EPA overstates benefit of new formaldehyde rule based on officially discredited science:
The Washington Examiner reports:
White House officials concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significantly overstated the economic benefits of a proposed rule cutting formaldehyde emissions, largely because the agency persisted in relying on scientific claims that federal peer reviewers deemed incredible.
White House officials concluded that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) significantly overstated the economic benefits of a
proposed rule cutting formaldehyde emissions, largely because the agency
persisted in relying on scientific claims that federal peer reviewers
deemed incredible.
“The EPA has been gaming the system by grossly exaggerating economic
benefits to justify its costly regulations,” Sen. David Vitter, R-La.,
the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
said in pointing out the White House review on Thursday. “This recent
review by an office within the Obama White House goes to show that even
his Administration cannot support EPA’s practice. It’s not just a minor
exaggeration: the EPA’s lowest range of benefits is ten times greater
than it should be.”
EPA officials predicted last year that a rule lowering formaldehyde
emissions — which have a number of causes, including some materials
common in the construction industry — would annually generate at least
$91 million and perhaps as much as $278 million. The White House Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) lowered expectations, in
May, countering that the policy would only generate $9-$48 million each
year.
“When the rule went to OIRA, EPA estimated substantial benefits
from reduced asthma cases in children and reduced infertility in adult
women,” the Center for Progressive Reform’s Lisa Hienzarling explained in June.
“At OIRA, these benefits were demoted from a combined positive effect
of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year to a simple ‘+B’ –
the notation chosen for unquantified benefits.”
In doing so, the White House team sided with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), which reported in 2011 that the EPA “overstated” the
health risks posed by formaldehyde. “Overall, the committee found that
EPA’s draft assessment was not prepared in a logically consistent
fashion, lacks clear links to an underlying conceptual framework and
does not sufficiently document methods and criteria used to identify
evidence for selecting and evaluating studies,” The New York Times quotes the NAS report as saying.
The EPA said at the time it would “examine how best to respond to
[NAS] recommendations,” but the White House review suggests the agency
failed to keep that pledge.
Agency (EPA) significantly overstated the economic benefits of a
proposed rule cutting formaldehyde emissions, largely because the agency
persisted in relying on scientific claims that federal peer reviewers
deemed incredible.
“The EPA has been gaming the system by grossly exaggerating economic
benefits to justify its costly regulations,” Sen. David Vitter, R-La.,
the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
said in pointing out the White House review on Thursday. “This recent
review by an office within the Obama White House goes to show that even
his Administration cannot support EPA’s practice. It’s not just a minor
exaggeration: the EPA’s lowest range of benefits is ten times greater
than it should be.”
EPA officials predicted last year that a rule lowering formaldehyde
emissions — which have a number of causes, including some materials
common in the construction industry — would annually generate at least
$91 million and perhaps as much as $278 million. The White House Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) lowered expectations, in
May, countering that the policy would only generate $9-$48 million each
year.
“When the rule went to OIRA, EPA estimated substantial benefits
from reduced asthma cases in children and reduced infertility in adult
women,” the Center for Progressive Reform’s Lisa Hienzarling explained in June.
“At OIRA, these benefits were demoted from a combined positive effect
of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year to a simple ‘+B’ –
the notation chosen for unquantified benefits.”
In doing so, the White House team sided with the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), which reported in 2011 that the EPA “overstated” the
health risks posed by formaldehyde. “Overall, the committee found that
EPA’s draft assessment was not prepared in a logically consistent
fashion, lacks clear links to an underlying conceptual framework and
does not sufficiently document methods and criteria used to identify
evidence for selecting and evaluating studies,” The New York Times quotes the NAS report as saying.
The EPA said at the time it would “examine how best to respond to
[NAS] recommendations,” but the White House review suggests the agency
failed to keep that pledge.
Comments
Post a Comment