Do We Really Need Regulators?

In the news recently:

The [EPA] will lose $1.6 billion as part of a deal between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to produce $38 billion in spending cuts for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year, according to legislation made public today. (1)

That, by the way, is a 16 percent cut to the EPA's overall budget.  And if you don't think that will not seriously impact what the EPA does, well you are living in a land of denial.  For starters, a lot of money goes out in the form of grants and loans to States to pay for things like drinking-water projects and sewer projects. (2)

But maybe Representative Mike Simpson is right when he states: “The Obama administration has dumped money into the EPA over the past two years, and what the American people have seen as a result is a slew of new regulations pouring out of the agency,” (1)

But has 1.6 billion been wasted?  Has there been a "slew" of new regulations that are inappropriate?  Make no mistake, The EPA under President Obama takes a much different tone than what was set under President Bush (see my post for one example).  But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actions are predicated on perception, and perception can be easily manipulated.  That's one of my goals for this blog, to force perception to base itself on the data, not the dogma, the rhetoric, or the agenda.

Agendas are set based on the dominant thought of those pushing it.  Right now, that thought takes one of two predominant tracks that are equally detrimental to the common good - public health and protecting the environmental.  Business is not the problem, neither is regulation.  The problem is lack of empathy regarding each other's concerns and needs.

This is not a Democrat/Republican battle, but a battle between those who dominate the conversation within each.  Each side uses Saul Alinsky's tactic number 11, as described in his book, "Rules for Radicals."

"If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside"

The EPA is not the bad guy, neither are the factories, refineries, constructions sites, and industries that give us the products we use and employment we need.  Stop painting them with the brush of "job killer" or "polluter,"

Now I can say this emphatically: My EHS cohorts, my profession, the people I teach, and the businesses that employee them, take the topic of environmental health and safety seriously.  They are not afraid of OSHA, EPA, DOT, or any other agency coming to visit.  They do what is necessary to keep their people safe, protect public health, and minimize their Impact on the environment.

We're not talking just a handful here.  My fellow EHS professionals that I know, meet, and teach, work for all the major corporations, as well as government.  I know them and I know what effort they and their employers put into not just compliance, but into making EHS work.

Now that's not to say that when a regulator comes to visit, they are all giddy with excitement that they are there to inspect them.  There is a reason why I call this blog the "Wacky World of Waste."  Compliance is often difficult and puts the EHS professional between a rock and a hard place.  Sometimes it is outright impossible to comply.  Most investigators understand this, but they cannot look the other way by ignoring it.  Making sound law and regulations is an art and one I champion for constantly.

So are the rules enforced and promoted by the EPA as bad as Representative Mike Simpson makes them out to be?  Are they really inappropriate?  Do they impact business to such a degree that we should de-fund the EPA by 16 percent?

Lets look at air pollution, since this seems to be the driver for this perception: (3)

• In 1970 we got the Clean Air Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon, a Republican (and not what one would call a moderate).  This law regulates six six air pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  In 1971 the EPA is created to administer this.
• In 1977 we get the Clean Air Act Amendments which brings forth Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). Signed into law by President Carter (a Democrat) 
• In 1990 we get another amendment to the CAA which requires a program to control 189 toxic pollutants (called Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).  Signed into law by the first President Bush (a Republican)

Now lets look at the history for two of those pollutants of concern, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. (4)

Now ask yourself the question: Has obtaining cleaner air negatively impacted US business?  Yeah, I know, the air is cleaner because we lost a lot of heavy industry (e.g. steel, metal plating) to foreign destinations. But our population has increased significantly and many of the industries in existence in 1970 are still with us today.

The Clean Air Act worked.  The air in Los Angeles, for example, is much cleaner then when I lived there.  This was brought about by a Law and then industry's compliance with that Law.  Did it cost business?  Yes.  Did it hurt some business? Yes.  Is the air healthier? Yes.  Did our GDP increase in spite of it?  Yes.

So now the question that needs to be asked is this:  Will reducing the EPA's budget by 16% help the cause of EHS?  I say no.  Without a strong watchdog, the predominant business model will always swing towards the lowest common denominator.

That's going to make it more difficult for the EHS profession and the corporate attitude that is needed to support what we do and the costs associated.

Time will tell.


.