SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 22A

LENGTH: 558 words

HEADLINE: Scientists join push to pin down EPA

BYLINE: Benita M. Dodd, Staff

SOURCE: JOURNAL

BODY:
THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency needs to get a handle on its science.

We've said that before. But this time, conservatives aren't a voice in the wilderness: The scientific community is saying it, too. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is calling on the EPA to strengthen its science. The recommendation is based on consultations with hundreds of scientists, engineers and managers from within and outside the EPA, and on a review of hundreds of agency documents. Although some of its scientific practices have improved, there's a " continuing basis" for concerns about the quality of research behind the agency's regulatory decisions, said NRC scientists.

"We need scientific information to avoid wastefully targeting inconsequential problems while ignoring greater risks," the report said.

It recommended creation of a deputy administrator position for science and technology --- someone with a scientific background --- to make certain regulations are supported by the science. Nobody does that now.

A prime example of the need for someone with a scientific background in a decision-making position is the EPA's announcement this month that it is phasing out chlorpyrifos, better known as Dursban, after 30 years of safe and effective use. It's the most common pesticide in the United States, used by millions of households and farmers, registered in 88 countries and found in 800 products.

The agency declared Dursban a potential health risk to children under the tough standards of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. It will no longer be used in U.S. day care centers, parks, hospitals, nursing homes and malls. Its use on crops will be restricted. It will be virtually eliminated from home, lawn and garden use.

"The time has come to review these pesticides for safety, and, where the science dictates, remove those chemicals that pose an unreasonable threat to human health and move to newer safer, alternatives," said EPA Administrator Carol Browner.

Browner is convincing us that regulatory zeal is at least as great a risk as Dursban. The agency seems intent on issuing ever more restrictive regulations without regard for the science or the financial havoc they wreak.

Browner says more than 300 tests found chlorpyrifos had the "potential" to harm children. Dow Agroscience cited 3,600 tests that found that "currently labeled uses of chlorpyrifos products provide wide margins of safety for both adults and children." The World Health Organization/Food and Agricultural Organization supported chlorpyrifos' safety. The Dursban that was for 30 years used to safely and cheaply protect crops, to annihilate roaches, ants, fleas, termites and other pests must now be replaced by something more expensive and possibly less effective.

The Supreme Court already has agreed to consider, in an appeal filed by industry and several states over the EPA's tougher standards for air quality, whether the cost of complying with federal air quality standards should be weighed against the health benefits. Congress can ensure, by acting on the recommendations of the National Research Council, that cost-benefit analysis, along with sound scientific evidence, applies EPA-wide.

The NRC report can be found on the Internet at www.nap. edu/books/0309071275/html.

LOAD-DATE: June 29, 2000