W. Hahn, “The political economy of environmental regulation: Towards a unifyin framework,” Working Paper 88-33,t chool of Urban and Public Af- fairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1987, forthcomin in Public Choice.

14. Unfinrshecf Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Prob- lems, US. EPA, February 1987.

15. D. Beardsley, “Letter to Ron Wyzga, Chair, Integrated Environmental Man-

ement Subcommittee, SAB,” undat- 3, appears as Appendix A in Reference 32.

16. Santa Clara Valley Integrated Enui- ronmental Management Project, US. EPA, PPPE, (Revised Stage I Report). washington, D. C., May 30,1986.

17. Baltimore Integrated Environmental Manu ement Project: Phase I Report, U.S. l P A , OPPE, Washington, D. C., May 1987.

January 1990 Volume 40, No. 1

18. Kanawha Valle , West Virginia Toxics Screening S t u i Report (Final), U.S. EPA, OPPE, d ashington, D. C., July 1987.

19. “Pollution revention policy state- ment,” US. EPA, Federal Register 54: 3845 (1989).

20. R. W. Hahn, “An evaluation of options for reducing hazardous waste,” Harvard Enuiron. Law Rev. 1 2 201 (1988).

21. W. K. hi l ly , Testimony before US. Congress, House, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materi- als, May 25,1989.

22. Technical Support Document for Land A plication.. . of Sewage Sludge, U.S. EfA, OW, (PB89-136576), 1989

23. EPA$ Use o Benefit-Cost Analysis, US. EPA,. d P P E , (EPA-230-05-87- 028). Washin

latory investigation,” US. EPA, O P ~ , Federal Register 50 42037 (1985).

25. “Hazardous waste management system; Land disposal restrictions; proposed rule,” U.S. EPA, OSW, Federal Register 51: 1602 (1986).

26. “The Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments of 1984,” U.S. Congress,

27. Background Document on the Compar- ative Risk Analysis for RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions, US. EPA, OSW, Washington, D. C., December 27,1985.

28. J. D. Dingell, e t al. Letter to Lee M. Thomas, US. EPA, March 4,1986, appears in US. Congress, House, Commit- tee on Energy and Commerce. EPA’s Proposed Land Ban Regulations (Serial No. 99-84), February 19,1966,205-2!3.

29. “Proposed approach to comparative risk assessment” in “Land disposal restrictions for first third scheduled wastes; proposed rule,” U.S. EPA, OSW, Federal Register 53: 11774 (1988).

30. “Standards for the disposal of sewage sludge (proposed rule),” US. EPA, OW, Federal Register 54: 5746 (1989).

31. US., Court of Appeals (DC Circuit), “NRDC v. EPA,” 79OF.2d287,1986.

32. Review of the Offtce of Policy, Plan- ning, and Evaluation’s Integrated En-

n, D. C., August, 1987. 24. “Methylene c T Joride; Initiation of re u-

(PL 98-616).

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

*

26ERC1263), 1987. “Title 111 Fact Sheet: Emergency Plan- ning and Community Right-to-Know’’ (Revised), US. EPA, August 1988. P. Portney, “Reformin environment:! regulation: Three m d e s t proposals, Issues in Science and Technology 4 2, .. 74 (1988). “Federal regulation” (Executive Order 12291), US. The President, Federal Register 46: 13193 (1981).

Mr. Hahn is a Resident Scholar with the American Enterprise Insti- tute and an Associate Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Mr. Mal& is a Senior Analyst with Jel- linek, Schwartz, Connolly & Fresh- man, Inc., an environmental policy consulting firm. This paper was sub- mitted for peer review on May 12, 1989. The revised manuscript was received November 6,1989.

31

can regulatory institutions cope with cross media …i can regulatory institutions cope with cross...

Documents