United States Science Advisory EPA SAB-EC-90-021C
6041 Environmental Protection Board September 1990
The Report Of
The Strategic Options
Subcommittee
Relative Risk
Reduction Project
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency; hence
the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the view
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of other
Federal agencies. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute a recommendation for use.
This particular project was conducted at the request of the
EPA Administrator and addresses a broader range of issues and
concerns than most SAB reports. Consequently, many of the
findings and recommendations in this report have a greater
policy-orientation than is usually the case.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Strategic Options Subcommittee of the Relative Risk
Reduction Strategies Committee identified strategy options for
reducing risks from a sample of 13 environmental problems. In
addition, the Subcommittee developed eight broad recommendations
for environmental risk reduction:
1) EPA should establish priorities based on the potential for
risk reduction.
2) Pollution prevention should be the most important approach
for reducing environmental risks over the long term.
3) In order to reduce risk and prevent pollution in a
significant way, EPA must substantially broaden its kit of
environmental protection tools, especially to emphasize
economic incentives and information transfer.
4) Environmental protection must be integrated into other policy
areas, in as fundamental a manner as are economic concerns.
5) In order to integrate environmental policy into other
policies, a special governmental mechanism should be created
in the Executive Branch.
6) EPA should continue to perform analyses similar to the
present Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Project and
integrate the results into the Agency's strategic planning
process.
7) EPA's annual budget should more directly reflect risk-based
priorities.
8) The Agency should develop an enhanced environmental education
and training program for both professionals and the general
public.
Key words; Risk reduction; pollution prevention; risk assessment
ii
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES COMMITTEE
Strategic Options Subcommittee
Chairman
Mr. Alvin Aim, Science Applications International Corporation,
McLean, Virginia
Members
Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, General Motors Corporation, Warren,
Michigan
Dr. Richard Andrews, Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Mr. Richard Conway, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston,
West Virginia
Dr. Anthony Cortese, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
Dr. Roger Kasperson, Graduate School of Geography, Clark
University, Worcester, Massachusetts
Dr. Henry Kelly, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Paul Portney, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Dr. William Ryan, National Environmental Law Center, Boston,
Massachusetts
Ms. Nancy Seidman, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management, Boston, Massaschusetts
Dr. Robert Stavins, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Marcia Williams, Browning-Ferris Industries, Washington, D.C.
Staff
Mr. Frederick W. Allen, Science Advisory Board (on loan),
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Mrs. Kathleen Conway, Designated Federal Official, Science
Advisory Board, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
iii
-------
Dr. C. Richard Cothern, Designated Federal Official, Science
Advisory Board, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Darlene Sewell, Staff Secretary, Science Advisory Board,
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Consultants
Ms. Patricia Kotman, Eastern Research Group, Arlington,
Massachusetts
Mr. Stuart Sessions, Sobotka and Co., Washington, D.C.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 The Problem 1
1.2 The Subcommittee 1
1.3 Framework and Methodology 2
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 3
1.5 Additional Perspectives on Reducing Environmental
Risks 8
2.0 INTRODUCTION 10
2.1 Progress and Problems 10
2.2 Challenges 12
2.2.1 Increasing Importance of Diverse
Sources of Pollution 12
2.2.2 Ineffectiveness of Traditional
Approaches in Addressing Residual
and Emerging Environmental Problems . . 13
2.2.3 Environmental Risks and EPA's
Priorities 13
2.2.4 Piecemeal Approaches to
Environmental Problems 14
2.2.5 Increasing Costs of Environmental
Regulation 14
2.2.6 Pressures of Population Growth and
Economic Development 15
2.2.7 Increasing Time Required for Reversing
Environmental Problems 15
2.3 Contents of This Report 16
3.0 METHODOLOGY 17
3.l Subcommittee Charge and General Approach 17
3.2 Selecting Environmental Problems For Study 19
3.3 Developing a List of Potential Risk Reduction
Options For Each Problem 20
3.4 Selecting Most Promising Options For
Each Problem 21
3.5 Developing Cross-Cutting Strategies and
Recommendations 22
3.6 Commentary 23
-------
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Risk Reduction 27
4.3 Pollution Prevention 28
4.4 A Broader Kit of Tools 32
4.4.1 Scientific and Technical Measures 34
4.4.2 Provision of Information 36
4.4.3 Market Incentives 37
4.4.4 Conventional Regulations 41
4.4.5 Enforcement 42
4.4.6 Cooperation with Other Agencies and
Nations 43
4.5 Integrating Environmental Protection With Other
Policy Areas 44
4.5.1 Energy Policy 45
4.5.2 Agriculture Policy 47
4.5.3 Tax Policy 50
4.5.4 Transportation, Housing and Commercial
Development Policies 51
4.5.5 Natural Resource Policy 53
4.5.6 Foreign Policy 55
4.6 Federal Environmental Policymaking 56
4.7 Risk-Based Strategic Planning 57
4.8 Risk-Based Budgeting 59
4.9 Education and Training 60
4.10 Conclusion 63
APPENDICES
A. Optional Strategies For the 13 Specific Environmental
Problems 65
A.I Criteria Air Pollutants 66
A. 2 Toxic Air Pollutants 70
A. 3 Radon 72
A.4 Indoor Air Pollution 74
A.5 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 76
A.6 Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming 78
A.7 Non-Point Source Discharges to Surface Water ... 81
A. 8 Wetlands 84
A.9 Estuaries, Coastal Waters and Oceans 88
A. 10 Habitat Alteration 91
A. 11 Hazardous Waste 94
A.12 Municipal Solid Waste 97
A. 13 Pesticides 101
AA.l STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS..104
AA.2 STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED ACCORDING TO TOOLS ... 109
AA.3 STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED ACCORDING TO POLICIES . . 116
vi
-------
B. PERSPECTIVES ON REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS 12C
B.I Alternative Points of Intervention to Reduce
Risks 120
B.2 Pollution Prevention As a Key Theme in
Risk Reduction 122
B.3 The Desirability of Strategies That Address
Multiple Problems 126
B.4 Additional Comparisons of Environmental
Problems: EPA and Social Spending On
Them, and Public Opinion About Them 126
B.5 Geographic Diversity and the Need for Local
Flexibility in Risk Reduction Strategies 128
B.6 The Role of Uncertainty in Implementing Risk
Reduction Strategies 132
B.7 Programmatic Disconnects, Particularly in the
Industrial Sector 132
B.8 Regulatory Complexity May Be Counter-Productive . 133
C. Categories and Evaluation of Strategy Options 134
C.I Description of the Strategy Categories 134
C.2 Description of Rating Criteria for Strategy
Options 139
C.3 Evaluation Matrix 140
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
B.I The Hazard Chain Model 121
B.2 Public Ranking of Environmental Problems 129
B.3 Comparing Risks to Other Factors 130
viii
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Problem
Beginning with the enactment of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970 and continuing with the founding of the
Environmental Protection Agency in the same year, the United States
launched an unprecedented effort to address environmental and
health problems caused by human activities. Many laws and programs
have been enacted and implemented since then, resulting in
important improvements in environmental quality.
Unfortunately, we still face daunting environmental problems.
Stubborn portions of older problems have resisted our control
efforts and newly identified problems appear increasingly difficult
to solve. Economic growth, increasing population, the global
nature of some problems, the diversity of sources of contamination,
the time and resources required to reverse many problems, and
difficulties with the approach, structure and priorities of
existing programs all make the job of environmental protection
harder.
1.2 The Subcommittee
Recognizing that the nature of the environmental problems
facing the U.S. and the world is changing, the Administrator of
EPA asked the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) to undertake a
project to advise him broadly on new directions for reduction of
environmental risks. To undertake this project, the SAB set up a
special committee, the Relative Risk Reduction Strategies
Committee, which in turn set up three subcommittees. This report
summarizes the work and conclusions of the Strategic Options
Subcommittee, which was assigned to identify and analyze a range
of the most promising types of risk reduction options that EPA
should consider, and to provide a procedure for continuing work by
EPA along these lines.
The twelve members of the Subcommittee had a range of
technical expertise and viewpoints. In developing promising risk
reduction options and thematic recommendations for EPA, the
Subcommittee primarily considered factors such as cost, risk
-------
reduction, technological feasibility, and implementation
requirements associated with each option.
1.3 Framework and Methodology
The Subcommittee developed and analyzed risk reduction options
in four steps:
1. Selecting environmental problems for study. The
Subcommittee selected 13 environmental problems for
analysis generally those posing the greatest risks.
The Subcommittee thus considered only a portion of EPA's
programmatic domain. However, the 13 problems are
sufficiently rich and diverse to suggest patterns likely
to emerge in a broader analysis.
2. Developing an extensive list of potential risk
reduction strategies for each problem. The Subcommittee
developed potential strategies for each problem. To aid
in the identification of these options, the Subcommittee
outlined a series of six general approaches: scientific
research and technical innovation, provision of
information, market incentives, conventional
regulations, enforcement measures, and cooperation with
other agencies and nations. Three assumptions were made
in generating strategies: (1) existing risk reduction
measures already in place would remain so; (2)
strategies outside of existing legislative mandates could
be considered; (3) strategies would not be limited to
those within EPA's scope of responsibility, although
EPA's role should be emphasized.
3. Selecting the most promising options for each problem.
The Subcommittee developed evaluation criteria which it
used to help select preferred strategies for each
problem. Strategies for the different problem areas were
not ranked against each other. Subcommittee members
wrote short papers on each environmental problem,
addressing the risks posed by the problem, the policy
background, and the strategy options. These papers
constitute Appendix A to this report.
-------
4. Developing cross-cutting strategy options anj
recommendations. Many of the strategy options selectee
for one problem were similar or even identical to
strategies for another problem. In its final choice of
options, the Subcommittee preferred options that would
realize benefits across several problem areas.
The Subcommittee believes that a methodology like the one used
in this effort has potential to assist EPA in identifying preferred
risk reduction options. Any such process must be systematic and
comprehensive, and force Agency personnel to take a broad and
innovative perspective.
The Subcommittee also examined the generic approaches that
frequently appeared to have promise among the individual strategy
options for the problem areas. This investigation prompted several
of the Subcommittee's broad recommendations regarding EPA's
approach to risk reduction supporting greater use of market
incentives and information strategies, for example.
The strategy options for individual environmental problems
should not be construed as recommendations, and they do not
represent the primary product of the Subcommittee's work. The
strategy options represent reasonable approaches to each
environmental problem, but they have not been analyzed in any
formal way sufficient to warrant asserting that they are the best
approaches to each problem. Nor is the list of strategy options
necessarily comprehensive; most likely there are other strategy
options that would also offer effective responses to the
environmental problems we have examined.
1.4 Conclusions
The Subcommittee's analysis of strategies to address its
sample of 13 key environmental problems suggests that fundamental
changes are necessary achieve significant further progress in
environmental protection. To this end, the Subcommittee made eight
recommendations:
1. EPA should establish priorities based on tha potential for
risk reduction.
-------
Over the past 20 years U.S. environmental policy has developed
in a piecemeal, ad hoc fashion. Laws have been passed at different
times and little attempt was made to coordinate them. Nor was any
attempt made to compare the relative seriousness of different
environmental problems in order to make judgments about the
relative urgency of different environmental protection efforts.
But experience has taught us that not all environmental problems
are equally serious and not all protection efforts are equally
urgent. We must set environmental priorities.
These priorities should be based on an explicit comparison of
the relative risk posed by different environmental problems, and,
more specifically, on the opportunities for cost-effective risk
reduction. The recommendations that follow in this report spell
out more specific measures that EPA, Congress and others should
take to make this principle a reality.
2. Pollution prevention should be the most important approach
for reducing environmental risks over the long term.
The recommendation that EPA should place a much greater
emphasis on pollution prevention as the preferred way to address
environmental risks is not new. Pollution prevention represents
a way of thinking about alleviating environmental risks that is
fundamentally different from the pollution control approach long
practiced in this country. Pollution prevention emphasizes
avoiding the creation of risks from pollution or from natural
resource depletion by changing raw materials, technologies of
production and products, as opposed to attempting to control or
mitigate what has already been created. Pollution prevention can
also include changing activities and the location of those
activities so as not to harm sensitive ecosystems. In a number of
instances pollution prevention can be the most cost-effective way
or even the only way to reduce environmental risks. Pollution
prevention is also the key to sustainable development and
protection of natural resources for future generations (examples
are banning lead in gasoline or substituting for CFCs). This
approach is applicable to a broad array of problems and can be
implemented through a variety of policy tools.
No list of recommendations can cover the myriad of ways that
pollution prevention can be stimulated by public policy. In order
-------
to £>e successful, the responsibility for pollution prevention must
be accepted by all parts of EPA, the rest of the Federal
government, the States, the private sector and individual citizens.
3. In order to reduce risk and prevent pollution in a
significant way/ EPA must substantially broaden its
kit of environmental protection tools/ especially to
emphasize economic incentives and information transfer.
It is very clear to the Subcommittee that the most promising
strategies for risk reduction encompass a wide variety of policy
approaches. The Subcommittee identified six policy approaches
which EPA and other Federal agencies could employ to change the
behavior of individuals, corporations and other institutions to
reduce risk: 1) scientific research and technical innovation; 2)
provision of information; 3) market incentives; 4) conventional
regulatory standards; 5) enhanced enforcement; and 6) cooperation
with other agencies and nations. Oftentimes these approaches can
or need to be combined. For instance, marketable permit systems
can be combined with regulatory ceilings on emissions or discharges
to assure that certain minimum reductions are realized.
EPA needs to'overcome its bias against new approaches. Today,
when new approaches are examined, they tend to be held to a higher
level of performance than existing approaches. There are long
lists of known implementation problems with existing approaches but
the status quo continues partly because thorough evaluations of the
effectiveness and cost of existing programs are not routinely
performed. EPA needs to allocate resources to non-conventional
approaches and to give these types of measures serious
consideration in agency decision making. In this connection, EPA
might look closely at the strategy options discussed in this
report.
4. Environmental protection must be integrated into other
policy areas/ in as fundamental a manner as are economic
concerns.
Many types of government policies significantly affect the
environmental problems that EPA needs to address. These policy
-------
areas include, but are not limited to: 1) energy, 2) agriculture,
3) tax, 4ptransportation and housing, 5) natural resources, and
6) foreign policy. For example, many air pollutants and other
environmental problems (e.g. oil spills) arise from energy
production and use. Likewise, agricultural practices create much
of our remaining water pollution problems, as well as other
problems from pesticide and fertilizer use. Energy and
agriculture, as well as other areas of activity, are subject to
many government incentive and control programs.
It is critical that a framework be established to assure that
environmental objectives are part of other major Federal program
objectives. For example, agricultural policy should be aimed not
only at producing food and fiber, but also at reducing land run-
off and pesticide use. Energy policy should be aimed not only at
producing energy reliably and cheaply, but also at minimizing
environmental damage from extraction, transportation, production
and combustion. Environmental quality objectives need to be built
into major government legislation, policies and programs.
5. In order to integrate environmental policy into other
policies, a special governmental mechanism should be
created in the Executive Branch.
The broad environmental strategies discussed above for energy,
agriculture, tax, transportation, natural resource and foreign
policy areas require an institutional mechanism within the
Executive Branch. There are several means by which this might be
done: the Council on Environmental Quality could be expanded and
given clearer policy development responsibilities, a Cabinet
Council on the Environment could be reconstituted and given a
staff, or a new entity could be established. Another option would
be to create a new Environmental Policy Council (EPC), which might
be chaired and staffed by the Chairman of CEQ or it could be
jointly chaired by the Administrator of EPA (or Secretary of
Environment) and the Chairman of CEQ.
6. EPA should continue to perform analyses similar to the
present Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Project
and integrate the results into the Agency's
strategic planning process.
-------
The Agency needs to conduct the type of exercise undertaken
in this project and make it a part of its regular planning process.
It can do this internally, or jointly with outside groups. The use
of outside experts to suggest directions for priorities and
strategies has great merit, if these experts work closely with the
Agency.
In developing strategies, it is critically important that
certain elements exist: a) risk-based priorities must be updated
periodically; b) the strategies should be organized around solving
critical environmental problems, not around planning for the future
of existing programs; as such, it may be most helpful to look not
only at problems (such as the 13 we reviewed), but also sources
(e.g. automobiles, waterfront development), effects (e.g.
respiratory diseases, habitat reduction) and sectors that
contribute to the problem (e.g., energy, agriculture, etc.); c)
the Agency should then subject individual strategies to disciplined
analysis. The selected strategies should incorporate innovative
approaches and should be coordinated across program offices.
7. EPA's annual budget should more directly reflect risk-
based priorities.
Historically, EPA's budgets have reflected the costing-out of
regulatory mandates, with little focus on cost-effective risk
reduction. Accordingly, some of the highest risk environmental
problems, such as radon and other indoor air pollution, have
received only a small fraction of the EPA budget. Under the
present leadership, EPA now has greater concern for integrating
risks and priorities. However, EPA's leaders are not the only
people who play a role in determining EPA's budget.
The change in budget priorities need not and should not take
the form of radical, overnight change. Small but consistent
changes over time will accomplish the same objectives without undue
disruption. The changes in budget also do not need to make
allocations exactly proportional to risk and risk reduction. Some
risk reduction can be accomplished at low cost.
The Subcommittee specifically recommends that at the beginning
of the budgetary process, that the Administrator provide clear
advice to the program offices regarding certain high-risk areas
-------
that appear relatively unfunded. A second review should take place
just prior to the time the budget is sent to the Office of
Management and Budget.
8. The Agency should develop an enhanced environmental
education and training program for both professionals
and the general public.
Reducing current environmental risks and protecting against
future hazards requires a sophisticated knowledge of the biosphere
and the stresses which affect it, of the human activities which
cause the stresses, and of technologies and strategies which are
necessary to address these problems. Environmental professionals
and officials must also understand the economic, social, political,
and legal implications of developing and implementing solutions to
environmental problems. Education and training are essential not
only for environmental professionals but also for business people,
farmers, engineers, scientists, physicians and others who carry out
activities which affect or are affected by the environment, as well
as members of the general public.
The rapidity with which we are developing our understanding
of environmental problems requires continuing education and
training of the current workforce. EPA needs to expand its role
in supporting environmental education and training, especially at
the university level. This role is as important as any of the
Agency's other roles in encouraging risk reduction and will become
more important in the future as environmental problems become more
complex, interconnected and international in scope. EPA is
currently starting a new environmental education program. The
Subcommittee supports efforts in this direction.
1.5 Additional Perspectives on Reducing Environmental Risks
In the course of its deliberations the Subcommittee evaluated
several concepts that seem particularly helpful in thinking
systematically about risk reduction. Because of the limited time
available, some of these items were not completely considered or
analyzed. Some of these issues and topics are discussed in
Appendix B and include: a) the necessity of considering alternate
points for intervention in the chain of events leading to an
environmental risk or hazard; b) additional thoughts on the
rationale and approach to pollution prevention; c) the desirability
8
-------
of strategies that address multiple environmental problems; d) EPA
and social spending and public opinion on environmental problems;
e) the importance of local flexibility; f) the role of uncertainty
in implementing risk reduction strategies; g) the importance of
strategies that are integrated across media, industries and
sources; and h) the counterproductiveness of regulatory complexity.
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Progress and Problems
The beginning of the 1970s saw the dawn of a new environmental
awakening. In rapid fire, the Council for Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and EPA were created, laws were enacted and bureaucracies
were put in place. Seven major federal environmental statutes and
innumerable state and local laws and ordinances have been enacted
since that dramatic beginning. These laws address a broad array
of environmental problems: pollution of air, water and land; waste
disposal; exposure to toxic substances; harmful pesticides;
contaminated drinking water; and many more.
Each of these statutes generally deals with a single
environmental medium (air, water, drinking water), a single class
of pollutants (pesticides, toxic substances), or a single activity
(management of hazardous wastes). With few exceptions, the
approach adopted to implement them has involved regulating specific
sources of pollution (e.g., industrial plants, sewage treatment
facilities, automobiles, hazardous waste landfills) or specific
substances (e.g., lead). These conventional "command and control"
regulations have been established specifying the level of emissions
or discharges allowed from each source type, and/or the control
technologies each is required to use. The regulatory approach for
specific pollutants generally has been to ban them or to set limits
on their use on a chemical-by-chemical basis.
These regulatory efforts have been direct and forceful. They
have resulted in important improvements in environmental quality.
a) Air quality has been significantly improved through
efforts to reduce the emissions of criteria air
pollutants, such as SOx, NOx, particulate matter, lead,
and CO. SOx emissions are estimated to have been reduced
by over 40 percent from the early 1970's. VOC emissions,
a precursor to ozone, have been reduced by an estimated
30 percent and lead emissions by more than 90 percent.
b) The discharge of effluents by industrial and municipal
10
-------
sources has been sharply reduced. The great majority of
major industrial direct dischargers have installed "best
available" treatment technology to control their
effluents and well over 80 percent of municipalities
provide secondary treatment or better for their
waste water. Almost 90 percent of our country's public
water supply systems meet the health standards developed
by EPA for pollutants in drinking water.
c) Certain toxic substances that once were used widely, such
as lead, asbestos and several carcinogenic pesticides,
have been nearly eliminated from commerce and human
exposure has been reduced dramatically.
d) Management techniques for hazardous wastes have improved
in response to regulatory programs that have imposed
stringent treatment and disposal standards. And
abandoned hazardous waste sites, a legacy of poor
hazardous substance management practices in the past, are
being identified and remediated through both federal and
state programs.
To understand the progress we have made one can also look to
Eastern Europe and the USSR and see what would have happened if we
had not begun to enact stringent environmental protection programs
years ago. These countries face environmental problems of enormous
proportions, despite the fact that they do not have some of the
sources of pollution that we do, such as a large number of
automobiles.
Unfortunately, in spite of our environmental protection
programs and the progress we have made, we still face a number of
serious environmental problems. Many of these problems persist
despite well-established regulatory programs to deal with them. We
also face newly discovered problems that we are just beginning to
address. For example:
a) By-products of our industrial society are being shown to
affect the earth's climate and the stratospheric ozone
layer, which protects humans and other living species
from ultraviolet radiation.
b) The health standard for ozone still is exceeded in many
11
-------
urban areas; over 100 million people live in counties
that at least periodically violate the national ambient
air quality standard for ozone. More people live in
areas with elevated levels of ozone today than in 1970.
c) Non-point sources of water pollution result in
silt that carries toxic materials into water
bodies and harms ecologically sensitive areas.
d) Some pesticides and fertilizers used by the agricultural
sector to improve crop yields still present health risks
to applicators and farm workers, and contaminate both
surface and ground water.
e) Over 50 percent of our original wetlands, our most
biologically productive ecosystems, have been destroyed
or altered permanently by development activities and
agricultural practices.
f) Radon and other indoor air pollutants present a
significant health threat in many residences across the
country.
g) Tropical forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate
and threaten biological diversity.
2.2 Challenges
Despite progress over the last twenty years, we face a number
of stubborn old problems and daunting new challenges. Our
conventional regulatory approaches do not appear to be sufficient
to deal with many of these issues. The reasons include:
2.2.1 Increasing Importance of Diverse Sources of Pollution
The environment is affected by large scale human activities,
such as energy extraction and use, transportation, food production,
manufacturing, housing, and recreation. Actions by individuals
regarding where to live and work, what products to buy, and what
activities to pursue have collective impacts on local, regional,
and global environmental systems. Most large point sources of
pollution have now been addressed through conventional regulatory
means, often through end-of-pipe regulations. The remaining
12
-------
sources of pollution resulting from general economic activity and
lifestyle decisions are numerous and now are major contributors to
many environmental problems. In total they are causing
unprecedented changes to the biosphere. These sources strain the
limits of traditional regulatory programs. These limitations
involve the large numbers of individual processes and substances
that must be regulated; the burden of proof to justify proposed
regulations; the information requirements, and the time and costs
necessary to meet such a burden of proof, especially on a case by
case basis; the time and cost involved in issuing and enforcing
permits for a multiplicity of sources; the economic costs inherent
in controlling small (versus large) sources; and often excessive
rigidity inherent in such regulation.
2.2.2 Ineffectiveness of Traditional Approaches in Addressing
Residual and Emerging Environmental Problems
Many of the emerging environmental problems also are often
not very amenable to conventional regulations. Problems such as
indoor air pollution, indoor radon and agricultural chemical use
are very difficult to regulate. Problems such as ozone depletion
and climatic change are global in scope, requiring extensive
international cooperation and research. Unfortunately, the less
conventional approaches that may be appropriate for these problems
market incentives, information strategies, intergovernmental
cooperation or others are not yet well developed. The United
States has concentrated on conventional regulatory approaches to
environmental protection. This has left us with little practical
experience on the best methods to implement non-conventional
approaches, at a time when it appears that we need to use them much
more extensively.
2.2.3 Environmental Risks and EPA/s Priorities
EPA's budgetary and programmatic priorities are established
largely by Congress, which in turn responds to the interests
expressed by the electorate. The public's attitude about an
environmental problem is often heavily influenced by qualitative
aspects of the risks it presents whether the risks are voluntary
or involuntary; whether there is an identifiable "villain"
responsible for the problem; whether the risks are familiar and
predictable or unusual and dreaded. By contrast, scientists and
13
-------
other technical experts are trained to judge the seriousness of an
environmental problem in much more quantitative terms, asking, for
example, about the number and severity of adverse effects likely
to be caused by the problem. As a result, the environmental
problems that they consider most important often do not match the
priorities set by Congress. (See Appendix B.4)
2.2.4 Piecemeal Approaches to Environmental Problems
Current regulatory programs generally are organized around
single media or single classes of pollutants. This disjointed
approach can result in cross-media shifts of pollutants, where the
means of abating emissions to one medium may simply transfer the
pollutants to another medium. Perhaps more importantly, the
current approach also makes it difficult to implement integrated
strategies to provide comprehensive protection for certain
vulnerable resources. For example, estuaries and the Great Lakes
are affected by multiple sources and in ways that can not be
anticipated by an approach that focuses on specific sources of
pollution or on problems that arise from a single environmental
medium. The current approach can also ignore some problems and
activities that cause environmental problems, for example
biological diversity and (until recently) indoor air pollution.
2.2.5 Increasing Costs of Environmental Regulation
While the benefits of protecting the environment are
substantial and viewed by many as well worth the costs, there is
no escaping the fact that the costs are also large. The direct
expenditures of administration and compliance with programs to
protect the environment currently exceed $100 billion per year and
are growing. Most of these costs are legitimate and necessary and
should be paid by those who benefit from the damage, since
otherwise they are imposed on others.
But many costs are now imposed simply by imperfect approaches
and regulatory strategies themselves: costs of paperwork and
lawsuits, cost of treatment technologies when changes in materials
or processes might achieve the same results more cheaply, costs of
technologies that control pollutants for one medium by moving them
to another, costs of uniform compliance rather than concentrating
on the most serious sources, and costs of correcting problems
defined rigidly by statutes rather than those known to be most
14
-------
serious.
Because societal resources are limited and future efforts to
protect human health and environmental quality should be maximized,
we need to prioritize risk reduction strategies so that the most
effective and cost-efficient strategies are used first.
Systematically applying this principle will ensure that the most
effective improvements in environmental protection are achieved,
at the least cost.
2.2.6 Pressures of Population Growth and Economic Development
Population growth, industrial and agricultural development,
and the wide dispersion of human settlements and activities have
tended to offset the gains realized by existing regulatory
programs. For example, since 1970 there has been about a 20
percent increase in the U.S. population and over a 160 percent
increase in economic output. Electricity generation has increased
by about 40 percent and the number of miles that people travel in
vehicles has increased by about 73 percent. The reductions in
emissions and improvements in environmental conditions resulting
from prior regulatory programs are impressive given these increases
in pollution-generating activities. Assuming, though, that our
population and economy continue to grow in the future, we will need
to further reduce the amount of pollution per capita or per unit
of GNP just to maintain current environmental conditions.
2.2.7 Increasing1 Tina Required for Reversing Environmental
Problems
Time and reversibility have become very important factors in
developing policies for environmental protection. Various
pollutants cause diseases such as cancer that have latency periods
lasting years or decades. Several environmental problems such as
global warming and ozone depletion will require many decades or
even centuries to reverse. Others, such as species depletion, are
irreversible. The long time lags may result either from: a) the
nature of the effect or disease, b) the lengthy period of time
necessary to abate emissions or production of a nearly ubiquitous
pollutant (e.g., C02) , and/or c) the lengthy period subsequently
required for the environment to recover from the stress and return
to more natural conditions (which may be the result of the
persistence of the pollutant and a very slow rate by which the
15
-------
environment can cleanse itself of the pollutant).
Environmental problems having such characteristics require us
to look ahead and anticipate what the effects of present activities
will be. They also present difficult moral and strategic issues.
We must ask whether it is right to leave serious environmental
problems for future generations that will compromise their health
and welfare. For global problems, we must decide how much of the
responsibility for control will fall on the developed nations, and
how much on the lesser developed world. As a strategic matter,
when faced by problems that entail potentially huge but highly
uncertain future risks and massive control costs, we must decide
the best allocation of resources between doing research to
understand the problem better and taking immediate actions, even
if they later turn out to be overreactions, since delay could lead
to irreversible results.
2.3 Contents of This Report
This report is organized as follows:
a) Chapter 3 describes the approach the Subcommittee
followed.
c) Chapter 4 describes the Subcommittee's recommendations.
d) Appendix A includes strategy papers for each of the 13
environmental problems the Subcommittee studied. Each
paper provides background on an environmental problem,
and discusses the selected strategy options.
e) Appendix AA contains lists of the possible strategy
options developed in Appendix A and sorted three ways;
by environmental problems, by tools, and by policies.
f) Appendix B contains several thoughts and ideas that were
discussed by the Subcommittee but never completely
developed. They are useful for further discussion.
g) Appendix C contains descriptions of the categories
of strategy options, the rating criteria and an
evaluation matrix.
16
-------
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 subcommittee Charge and General Approach
The goal of the Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Project of
the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was to advise the EPA
Administrator about the best technical and scientific knowledge
available on the relative risks posed by different environmental
problems and the options to reduce those risks. To this end, the
SAB formed the Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee. The
charge to the Committee was to:
a) Provide a critical review of the report, Unfinished
Business; A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems (EPA, 1987), that reflects any significant new
information that bears on the evaluation of the risks
associated with specific environmental problems.
b) Provide, to the extent possible, merged evaluations of
cancer and non-cancer risks (i.e., Health Risks) and of
ecological and welfare risks (i.e., Environmental
Risks).
c) Provide optional strategies for reducing the major
risks; and
d) Develop a long-term strategy for improving the
methodology for assessing and ranking risks to human
health and the environment and for assessing the
alternative strategies that can reduce risks.
To carry out this assignment, the Committee established three
subcommittees: the Human Health Subcommittee, the Environmental and
Welfare Subcommittee, and the Strategic Options Subcommittee. The
first two Subcommittees reviewed the EPA's Unfinished Business
report. This report describes the work and conclusions of the
Strategic Options Subcommittee.
The charge to the Strategic Options Subcommittee was further
defined as follows:
17
-------
1. Identify and analyze cost-effective and promising strategy
options for reducing remaining major risks.
2. Develop and demonstrate a method of analysis useful to EPA
for more in-depth studies of risk-reduction strategy
options.
The objective was not to recommend a narrow set of specific
measures that EPA should pursue, but rather to provide a range of
the most promising types of risk reduction options that EPA should
consider, and to provide a procedure for continuing work by EPA
along these lines.
The twelve members of the Subcommittee had a range of
technical expertise and viewpoints. The Subcommittee included
engineers, natural scientists, social scientists, and former
environmental program managers. Affiliations included academia,
industry, environmental organizations, consulting firms and
government. A list of the Subcommittee members and the SAB and
EPA staff1 supporting them is provided at the end of this report.
Representatives of the other Subcommittees and EPA program staff
provided additional expertise as needed.
The Subcommittee held six public meetings in the course of
performing its tasks and developing this report. The Subcommittee
proceeded through four steps:
1. Selecting environmental problems for study.
2. Developing a list of potential risk reduction
options for each problem.
3. Selecting the most promising options for each problem.
4. Developing cross-cutting strategies and
recommendations.
The Subcommittee based its findings on the expertise and
professional judgment of its members. In developing promising risk
reduction options and thematic recommendations for EPA, the
Subcommittee primarily considered technical factors such as cost,
risk reduction, technological feasibility, and implementation
requirements associated with each option.
18
-------
3.2 Selecting Environmental Problems for Study
EPA's Unfinished Business report identified and assessed 31
environmental problem. In view of time and resource constraints,
the Subcommittee decided that it could not address all 31 problems.
Initially, 10 problems those posing the greatest health and
ecological risks according to the original Unfinished Business
rankings were selected for analysis. The Subcommittee then
added 2 problems (hazardous wastes and municipal solid waste) to
include problems from another environmental medium and because of
the large amounts of resources and the public interest devoted to
them. Two more problems (habitat alteration and wetlands) were
added after it became apparent that the Ecological and Welfare
Subcommittee was likely to rank them as particularly important.
Finally, one of the problems, worker exposure to toxic chemicals,
was dropped because the Subcommittee lacked proper expertise to
evaluate risks and options. The resulting list of 13 problems
included:
Criteria air pollutants
Radon
Ozone depleting substances
Nonpoint source discharges
Estuaries and coastal waters
Hazardous waste
Pesticides
Toxic air pollutants
Indoor air pollution
C02 and global warming
Wetlands
Habitat alteration
Municipal solid waste
The 13 problems the Subcommittee analyzed are sufficiently
rich and diverse to suggest some general patterns likely to emerge
in an expanded analysis. The 13 problems cover all of the Agency's
major media programs. Some of the 13 problems are the subject of
substantial current federal programs while some represent newer
problems for which major governmental programs do not yet exist.
Some of the 13 problems represent sources of pollution, some
represent classes of pollutants, and some represent resources that
EPA wants to protect. This inconsistent scheme for defining
problems is due to a decision by the authors of the Unfinished
Business study to follow legislative and program definitions of
environmental problems; the Subcommittee recognized this
inconsistency but did not attempt to redefine the environmental
problems.
19
-------
3.3 Developing a Lj.st of Potential Risk Reduction Options for
Each Problem
The Subcommittee sought to develop a broad list of potential
risk reduction options for each of the 13 problems. An explicit
attempt was made to avoid limiting the strategy options to the
conventional approaches now being implemented for each problem.
The Subcommittee made several assumptions:
a) Existing risk reduction measures already in place would
remain so unless the Subcommittee explicitly called for
their removal. The Subcommittee would focus on options
to reduce residual risks in each problem area, beyond
those that will be abated by current programs.
b) Strategies outside of explicit existing legislative
mandates could be considered.
c) Recommended strategies should not be limited to those
within EPA's scope of responsibility, although EPA's
role should be emphasized.
To identify candidate risk reduction options for particular
problems, the Subcommittee divided into two subgroups of 5-6
members, with about half of the problems assigned to each group.
The composition of the groups was designed to take account of
expertise and diversity of opinion. Each group identified a broad
sweep of potential risk reduction options for their problem areas
primarily by brainstorming. Experts from relevant EPA program
offices, members of the Human Health and the Ecological and Welfare
Subcommittees, and the staff to the Subcommittee attended the
meetings and also contributed suggestions. EPA staff were
encouraged to represent their personal expertise, not official
Agency positions.
To aid in the process of identifying risk reduction options,
the Subcommittee developed a list of six classes of measures:
scientific and technical, provision of information, market
incentives, conventional regulations, increased enforcement, and
cooperation with other agencies and nations. The major classes
and related types of strategies are shown in Appendix C.I. As
specific strategies were identified, they were grouped according
to these generic classes. The resulting list of grouped strategy
20
-------
options is shown for each problem area following the discussions
of the problem areas in the appendices to this report.
3.4 selecting the Most Promising Options for Bach Problem
In order to evaluate risk reduction options for the selected
problem areas, the Subcommittee undertook a process of establishing
evaluation criteria, evaluating each strategy with respect to the
criteria, and selecting the strategies with the highest ratings.
Nine criteria for judging the suitability of a risk reduction
strategy were formulated. The criteria focus on such attributes
as the risk reduction, cost, cost-effectiveness, and dependability
of the strategy options. The criteria used in rating the options
are described in Appendix C.2.
Initially a simple scoring system for each criterion was also
developed, and the Subcommittee began to apply it to the candidate
options. To help this process, the subcommittee developed matrices
for the 13 problem areas, listing the candidate strategies for each
and providing space for scoring each strategy with respect to each
criterion. A blank matrix is provided as Appendix C.3. Several
Subcommittee members completed the scoring matrices based upon
their own judgments. However, it became apparent that the
Subcommittee as a whole would not have sufficient time to reach
consensus on each of 9 criteria scores for several hundred strategy
options. The Subcommittee abandoned the explicit scoring approach,
and decided to select strategies based on group discussion and
consensus, considering the factors outlined in the criteria. The
Subcommittee encourages the Agency to consider the scoring approach
more fully, recognizing that while scoring systems are a good way
to structure and encourage discussions, experience shows that they
can rarely be used for decisionmaking in a simple, mechanistic way.
The process of selecting options was time consuming and
typically involved lengthy discussion and debate. Technical
expertise was sought from EPA, the other SAB subcommittees, and
outside sources. Experts on each of the 13 problem areas attended
the Subcommittee meetings, offering opinions on the risks posed by
the problems and options that might help to reduce the risks, and
providing reactions to tentative options generated by the
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee's processes of identifying
candidate risk reduction strategies and selecting the most
promising ones became iterative new strategy suggestions were
21
-------
added throughout the process, and many of the more promising
options were developed by combining elements of several individual
candidate strategies.
After two meetings conducted largely in the two subgroups,
each dealing with half of the environmental problems, the
Subcommittee reconvened in plenary session. The subgroups'
strategy options were presented to the overall Subcommittee for
discussion and debate. Following decision by the Subcommittee on
a set of preferred strategies for the problem areas, each problem
area was assigned to a Subcommittee member who was responsible for
drafting a strategy paper. These papers addressed the risks posed
by the problem, the policy background, and the strategy options for
the problem. The draft papers were debated and revised in
subsequent Subcommittee meetings. The final strategy papers
comprise Appendix A in this report.
3.5 Developing Cross-Cutting Strategies and Rec"«"«?TTa*t1lr>nT
Many of the options selected for one problem area were similar
or even identical to those selected for other problem areas. The
Subcommittee performed a cross-problem analysis to identify those
options that achieved risk reduction objectives in a number of
different problem areas. In its final choice of options, the
Subcommittee gave a clear preference to those that would realize
benefits across several problem areas. Some broad strategies, such
as energy conservation and pollution prevention, hold substantial
promise in this regard.
The Subcommittee also examined the generic approaches that
frequently appeared to have promise among the individual strategies
recommended for the problem areas. This investigation prompted
several of the Subcommittee's recommendations regarding EPA's
approach to risk reduction supporting greater use of
information strategies and market incentives, for example.
Finally, the Subcommittee looked briefly at the relationship
between risk-based priorities and public and private expenditures
to assess environmental risks. This short study provided
additional support for some of the Subcommittee's broader
recommendations to EPA. For further discussion see Appendix B to
this report, "Perspectives on Reducing Environmental Risks."
22
-------
One last word of caution is necessary in interpreting the
strategy options. These strategy options should not be construeo
as recommendations, and they do not represent the primary product
of the Subcommittee's work. The strategy options represent
reasonable approaches to each environmental problem, but they have
not been analyzed in any formal way sufficient to warrant asserting
that they are the best approaches to each problem. Nor is the list
of strategy options necessarily comprehensive; most likely there
are other strategy options that would also offer effective
responses to the environmental problems that we have examined.
3.6 Commentary
Beyond the results of this exercise for the 13 selected
problems, the Subcommittee believes that a methodology like the
one used in this effort has strong potential, if further developed
and refined, for assisting EPA in identifying preferred risk
reduction strategies. In particular, it is important to consider
the approach of looking at environmental problems, at sectors and
also at the full range of possible tools.
The Subcommittee recognizes that this methodology is a first
effort and that many improvements are possible and should be
considered. But even more important than the specific methodology
is that EPA use an approach that is systematic, aims at
comprehensiveness, and ensures that Agency personnel take a broad
and innovative perspective. Because Agency staff may be
constrained by programmatic responsibilities, the Subcommittee
recommends the participation of outside groups also. Outside
groups are more likely to generate innovative approaches. Agency
staff are better able to analyze their administrative feasibility.
One option is to replicate the exercise conducted here. Another
might use some mix of Agency officials and outside experts. The
assessment of risk reduction options should also be repeated
periodically. The advantages of such a systematic, broad-based
approach are:
a) It allows a large number of environmental problems and
potential risk reduction strategies to be examined in a
relatively short time.
b) It forces an overview of a large menu of problems and
potential solutions.
23
-------
c) Tt releases the analyst from the limits of specific
legislative or regulatory mandates so that strategic
thinking is more possible.
d) It requires cross-program analyses that highlight
multiple benefits to several problems that accrue from a
particular risk reduction intervention.
e) It gives explicit attention to multiple desirable
characteristics of a risk reduction approach.
24
-------
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 introduction
The Subcommittee's analysis of strategies to address the
sample of 13 key environmental problems suggests that fundamental
changes are necessary to achieve further progress in environmental
protection. End-of-pipe regulatory requirements have served us
well in the past in dealing with gross air and water pollution
control and in coping with other environmental problems. After
using such techniques over the past 20 years, it is not surprising
that the residual problems we face are less amenable to traditional
techniques. Some problems, such as widespread ground level ozone,
are the product of continuing economic growth offsetting much of
the gain from regulatory measures. Non-point sources of water
pollution have never been amenable to direct regulatory measures
for both technical and political reasons. Some newer problems,
such as indoor air pollution and radon, are similarly not amenable
to command-and-control approaches. The great majority of the
Subcommittee's promising strategy options do not rely on
conventional regulatory requirements such as end-of-pipe effluent
standards. Instead, the most promising direction for the future
is, whenever possible, to prevent pollution before it is ever
created.
Although criticisms of conventional regulatory control systems
are often heard, this does not mean that our past regulatory
programs were or always are inappropriate, nor that additional
command-and-control regulation cannot be beneficial. Because of
past regulatory programs, our air and water are cleaner, hazardous
wastes are better managed, exposures to many of the most toxic
substances are reduced, and industry and other sectors of society
have become more sensitive to environmental concerns. There will
be, however, significant limitations in achieving risk reduction
through a system based on end-of-pipe controls in the future.
The broad recommendations below are designed to attack these
problems strategically, and overcome many of the current obstacles
to success. While most of the recommendations are oriented to the
Federal government, many of them are also applicable to State and
local governments.
25
-------
The Subcommittee's eight major recommendations are as follows:
1. EPA should establish priorities based on the
potential for risk reduction.
2. Pollution prevention should be the most important
approach for reducing environmental risks over the
long term.
3. In order to reduce risk and prevent pollution in a
significant way, EPA must substantially broaden its
kit of environmental protection tools, especially to
emphasize economic incentives and information trans-
fer.
4. Environmental protection must be integrated into other
policy areas, in as fundamental a manner as are eco-
nomic concerns.
5. rn order to integrate environmental protection into
other governmental policies, a special mechanism
should be created in the Executive Branch.
6. EPA should continue to perform analyses similar to the
present Relative Risk Reduction strategies Project and
integrate the results into the Agency's strategic
planning processes.
7. EPA's annual budgets should more directly reflect
risk-based priorities.
8. The Agency should develop an enhanced environmental
education and training program for both professionals
and the general public.
These major recommendations are described further in the pages
that follow. The recommendations derive primarily from the
Subcommittee's review and assessment of the numerous strategy
options developed for the 13 environmental problems. The
Subcommittee has not performed sufficient analysis to recommend
adoption of any one of the specific strategy options for any of
the 13 problems. As mentioned previously, the strategy options
were generated through an interactive process relying on the
26
-------
collective judgement and experience of Subcommittee members. In
our view, the strategy options we chose represent reasonable
approaches for reducing risks in each problem area, but nothing
more. The Subcommittee does believe they merit attention by the
Agency.
These recommendations reflect broad crosscutting themes that
draw from the more specific strategy options. In the discussion
of each recommendation, examples of strategy options that give rise
to the recommendation are cited and referenced to a section of the
appendix.
4.2 Risk Reduction
RECOMMENDATION *1;
EPA should establish priorities based on the potential
for risk reduction.
DISCUSSION;
Over the past 20 years U.S. environmental policy has developed
in a piecemeal, ad hoc fashion. As the nation recognized different
environmental problems, such as deteriorating urban air quality and
the "death" of lakes and stream segments, Congress acted to solve
them by passing different pieces of environmental legislation
the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, etc.
Because these laws were passed at different times and for different
purposes, little attempt was make to coordinate them. Nor was any
effort make to compare the relative seriousness of different
environmental problems in order to make judgments about the
relative urgency of different protection efforts.
Seen in its historical context, the ad hoc development of our
national environmental policy is understandable. Yet twenty years
of experience developing and implementing environmental policy has
taught us that not all environmental problems are equally serious,
and not all protection efforts are equally urgent. We can not do
everything at once. We must set environmental priorities.
Over the past several years EPA has improved its ability to
characterize environmental risks, and in Unfinished Business it
27
-------
has begun _to compare the relative seriousness of the risks posed
by different environmental problems. But EPA and the country at
large must go further. We should set priorities for environmental
protection based on an explicit comparison of the relative risk
posed by different environmental problems and, more specifically,
the opportunities for cost-effective risk reduction. And we should
act on those priorities.
In practice, of course, EPA's activities are defined by the
laws that the agency is required to administer. As an agency in
a democratic government, EPA also has a responsibility to respond
when the public raises concerns about an environmental problem, no
matter how limited the risk may seem to be. However, to the extent
that EPA has discretion to emphasize one environmental protection
program over another, it should emphasize the program that reduces
the most environmental risk at the lowest overall cost to society.
The Congress should also be encouraged to observe this principle
in writing and revising legislation.
The recommendations that follow in this report spell out some
more specific measures that EPA, Congress and others should take
to make this principle a reality.
4.3 Pollution Prevention
RECOMMENDATION «2l
Pollution prevention should consistently b« the most
important approach for reducing environmental risks over
the long term.
DISCUSSION;
We are not the first group to suggest that EPA place a much
greater emphasis on pollution prevention as the preferred way to
address environmental risks. A fundamental restructuring of the
way the Agency approaches risk reduction is in order; the Agency's
primary focus should be to prevent the creation of risks, as
opposed to trying to control such risks once created. This is so
for a series of reasons:
28
-------
1. For some environmental problems, such as stratospheric ozone
depletion and global climate change, pollution prevention is the
only solution. We must use substances which will not destroy the
ozone layer and also use energy sources that minimize CO2 emissions.
2. Pollution prevention is oftentimes the most effective solution.
For instance, in the case of lead, asbestos, PCBs and certain
pesticides, the most effective solution has been to ban their use.
3. There can be a tremendous cost benefit for pollution prevention
in terms of avoiding costs of control, cleanup and liability.
Industrial efficiency and productivity can also increase.
4. Pollution prevention is the key to sustainable development.
In many areas we are approaching or even exceeding the capacity of
the environment to absorb pollutants. It is clear that economic
and industrial strategies for the future that minimize the
production of pollution and the consumption of resources are more
likely to be sustainable economic and industrial strategies.
5. Pollution prevention often prevents the solution to one
environmental problem from re-emerging as another kind of
environmental problem in another environmental medium, sometime in
the future or in another place.
6. Pollution prevention can help improve international relations
in two ways. First, it can help developing countries leapfrog the
environmental problems that we had in the U.S. by moving directly
to low polluting, low waste technology. Second, because of the
worldwide impact of the U.S. production of pollution and
consumption of resources, our moving towards pollution prevention
will be practicing what we preach: exerting leadership and
avoiding anti-U.S. sentiment because of the constraints that the
rest of the world will have to absorb in order to deal with global
environmental problems.
7. Pollution prevention protects the natural resources on the
planet for future generations by not leaving excessive levels of
wastes and residues and pollution and by not depleting resources.
Our review indicates, however, that a fundamental problem
hindering progress on pollution prevention has been confusion over
precisely what pollution prevention is and how it is different from
29
-------
pollution control. We define pollution prevention to be changes
in raw materials, products or technologies of production which
reduce the use- of hazardous materials, energy, water, or other
resources and/or the creation of pollutants or destructive results,
without creating new risks of concern. Energy conservation, for
example, represents a prime form of pollution prevention, obviating
environmental damage from extraction, transport, processing and
combustion of fuels.
Technologies of production are the fundamental means used by
people to accomplish the core productive activities of life, from
mining to manufacturing to farming to transportation. Changes in
the configuration of such technologies to cut hazardous materials
use or the creation of pollution would constitute pollution
prevention; the addition of supplementary technologies to control
hazardous materials already used or pollution already created
constitutes pollution control. Considering just one example,
substituting water for chloroflurocarbon-113 as the solvent used
at a circuit board manufacturing facility is pollution prevention;
adding recycling equipment to the facility to capture and recycle
CFC-113 and stop its release to the atmosphere is pollution
control. Pollution prevention can also include changing activities
and the location of these activities so as not to harm sensitive
ecosystems; avoiding development near wetlands is an example.
From our study of a limited number of problems we have
identified a large number of strategy options which are pollution
prevention approaches. Upon reviewing these options, several
cross-cutting themes emerged:
1. EPA's pollution prevention programs should be directed broadly
to address products and many productive sectors, not just
industrial production processes. EPA should promote prevention in
all sectors, from manufacturing to agriculture to construction.
Energy conservation is a key part of any pollution prevention
strategy.
2. EPA and other Federal agencies should go beyond problem-by-
problem pollution prevention to focus on comprehensive multiproblem
solutions, such as toxics use reduction and energy efficiency and
conservation, and on altering specific technologies of production
or products which contribute to multiple problems.
30
-------
3. Federal agencies should identify and eliminate standards,
subsidies, activities or approvals that promote polluting 01
damaging activities or technologies, and instead promote non-
polluting activities, technologies, and products, through
incentives, research, technical assistance, procurement and other
means.
4. Since pollution prevention concepts are relatively new to many
people, EPA should actively work with representatives of many
interests to promote better understanding of pollution prevention.
EPA should pursue this among many types of people, from EPA
personnel to academics to corporate officials responsible for the
design, selection and purchase of raw materials, production
processes, and products. Collaborative research, education, and
technology development and transfer efforts with industry, state
agencies, organized labor and public interest groups should be
considered. EPA should seek to make prevention the responsibility
of every agency and federal employee, not just that of a single
office in EPA. If pollution prevention goals were integrated into
all policies, pollution prevention could play a large role in
restoring and preserving the quality of the environment.
5. Community right-to-know and other related programs should be
given special attention and possibly expanded. These possibilities
include having more producers and users of certain toxic chemicals
and pesticides report publicly on such production and use. These
producers and users should be further encouraged to conduct audits,
prepare plans and set goals for reducing their production and use.
The aim is to ensure that producers and users identify the
pollution implications of their decisions and consider alternatives
that would generate less pollution.
6. In ths long run, economic incentives and disincentives need to
promote pollution prevention. Energy policy should encourage
conservation. Tax policy should encourage pollution prevention-
oriented recycling and reuse.
The section on pollution prevention in Appendix B,
"Perspectives on Reducing Environmental Risks," provides further
thoughts on this subject.
31
-------
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
POLLUTION PREVENTION - PP
S.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.2.4 Reduce use of solvents in consumer products. PP, INFO, REGS
S.5.1 Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to virtually eliminate use
of CFCs, halons and other ozone depleters. PP, FOR
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing incentives
for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and by
prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, MI, INFO, REGS
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(The codes preceding each example strategy refer to the part of
Appendix A where the example strategy is discussed in more detail.
The codes following each example strategy indicate the categories
into which it falls. See the first page of Appendix A for a more
complete explanation of the coding of these example strategies).
4.4 A Broader Kit of Tools
RECOMMENDATION «3:
In order to reduce risk and prevent pollution in a
significant way, EPA must substantially broaden its kit
of environmental protection tools, especially to
emphasize economic incentives and information transfer.
DISCUSSION:
EPA has made a considerable investment in a limited set of
conventional regulatory tools: end-of-pipe effluent limitations,
32
-------
design standards, product specifications, and use restrictions.
Most EPA program staff are dedicated to this set of regulatory
approaches and their implementation through permits, compliance
monitoring and enforcement. A large part of the research budget
is devoted to supporting this effort. Even the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, the least constrained of EPA's offices,
makes only a modest investment in nontraditional environmental
policy measures.
The reason for this emphasis does not lie with EPA alone.
EPA looks to conventional regulatory methods for environmental
protection because enabling legislation and public expectations
push the Agency strongly in that direction.
The Subcommittee feels strongly that the most promising
strategies for risk reduction encompass a wide range of policy
approaches. As described in the previous chapter, we identified
six broad policy approaches which EPA and other Federal agencies
could employ to change the behavior of individuals, firms, and
other institutions to reduce risk (not in order of priority):
Scientific and technical measures;
Provision of information;
Market incentives;
Conventional regulatory standards;
Enhanced enforcement of regulations; and
Cooperation with other agencies and nations.
These approaches are not meant to be mutually exclusive, as many
policy measures combine elements of several approaches. It is also
sometimes difficult to categorize specific strategies as falling
within a single approach. Nevertheless, we believe the six
approaches delineate the basic strategy elements available to EPA
for environmental protection.
In order to give fair consideration to the non-traditional
approaches, EPA needs to increase dramatically the resources and
commitment devoted to them. This was also the principal
recommendation of a recent report of the National Research Council
concerning waste reduction research needs (NRC, 1990). First, the
existing applications of innovative alternatives to traditional
controls need to be evaluated. Experiments in providing
information, such as Section 313 of SARA and Proposition 65 in
33
-------
California, need to be evaluated to determine what types of
behavior were affected. Economic incentive-based alternatives or
supplements to regulations should be developed, analyzed, and
wherever possible, pilot-tested. (For years, California has led
in regulatory initiatives and recently in an information
initiative. There is no reason States could not lead in non-
conventional techniques, possibly induced by availability of
Federal assistance.) To conduct these functions, EPA needs to
allocate resources to non-conventional approaches, evaluate their
effectiveness, and give these types of measures serious
consideration in agency decisionmaking.
EPA will also need to overcome its bias against new
approaches. Today, when new approaches are examined, they tend to
be held to a higher standard than existing approaches. It is easy
to identify a long list of potential problems with implementation
of new approaches, and thus the approaches are often rejected at
an early stage. There may be an equally long list of potential
problems with an existing approach. Some of these problems are
accepted unquestioningly expected difficulties in implementing
a command-and-control regulatory scheme are assumed to necessitate
massive resources for program implementation (permitting,
compliance monitoring, enforcement, state oversight, etc.) rather
than casting doubt on whether the scheme is the best approach in
the first place. Other potential problems with existing approaches
never come to light because thorough evaluations of the
effectiveness and cost of existing programs are not routinely
performed once the regulations are promulgated. In this
connection, EPA might look closely at the strategy options
discussed below and in Appendix A.
4.4.1 Scientific and Technical Measures
Two major sets of these measures are: (1) research and
development activities to improve understanding of problems and
point to promising solutions; and (2) innovations in pollution-
prevention approaches and pollution control technology. In some
cases, other approaches such as market incentives will lead
to such research and development and/or product innovation (and
diffusion). In other cases, we focus on these scientific and
technical measures as constituting a "general approach" themselves.
34
-------
Beyond such particular scientific and technical strategies,
EPA needs both:
a) A substantial increase in its budget and policy
commitment for research. The nation invests heavily in
research on military defense, industrial
competitiveness, quality health care and management of the
economy, and should also do so to protect the environment.
The SAB's Future Risk report suggested a doubling of EPA's
research budget in five years.
b) An aggressive broadening of its risk reduction research
program. This should include health and ecological
effects, environmental transport and fate studies,
engineering technologies and regulatory support as at
present, as well as information on the relative risks of
various hazards; on the design options for strategies to
reduce them, including economic, social and communication
issues; and on the effectiveness and side effects of such
strategies once they are tried. Because an important goal
is to change the behavior of individuals and institutions,
it is essential that EPA increase its research in the
social sciences.
Many of these general points were also made in the SAB's Future
Risk report.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MEASURES - S&T
S.I.6 Further investigate the relative roles of VOCs and NOx in
ozone formation, S&T
S.4.4 Develop better instruments to diagnose sick buildings. S&T
S.6.1 Understand better the potential for global warming and its
impacts. S&T
s.6.2 Increase research on ways of preventing and adapting to
global warming. S&T
35
-------
S.9.3 Develop ecologically protective and cost-effective
technologies to manage contaminated sediments in estuaries. S&T
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.4.2 Provision of Information
In a number of cases, risk reduction can be promoted by
providing information to producers, consumers, or both. In some
situations, even if individuals and firms have the "right
incentives" they may fail to reduce risk appropriately. This
general category of information-provision strategies encompasses
three quite distinct approaches. First, there is the provision of
more information about risks to consumers of various goods and
services. Laws and regulations which compel firms to produce
information for the public can provide powerful incentives for
firms to reduce pollution. "Green labeling" and consumer guides
to environmentally friendly products are examples of initiatives
that are currently being undertaken in various areas. The pressure
of information in the marketplace was clearly demonstrated when the
U.S. banned CYC's in aerosols in 1976 with an effective date of
1978; in short order virtually all aerosols contained no CFC's.
Second, technical assistance on cost-effective means of
preventing or controlling pollution may be provided to firms or
other polluters that lack adequate information. Small and medium
sized firms can particularly benefit from this assistance. Third,
EPA might continue to assist or encourage environmental self-
auditing, whereby firms periodically evaluate their performance in
order to facilitate management control of environmental practices
and assess compliance with company policies and regulatory
requirements.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
PROVISION OF INFORMATION - INFO
S.3.2 Improve techniques of communicating radon risks so public
can make informed decisions. S&T, INFO
36
-------
S.4.1 Provide state and local governments with technical
information to help them address indoor air pollution. S&T, INFO
S.13.2 Create a right-to-know program regarding pesticide use by
large agricultural firms. Encourage industrial audits of these
facilities. PP, INFO, AP
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.4.3 Market Incentives
A key to reducing environmental risks is to ensure that
consumers and producers face the full costs of their decisions
not just their direct costs, but the full social costs and
consequences of their actions. Economic incentive systems provide
various ways to do this. They may also reduce the aggregate social
cost of achieving target levels of pollution abatement. Most
economic incentives can be viewed as falling within one of five
major categories: (1) pollution charges, (2) marketable permits,
(3) deposit-refund systems, (4) market barrier reductions,
including provis-ion or elimination of government subsidies, and (5)
revision of legal standards defining liability for damages from
pollution. These categories are closely related and the boundaries
between them are often not distinct. Many market incentives would
not be fully under the control of EPA, and are also discussed in
the next section of this chapter on cooperation with other
agencies.
1. Charge systems impose a fee or tax on pollution (or,
usually less desirably, on pollution-generating activities). When
there is a charge for polluting, it pays firms to reduce pollution,
with those that can abate pollution at low cost reducing or
controlling proportionately more and those facing higher costs
reducing or controlling proportionately less. Thus, the total
costs of pollution control are minimized, as compared with other
allocations of the pollution control burden across firms. Under
this and other economic incentive approaches, additional pollution
control efforts are in the financial interest of firms, as long as
37
-------
the costs of controlling pollution are lower than the charge
imposed ori~the pollution. Hence, these mechanisms provide ongoinq
incentives for firms to develop and adopt newer, better and less
expensive pollution control technologies. One example of a
pollution charge would be a carbon tax on fossil fuels to help
control global climate change. Other types of taxes and fees also
can be used to promote environmental protection in a flexible
manner without direct government regulations.
2. Under a marketable or tradeable permit system, the
allowable overall level of pollution is established by regulation
and then allotted in the form of permits among firms. Firms that
keep emission levels below their allotted level may sell or lease
their surplus permits to other firms or use them to offset excess
emissions in other parts of their own facilities. As with a charge
system, the societal cost of control is pushed toward a minimum
level for any given level of total pollution control. The use of
marketable permit systems for VOCs in nonattainment areas and for
SO2 emissions by electric utilities could lead to savings relative
to traditional regulatory methods, both because their inherent
flexibility takes advantage of wide differences in control costs
across sources and because they allow individual firms to decide
where and how to make desired reductions. These systems also
provide strong incentives for innovation, compared to technology-
prescribing regulations. Marketable permit systems with regulatory
ceilings on emissions or discharges can also be used to avoid a
problem posed by charge systems, namely that one can not know in
advance what level of cleanup will result from any given charge.
3. Deposit-refund systems represent a third type of
incentive-based instrument. Under this approach, surcharges are
paid when potentially polluting products are purchased. When the
product's, consumers/users return the product, their deposit is
refunded. One advantage of the deposit-refund system is that it
reduces the incentive for illegal dumping which exists under a
waste-end tax or fee. In the case of hazardous waste it should be
noted that criminal penalties and the manifest system already
discourage illegal dumping. Also, to the extent'the refund causes
the item to be collected and brought to a location where it is
recycled or reused, the system reduces the need for waste disposal
capacity. This approach has already been used successfully in a
number of states in so-called "bottle bills11 to reduce littering
with beverage containers, and it has been used in West Germany for
38
-------
disposal. Deposit-refund systems may also be
-her items such as lead-acid batteries, crank-case
vehicle tires.
In some cases, substantial gains can be made in
ntal protection simply by removing existing, government-
JL barriers to market activity. For example, if electric
,ies with insufficient generating capacity were provided an
.itive to choose the least costly alternative among a full range
options for increasing supplies and/or reducing demands, more
.fficient energy generation and consumption would result.
Another type of market incentive involves situations in which
existing government subsidies promote inefficient and
environmentally unsound development. For example, a subsidy which
is both economically inefficient and environmentally disruptive is
that associated with certain water resource projects, which provide
an (unintentional) incentive for the drainage and clearing of
wetland areas. Such subsidies could be reduced or eliminated.
Alternatively, positive subsidies or incentives can be created
to encourage environmentally beneficial activities, such as
preferential Federal government acquisition of clean-fueled cars
or recycled paper products. The municipal sewage treatment program
is an example of a subsidy that has been used for environmental
protection.
5. Finally, revision of the legal standards prescribing
liability for damages from polluting activities can provide a very
powerful incentive to modify behavior. The strict, joint liability
standard under CERCLA has had a major effect in inducing solid and
hazardous waste generators, transporters and disposers to pay much
closer attention to their operations. In theory, numerous
attributes of liability standards could be adjusted in order to
support environmental aims: the burden of proof, limitations on
damage awards, standing to sue, allocations of responsibility among
contributing parties, etc.. Liability standards could be
established or modified in several areas, including application of
pesticides, worker exposure to toxic chemicals, and production and
sale of products with toxic components. In practice, the
Subcommittee recommends substantial caution in using this very
powerful tool. The eventual effects of revised standards of
liability are very difficult to predict accurately. Using
39
-------
litigation as a tool to achieve environmental
very large, unproductive transaction costs,
losing parties often get very different treatrt
have if the case had not been settled in court ^
v ^,.
Although economic incentive-based approach^. <^
costs and greater efficiency in addressing nuraer^ ^ °^
problems, the Subcommittee does not endorse them fv 4* $ ^
as the preferable alternatives. The record for m« ^ °
is mixed, and they need careful examination when b
for any application, just as conventional regulatory 4
One needs to be certain that an incentive will actu
reduction in pollution, and will not simply make it
a source to pay for the opportunity to pollute. One
pick the right type of incentive. Surveying the vari
incentives, charges often provide little certainty, and ma*..^
permits are only useful when the subject pollutants cause similar
damages over a large area. Reducing perverse subsidies, on the
other hand, should usually be appropriate.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
MARKET INCENTIVES - MI
S.I.I Use marketable permits to lower costs and spur innovation
in reducing acid rain. MI, EP
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.12.4 Create deposit/refund systems for tires, batteries, car
hulks, used oil and packaging containers. MI
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
40
-------
4.4.4 Conventional Regulations
Although the subcommittee generally argues for greater
consideration of non-traditional environmental protection tools,
conventional regulatory approaches hold out substantial promise of
achieving further reductions in environmental risk for many
problems. Conventional regulatory approaches cover a broad range:
end-of-pipe standards (performance standards), design standards,
use restrictions and product specifications. Some of these types
of regulation contribute directly to pollution prevention, rather
than simply controlling emissions. Most existing environmental
laws and regulations utilize one form or another of such
conventional policy instruments. This includes technology-based
standards, risk-based standards, uniform emission standards,
uniform ambient standards, location-based standards, product bans,
and numerous other requirements.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
CONVENTIONAL REGULATIONS - REGS
S.3.3 Require radon inspections for schools and certain other
buildings. REGS, TH
S.3.4 Establish airflow and radon protection standards for new
buildings. REGS, TH
S.11.4 Simplify RCRA regulations and provide a more flexible array
of hazardous waste management standards. REGS
s.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide users,
particularly in sensitive environments. REGS, ENF, AP
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
41
-------
4.4.5 Enforcement
Virtually no set of strategies for environmental risk reduction
will be effective without a commitment on the part of the Federal
and state governments to enforcement. In a number of cases,
substantial gains can be made in environmental risk reduction by
more vigorously enforcing existing statutes and regulations.
If firms perceive that the expected value of penalties for
exceeding permitted emissions under either a uniform emission
standard or a tradeable permit program is less than the marginal
cost of pollution control, they may decide that it is in their
interest to exceed permitted levels (all other factors held
constant). The expected value of penalties is affected not only
by the level of the penalties but also by the likelihood that they
will be levied. To the extent that penalties or other sanctions
are not enforced, such laws and regulations will be ineffective.
In many cases other factors like ethics and the importance of
public opinion mitigate against strict economic compensation.
While the subcommittee believes that enforcement-based
approaches can provide risk reduction opportunities for many of
the EPA problem areas, it did not have enough time to develop
specific concepts. Two generic concepts were raised. First, to
be effective, an enforcement program must provide a deterrent
effect for the entire regulated community. In many program areas
today, agency/state enforcement efforts target a narrow range of
the community. Non-targeted groups have no real likelihood of
enforcement scrutiny. For those groups that are not targeted,
statistical sampling should be a part of the enforcement strategy
so that the threat of an inspection is always present.
Furthermore, it should be recognized that effective
enforcement toward one firm has the added advantage of providing
a credible threat to other firms, thus encouraging compliance more
generally. This deterrent effect is credible and effective only
if it hits close to home if a firm or individual perceives that
other firms or individuals very like themselves afe being enforced
against.
Second, the current approaches to enforcement are very
resource intensive for the Agency. It seems that other approaches
could be used which would more fully utilize the private sector
42
-------
(either the regulated universe itself, independent inspectors, the
insurance industry, the financial rating authorities, or informea
citizens). If well crafted, these types of approaches could
provide proper incentives for companies to perform rigorous self-
audits.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES!
ENFORCEMENT -_ ENF
S.11.5 Identify contaminated waste sites posing immediate threats
and quickly bring them under control. REGS, ENF
S.11.7 Encourage site cleanup by third parties through enforcement
and use of reasonable settlement procedures. REGS, ENF
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.4.6 Cooperation vith Other Agencies and Nations
Due to EPA's limited jurisdiction, cooperation with other
agencies and nations often presents the best opportunities to
reduce environmental risks. Domestically, there are many programs
and policies administered by other Federal, state and local
departments and agencies that can contribute to environmental risk
reduction. There is also a group of environmental problems that
are fundamentally transboundary or global in nature, and require
a good deal of interaction with other countries. Global warming
and ozone depletion are prime examples. The Subcommittee found the
issue of cooperation so important that they have made them the
subject of the next two sections and recommendations.
43
-------
4.5 Integrating Environmental Protection with Other policy Areas
RECOMMENDATION f4t
Environmental protection must be integrated into other
policy areas, in as fundamental a manner as are economic
concerns.
DISCUSSION;
Many types of government policies significantly affect the
environmental problems that EPA needs to address. Thus it is
critical for EPA to work with the departments and agencies that
are responsible for these policies to develop clear and measurable
objectives for environmental performance and to create the proper
incentives for sustainable development. Environmental quality must
be integral to decisionmaking in these agencies, not just a
constraint at the end of the policymaking process. It is not
sufficient, for example, for energy or agricultural policies to be
developed and then examined for potential negative environmental
impacts. Instead, energy and agricultural policies should be
designed from the start to contribute positively toward
environmental goals.
In virtually every case, changing U.S. policies in sectors
not traditionally linked with environmental protection can provide
major cost-effective environmental benefits. These benefits can
equal or exceed those achieved to date through other means. Not
taking environment into account will inevitably lead to
confrontation as well as missed opportunities.
These policy areas include, but are not limited to energy,
agriculture, housing and commercial development, tax,
transportation, natural resources, and foreign policy. In many
cases, the generic tools that these agencies have, such as economic
incentives, have been discussed in the previous section.
To make this integration real, EPA must devote people and
money to the effort. EPA presently spends a great deal of its
budget to develop and review regulations, but it spends
comparatively little to work with other agencies.
44
-------
4.5.1 Energy Policy
In addition to the obvious benefits to society, the production
and use of energy is responsible for a great deal of damage to the
environment. This damage can result from a limited consideration
of environmental impacts in making energy decisions. Some examples
of environmental effects of energy production are:
a. Combustion of energy in the industrial, transportation,
commercial and residential sectors results in the bulk of the
pollutants involved in urban smog and acid precipitation.
b. Energy activities are responsible for half of all the
greenhouse gases produced by human activity.
c. Coal mining operations result in widespread destruction
of surface areas and acid runoff into local streams, while coal
burning results in massive amounts of ash, SOx, NOx, particulates
and toxic air pollutants.
d. Oil exploration and production often cause environmental
damage.
e. Cooling systems, scrubbers and other environmental control
devices produce significant amounts of solid waste and consume
large amounts of water and power.
f. Accidental spills while transporting oil have damaged
inland and coastal waters. Leaking petroleum storage tanks are
one of the primary causes of ground-water contamination.
g. Nuclear wastes present unique problems.
h. Tightening older buildings to conserve energy can increase
health risks from indoor air pollution.
Energy policy can work in harmony with environmental goals.
Energy policy has been driven largely by security concerns and fuel
availability. In the future, the choice of which mix of energy
options to pursue will need to be driven just as heavily by
environmental concerns. Energy conservation measures, if given
high priority, will improve the balance of payments, lower world
45
-------
oil prices and reduce security threats, in addition to protecting
the environment. Conservation must be driven by U.S. policy
choices based on full cost accounting of environmental concerns,
as well as security and other objectives.
While scrubbers and tailpipe controls can reduce some types
of emissions substantially, the best way to control emissions is
often to invest in conservation approaches that produce less
pollutants in the first place. New buildings and factories are
using new technologies that require a small fraction of the energy
and resources of their predecessors. A major focus of energy
policy must be to accelerate adoption of efficient designs and
production practices. This will require changes in a number of
current regulatory programs.
Promoting energy efficiency requires research investment in
a broad range of technologies for buildings, industry, and
transportation. For instance, without care in design, improvements
in the energy efficiency of buildings can lead to deteriorating
indoor air quality. We also need to promote energy conservation
through institutional changes, such as incentives for utilities to
encourage conservation. More general market incentives and
regulatory changes that promote greater energy efficiency are also
important.
A second major focus must be to develop new energy supplies
that do not damage the environment. This will require a deliberate
and effective national strategy, to shift both national and world
reliance from high-polluting and depletable fossil fuels, such as
coal and petroleum, to more benign alternatives. It will also
require serious comparative research, as quickly as possible, on
the environmental impacts and energy efficiencies of alternative
sources of energy for instance renewable fuels (not all of which
are environmentally benign themselves), hydrogen, "passively safe"
nuclear technologies, solar energy and perhaps others and on the
relative effectiveness of alternative instruments for implementing
such a strategy.
46
-------
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
ENERGY POLICY - EP
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy technologies. PP,
S&T, EP
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.5.2 Agriculture Policy
Over the years, agriculture policies have been extremely
successful in boosting U.S. output of food and fiber. Many
agricultural programs have also improved the quality of the
environment.
Unfortunately, however, agriculture is still a major
contributor to environmental problems across the U.S. Use of
pesticides in agricultural production and food processing amounts
to 75 - 80% of total pesticide use, causing substantial damage to
human health and natural ecosystems. Agriculture accounts for
roughly 50 - 70% of the known instances of impaired surface waters,
primarily as a result of nonpoint source runoff. Agricultural
chemicals are one of the leading sources of ground-water
contamination. Agricultural drainage is responsible for about 90%
of the wetlands lost in the past several decades. Methane from
rice production and farm animals is a significant source of
greenhouse gases.
Federal farm programs have a considerable influence on what
fanners grow and how they grow it. In recent years, annual Federal
farm payments of $10-26 billion have constituted up to 50% of net
47
-------
farm income. More than 2/3 of U.S. cropland is enrolled in Federal
commodity programs. Agricultural extension agents in nearly 3000
counties provide much of the education and advice that farmers
receive on technical issues.
These Federal farm programs are not generally designed to
abate environmental problems. To the contrary, some unintentionally
exacerbate them. The agricultural subsidy programs often provide
incentives for farmers to farm intensively, using great quantities
of pesticides and fertilizers to maximize per acre yields. Farmers
seeking to use alternative, more environmentally benign practices -
- crop rotation, covering idled acreage with forage crops,
reduction of chemical use to economic minimums may sometimes
receive reduced federal program benefits.
Federal agriculture policies and programs should be revised
not only to reduce or eliminate disincentives to environmentally
benign farming, but to directly support good environmental
practices. The Conservation Title of the 1985 farm bill provided
a start in this direction, as does the 1990 farm bill and several
recent proposals among the President's water quality initiatives.
Considering, however, the quality of the Agriculture Department's
research, development, and technology transfer programs and the
impact that its subsidy programs have on farming practices, the
Department could do much more to promote environmental
improvements.
Agricultural policy can most effectively promote environmental
improvement in two areas. First, a major goal of agricultural
policy could become a serious commitment to reduce soil erosion and
runoff of agricultural chemicals into surface waters. Agricultural
policies could induce much greater use of "best management
practices" such as planting of buffer strips to reduce nonpoint
sources of pollution. Second, agricultural policy could be
directed at low-input sustainable agriculture through promoting
integrated pest management and reducing use of agricultural
chemicals.
Many of the steps toward an environmentally positive farm
policy rely on the traditional approach of financial and technical
assistance offered to farmers on a voluntary basis. Farmers have
been free to determine whether to accept these program benefits or
not. Integrating environmental concerns with Federal price
48
-------
support, crop loan, technical assistance and other programs will
undoubtedly encourage improved environmental practices by man^
farmers. But one may question whether better environmental
practices by farmers should continue to be optional.
Pollution from agriculture is substantially less regulated
than are the environmental problems caused by other major sectors
such as manufacturing, transportation, mining and silviculture.
Many areas of government, the service sector and even households
(automobiles, wood stoves) are regulated to some degree. There
are no strong philosophical or practical reasons why at least large
farms should not be held to similar standards as other major
polluters. Large farms could monitor and report on their use of
chemicals and emissions and effluent. Permits could be written and
enforced for large farms prescribing use of best management
practices to minimize off"farm pollution impacts. Pesticides could
be made available for large volume farm use on a prescription basis
only. It appears worthwhile both to modify Federal farm incentive
programs so as to elicit satisfactory environmental performance by
farmers on a voluntary basis, and to investigate the role that
mandatory regulatory programs might play.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIESt
AGRICULTURAL POLICY -AP
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing incentives
for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and by
prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, MI, INFO, REGS
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
49
-------
4.5.3 TaarPolicy
Tax policies affect the environment in a variety of profound
ways. Policies that promote investment in new plants and equipment
have positive impacts, as new technologies tend to be less
polluting and more energy efficient. Tax policies that stimulate
home ownership certainly an admirable goal appear to have
contributed to urban sprawl, increasing pressure on natural areas
and increasing energy use. Favorable tax treatment of second homes
has been particularly important in encouraging development of
coastal wetlands and barrier islands. Tax policies that provide
subsidies for virgin extractive industries reduce incentives for
waste reduction and recycling. Taxes on energy can promote
efficiency and encourage development of different energy sources.
Tax policy is perhaps the most effective incentive tool that
the government has. Through a system of taxes and credits, tax
policy can be designed to encourage or deter economic behavior.
It can also create a funding base for specific environmental
programs as it did with Superfund. To date, tax policy has been
selectively used to create incentives for environmental investments
and to encourage the replacement of environmentally undesirable
processes or products. It has also been used in a limited fashion
to raise money for environmental programs. However, its use as a
positive incentive to broadly affect the future behavior of
corporations and individual citizens has not been fully utilized,
nor has careful analysis been performed that could serve as the
basis for modifying environmentally counter-productive taxing
programs.
While there are always serious political problems associated
with new taxes, three points are important to mention. First, the
public continues to show its willingness to pay for environmental
protection, and earmarked environmental taxes hold some attraction.
Second, environmental goals could be fostered by revenue neutral
approaches that shift existing tax incidence. Third, "taxes" that
are designed not to raise general revenues but to'charge the costs
of real environmental damage to those who benefit from them, and
when possible to pay for the services necessary to prevent or
correct the damage, are in fact not taxes in the general sense at
all, but merely user fees that should be paid by the beneficiary
in any case.
50
-------
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
TAX POLICY - TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
S.12.3 Tax wastes and virgin materials to promote waste reduction
and recycling. MI, TAX
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.5.4
Policies
Transportation and commercial development policies affect the
environment in profound, but not always obvious ways. The
extraordinary U.S. financial investment in highways has helped
stimulate a sprawling pattern of development around urban centers,
particularly in the west. A range of Federal tax, subsidy, and
other activities encourage single family development. These
policies have led to air and noise pollution and destruction of
critical ecological habitats.
Transportation and urban development policy needs to take the
environment into account. Transportation and infrastructure
development should attempt to lessen, rather than increase
dependence on the automobile. Urban traffic problems need to be
fixed to prevent unnecessary emissions from idling and stop and go
driving. Mass transit, carpools and other mechanisms should be
aimed at reducing urban driving.
51
-------
Housing and commercial development policy provides an
opportunity to prevent environmental damage before it happens by
controlling development in ecologically fragile areas, and also to
influence the clean-up of any past problems. Appropriate building
design and siting provide the most direct way to assure that
residential, commercial, and public buildings are healthful.
Product performance standards, voluntary information programs, and
mandatory problem identification/problem correction programs all
have a role here. Requirements imposed at the time when a property
is sold or requirements associated with Federal mortgage financing
are particularly promising.
Transportation is responsible for about a third of U.S. fossil
fuel consumption. Specifically, passenger cars consume 12%, trucks
10% and other transportation modes 9%. Highway vehicles alone
produce 34% of the nitrogen oxide emissions, 24% of volatile
organics, and 54% of carbon monoxide. Policies designed to
increase the efficiency of transportation or to substitute clean
fuels can have multiple environmental benefits.
Under existing regulatory policies for fuel efficiency and
emissions control, motor vehicles have become more efficient and
less polluting. For example, new model passenger cars have their
exhaust emissions of volatile organics and carbon monoxide reduced
over 90% from uncontrolled vehicles, and the average fuel economy
of 'new passenger cars has risen by nearly 100% since 1974.
Unfortunately, vehicle miles travelled have increased, due to lower
gasoline prices, lack of transportation alternatives, etc.
Although forecasts vary, vehicle use and travel are expected to
increase by as much as 75% in the next 20 years.
With the limited further gains in emission control available
from traditional end-of-pipe controls, policies to encourage
retirement of older automobiles, to improve traffic flow, and even
to provide alternative modes of urban development and
transportation need to be investigated. The 20-year plan of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District to improve pollution
levels in Los Angeles is a pioneering effort in this regard.
52
-------
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
TRANSPORTATION. URBAN. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY
- TH
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land use planning, car pooling, and mass transit
alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
S.3.1 Ensure that homeowners understand radon risks by requiring
testing before properties can change hands. INFO, MI, TH
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new and existing
homes. REGS, EP, TH
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.5.5 Natural Resource Policy
Federal policy on land and resource conservation and use of
the nation's natural resources has a substantial influence on many
env i ronmenta1 prob1ems.
The Federal government owns about 21% of the land in the lower
48 states and 32% of the land in the entire United States. Much
of this land is in natural or near-natural condition, providing the
nation's largest reserves for protection of natural diversity. The
balance that is struck in managing this land between preservation
and use for forestry, grazing, mining, recreation, development or
other activities is a major determinant of the extent to which
natural communities will survive. The share of federal land
acquisition funds allocated among competing purposes (e.g.
acquisition of natural areas vs. recreational areas vs. historic
areas) is also important.
Policies regarding the availability of resources from Federal
lands are a major determinant of prices for basic commodities and
53
-------
the ability of recycled materials to compete with virgin supplies.
To the extent U.S. Forest Service timber sales, for example, arc
subsidized, they depress the overall price for timber and act as
a disincentive to recycling of paper and other wood products.
Federal lands provide the following shares of basic commodities in
the U.S.: timber, 33%; oil, 11%; gas, 26%; grazing acreage, 27%.
Federal lands are also direct sources of pollution. Ten
states report silviculture as a significant nonpoint source .problem
for surface waters, often involving federal lands. Federal
requirements specifying allowable harvests, streamside buffers and
road building practices can have a major influence on this problem.
Federal range lands are in notoriously poor condition, with 63% of
them classified as being in fair or poor condition. Their
condition is partially a function of low federal grazing fees,
which encourage overuse of the land and provide insufficient funds
for their maintenance.
Federal water projects (dams, channelizing, dredging, etc.)
are responsible for a large proportion of the physical alteration
of aquatic ecosystems that has left only about 1/3 of the nation's
riparian ecosystems in a natural condition. Although federal
subsidies for water projects have been reduced in recent years, the
projects' beneficiaries still pay an average of only a few percent
of the project costs. Irrigation water from federal projects is
particularly highly subsidized, with prices often set under 30-40
year contracts to recover only a portion of the original building
costs. Irrigation accounts for about 80% of consumptive water use
in the arid west. In this area, reduced stream flows because of
consumptive water withdrawals constitute a major ecological stress,
and pollutants from irrigation return flows (salinity, nitrates,
selenium) cause further ecological damages.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY - NR
S.6.5 Reduce C02 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.10.1 Develop a nationwide inventory and preservation plan for
important habitats. NR
54
-------
S.10.3 Dramatically increase Federal acquisition of important
ecological areas and open space. NR
S.12.3 Tax wastes and virgin materials to promote waste reduction
and recycling. MI, TAX, NR
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these example strategies)
4.5.6 Foreign Policy
In recent years it has been become apparent that many
environmental problems are international in nature and require
cooperative, multi-national solutions. It is heartening that
foreign policy is adapting faster to the environmental imperative
than some other governmental functions. Initially, international
efforts focused heavily on either transboundary problems (such as
Great Lakes pollution, acid rain or movement of wastes) or
pollution occurring in international waters (oil pollution, ocean
dumping). Today, issues such as global warming and ozone depletion
engage the economic trading partners of the West, the currently or
previously centrally planned economies, and many of the developing
nations. Concern over the cold war is being replaced by concern
over trade and environment.
Problems such as global warming and stratospheric ozone
depletion can not be solved by any country working alone. Even
the strictest regulations of global pollutants will be ineffective
when conducted unilaterally. Such unilateral action, while well
intended, would substantially affect the economic balance in
competitive production.
The U.S. might improve the growing linkage between foreign
policies and environmental concerns by conducting a thorough and
impartial assessment of the impacts of U.S. international trade,
debt and finance policies on global human and environmental
conditions. This analysis should address direct actions by the U.S.
55
-------
government, the positions the U.S. advocates in international
agencies and lending institutions, and the practices of U.S.-basec
multinational corporations.
Efforts to push for pollution prevention and low waste/low
resource consumptive technology both at home and abroad will pay
off by making the U.S. an example for others to follow and helping
other countries to avoid problems they might otherwise face. The
U.S. should also boost education and training programs for
developing countries to promote sustainable development in
technology and agriculture.
EXAMPLE STRATEGIES:
FOREIGN POLICY - FOR
S.5.1 Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to virtually eliminate use
of CFCs, halons and other ozone depleters. PP, FOR
S.6.5 Reduce C02 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.6.6 Pursue an international agreement on greenhouse gases. FOR
(See Appendix AA for complete listing)
(See first page of Appendices for explanation of the coding of
these examples strategies)
4.6 Federal Environmental PolicvmaXina
RECOMMENDATION «5t
In order to integrate environmental policy into other
governmental policies, a special mechanism should be
created in the Executive Branch.
DISCUSSION!
The broad environmental strategies discussed above for energy,
agriculture, tax, transportation, natural resource and foreign
policy areas require an institutional mechanism within the
Executive Branch. There are several means by which this might be
56
-------
dons: the Council on Environmental Quality could be expanded and
given clearer policy development responsibilities, a Cabinet.
Council on the Environment could be reconstituted and given a
staff, or a new entity could be established. Another option would
be to create a new Environmental Policy Council (EPC), which might
be chaired and staffed by the Chairman of CEQ or it could be
jointly chaired by the Administrator of EPA (or Secretary of
Environment) and the Chairman of CEQ.
The primary responsibility of such a group would be strategy
development. This group would devise means of harnessing and
coordinating existing government programs to serve environmental
goals, as well as developing new approaches for integrating
environmental goals into major legislation such as farm or energy
bills. Individual government agencies would remain responsible
for implementation of the strategies developed under such a
mechanism.
Such a group could also look to the future, examining future
trends and options for production sectors which affect the
environment. Long range strategies could then be developed that
are consistent with and do not threaten other objectives. Areas
for study could include each of the general areas discussed in the
previous section of this chapter as well as more specific topics,
such as new materials, biotechnology, etc.
4.7 Risk-Based Strategic Planning
RECOMMENDATION 16t
EPA should continue to perform analyses similar to the
present Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Project and
integrate the results into the Agency's strategic
planning processes.
DISCUSSION:
The Agency needs to conduct the type of exercise undertaken
in this project and make it a part of its regular planning process.
It can do this internally, or with input from outside groups. The
use of outside experts to suggest directions for priorities and
strategies has great merit, if these experts work closely with the
57
-------
agency. In developing strategies, it is important that certain
elements exist:
1. Risk-based priorities roust be updated periodically. A major
review of the environmental risks facing the nation should be
conducted every several years, to reflect changes in scientific
knowledge and progress in mitigating problems over time. Specific
strategies for reducing these risks should be updated more often
(probably annually).
2. The strategies should be organized around solving critical
environmental problems, not around planning for the future of
existing programs. It is extremely useful to analyze problems
defined in alternative ways for example, as pollutants (e.g.,
criteria air pollutants, toxic air pollutants), as sources (e.g.,
automobiles, power plants), in terms of their effects (e.g.,
increased respiratory diseases, reduced visibility), in terms of
the sectors affecting them (e.g., energy, transportation and urban
development, tax). Looking at environmental problems in different
ways suggests different types of strategic solutions. Only after
taking a multi-faceted, comprehensive look at problems and
potential solutions is it appropriate to develop plans for specific
EPA programs.
3. The Agency should subject individual strategies to disciplined
analysis to determine how much risk reduction each will achieve.
This analysis should not become so complicated or drawn out as to
become itself an obstacle to progress. Also needed is information
on cost, timing, certainty, and ancillary benefits or risks. The
matrix developed by the Subcommittee represents one approach of
evaluating alternative strategies against a set of criteria.
The resulting strategies should incorporate innovative
approaches and should be built into the program plans for
implementing offices in a coordinated manner. To date, EPA
strategies have often been limited to clearly defined statutory
requirements and to the use of clear-cut statutory tools. The
Subcommittee suggests that EPA aggressively user the full scope of
its statutory authorities to achieve the desired environmental
results. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides broad
authority for information-oriented strategies. Several laws may
give the Agency authority to charge user fees, which could form
the basis for economic incentive programs. All major statutes
58
-------
provide authority for research, information dissemination,
technical assistance, training, and cooperation with other
agencies.
4.8 Risk-Based Budgeting
RECOMMENDATION 17;
EPA'a annual budget should more directly reflect risk-
based priorities.
DISCUSSION;
Historically, EPA's budgets have reflected simply the
resources necessary to establish and implement the regulatory
programs mandated by Congress, with little focus on risk and on
where the cost-effective opportunities lie for reducing risk.
Accordingly, some high risk environmental problems, such as radon
and other indoor air pollution, have received only a small fraction
of the EPA budget. EPA has some independent ability to shift its
budget incrementally toward greater concern over risks in
establishing priorities. EPA's present leaders have demonstrated
greater concern in this respect; they are making changes, and
should continue to do so. However, EPA's leaders are not the only
people who play a role in determining EPA's budget.
The change in budget priorities need not and should not take
the form of radical, overnight change. Small but consistent
changes over time will accomplish the same objectives without undue
disruption. The changes in the budget also do not need to make
allocations exactly proportional to risk and risk reduction. Some
risk reduction can be accomplished at low cost.
The Subcommittee specifically recommends that at the beginning
of the budgetary process, the Administrator or the Deputy
Administrator provide clear advice to the program offices regarding
certain high-risk activities that appear relatively underfunded.
A second review should take place just prior to the time the budget
is sent to the Office of Management and Budget to assure that these
activities continue to be reflected as high priorities.
This strategic process should assist in the review of
59
-------
budgetary priorities. But, whatever the process chosen by the
agency, it is critically important that a specific process be
developed to compare budgetary allocations with risk.
Fundamentally, though, it is the Congress, constituency groups
and the public that set EPA's broadest priority directions. To the
extent these directions from outside the Agency differ from EPA and
expert's risk-based view of what the Agency priorities should be,
public discussion about environmental priorities becomes critical.
EPA must listen to Congress, interest groups and the public about
why they see environmental problems as they do, and EPA must also
communicate its own views on these issues and solutions.
Significant disagreement about priorities between the public
concerned with environmental protection and the agency charged with
assuring it needs to be aired publicly so that a common
understanding can be reached. The agency needs to stress the risk-
based approach in this discussion.
Appendix B, "Perspectives on Reducing Environmental Risks,"
contains several sections that are directly relevant to this
recommendation, concerning risks, priorities, and EPA and social
spending.
4.9 Education and Training
RECOMMENDATION *8l
The Agency should develop an enhanced environmental
education and training program for both the general
public and professionals.
DISCUSSION;
The preceding recommendations by the Subcommittee suggest a
broad approach to environmental protection in the Nation.
Individuals making decisions about production or consumption of
goods and services should understand the environmental implications
of their actions and their opportunities to prevent pollution
rather than generate it. Environmental concerns should be fully
considered in developing government policies regarding economics,
energy, agriculture, housing, natural resources and other sectors.
The tools used for environmental protection should be extended well
60
-------
beyond traditional command-and-control end-of-pipe regulation to
include less direct but broader-based approaches such as economic
incentives, provision of information, and research and development.
This expanded approach places responsibility for environmental
protection on all sectors of society, not just on environmental
professionals (e.g., environmental engineers, agency staffs,
corporate environmental personnel, activist groups) alone.
Producers, consumers, businessmen, farmers, architects, bankers,
scientists, government officials and others all must understand the
impact of their activities on the environment. This will require
an improved program of environmental education and training
throughout society, supported by EPA. EPA should support programs
in three specific areas:
1. Broad environmental education for the general public.
2. Incorporation of environmental concerns into higher education
and in-service training for non-environmental professions (e.g.,
engineers, architects, etc.).
3. Improved education for environmental professionals on pollution
prevention, cross media concerns, and risk communication.
Regarding the general public it is clear that real
improvements in many environmental conditions depend upon actions
by individual citizens. It is the individual who decides whether
or not to obey a particular regulation, whether or not to change
his/her behavior, and whether or not to support a particular risk
reduction strategy. Individuals can segregate their trash,
conserve energy and water, and buy non-polluting products. Such
actions depend on a public that is educated to understand and
choose practices that will reduce risk in a cost-effective manner.
This education should begin at a young age. The fundamental
concepts of environmental protection and stewardship can and should
be taught early. By effectively communicating a few fundamental
environmental messages, the nation can help mobilize a huge social
force to address the needs of environmental protection. EPA is
currently starting a new environmental education program. The
Subcommittee supports efforts in this direction.
The second group for which environmental education programs
should be improved includes a wide range of professionals not
61
-------
directly concerned with environmental quality but whose decisions
nevertheless have a profound impact on environmental condition
businessmen, architects, engineers, farmers, bankers, developers,
and others. In some areas, such as real estate transaction,
mergers and acquisitions, and siting new industrial plants, these
professionals have recently recognized that they must pay attention
themselves to environmental concerns and cannot leave them solely
to environmental specialists. However, the set of issues on which
decision-makers should pay serious attention to environmental
concerns is much broader, including decisions about what products
to produce and how, building design, farming practices, etc.. We
hope that professionals making such decisions can be trained to
recognize the choices they have among alternative ways of
conducting their productive activities that can minimize the
generation of pollutants and wastes.
EPA should provide financial assistance to universities for
the incorporation of environmental concerns and understanding into
professional curricula. EPA should also work with the professional
societies and other organizations interested in continuing
education for professionals. EPA might lend its experts as
lecturers and consultants to these organizations, and might support
development of appropriate teaching materials.
Finally, EPA must concern itself with the education of
environmental professionals. This concern should extend to both
the number of individuals being educated and the quality of the
education being provided. Within our educational institutions,
student interest (and arguably also student capability) in
sciences, mathematics and engineering is flagging. The result is,
for example, a serious shortfall in the number of engineers and
scientists relative to our needs for dealing with such problems as
hazardous waste. Traditional scientific education programs are
only beginning to appreciate the need for multidisciplinary,
multimedia approaches to our current and emerging environmental
problems. For example, only a handful of colleges and universities
have strong waste reduction curricula; none has a comprehensive
multimedia pollution prevention program.
To address the widening gap between needed and available
personnel, the Agency should develop an aggressive training program
for graduate scientists and engineers. The program might include
fellowships for promising environmental professionals, increased
62
-------
environmental research grants to university faculty that can also
support student assistants, and teaching materials for
environmental courses.
The case for education and training aimed at present
environmental professionals is, in some ways, even more compelling
than that for future professionals. The pace at which we are
discovering new problems and nuances of old problems has
outstripped the ability of many specialists to remain current with
all the latest developments. Sophisticated computer modeling,
impacts on an unprecedented global scale, and the perplexing
difficulty of some of the simplest questions (e.g., "How can we
tell if this ecosystem is 'sick'?") have leapfrogged over the
training of many scientists and engineers schooled to address more
traditional localized concerns (e.g., "How do we construct the best
water treatment facility?"). Important areas where knowledge has
recently burgeoned warrant special attention in training courses:
pollution prevention, multimedia and integrated environmental
management, risk assessment (both human and ecological), non-
regulatory strategies for risk reduction, and risk communication.
As environmental problems in the future become more complex,
interdependent and global in scope, improved environmental
education and training will become critical in empowering our
society to make sensible, informed environmental choices. EPA
support for improved education and training may be as important in
ultimately reducing environmental risks as any of the other more
tangible steps the Agency may take.
4.10 Conclusion
The environmental challenges of the 1990's are daunting. The
contaminants of concern extend from natural soil conditions to
chemical manufacturing plants. The exposure occurs everywhere,
from individual basements to the entire globe.
The problems of the 1990's no longer fit neat patterns where
villainous industries or municipalities belched air pollutants or
discharged raw sewage. Rather, we are dealing with problems
without clear culprits or simple end-of-the-pipe solutions. We
are recognizing that virtually all public policy affects the
quality of the environment, one way or another.
63
-------
Hence, we conclude where we started. The traditional
regulatory mechanisms for addressing environmental problems
certainly with many victories to their credit will not suffice
to meet many of problems of the 1990's. The new challenges require
development and use of a much broader variety of tools and much
earlier consideration of environmental factors in national
decisionmaking. If these steps are not taken, environmental
problems of many sorts will continue to increase. In other
instances we may improve environmental conditions, but at excessive
costs. In both cases, we will have failed to meet our risk
reduction potential.
REFERENCES
NRC, Improving Risk Communication, Committee on Risk Perception and
Communication, National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 1989
National Research Council, Waste Reduction; Research Needs in
Applied Social Sciences. Washington, D.C., National Academy
Press, 1990
USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology
Transfer, Report and Recommendations of the Environmental
Education and Training Committee, Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. 20460.
64
-------
Appendix A
Optional strategics for 13 Specific
Environmental Problems
Each of the strategy options listed for the different problem
areas in Appendix A has been listed again at the end of this
Appendix (AA.l) and has been sorted according to risk reduction
tool (AA.2) and according to policy area (AA.3). The sorting makes
use of the codes shown below. Representative examples of these
strategy options also appear in the main text of the report where
appropriate.
Risk; Reduction Tools
PP - Pollution Prevention
S&T - Scientific and Technical Measures
INFO - Provision of Information
MI - Market Incentives
REGS - Conventional Regulations
ENF - Enforcement
Policy Areas
EP - Energy Policy
AP - Agricultural Policy
TH - Transportation, Urban, Housing and
Commercial Development Policy
TAX - Tax Policy
NR - Natural Resource Policy
FOR - Foreign Policy
65
-------
A.I Criteria Air Pollutant!
A.1.1. Risk Background
The problems associated with the criteria air
pollutants (carbon monoxide, suspended parti cut ate
matter, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide and -- for the purposes of this report, --
sulfates and nitrates) are perhaps the best
understood of any this Subcommittee is considering.
To be sure, uncertainties attend estimates of
emissions, chemical transformation, transport,
deposition, and ultimate effects on human health,
ecological processes, materials, aesthetics, and
also the costs of control. But because the federal
government has had basic research, monitoring, and
control programs in place for twenty years, and
because many state and local governments were
controlling particulates and sulfur dioxide for at
least ten years prior to 1970, we have accumulated
an impressive store of knowledge about these
pollutants.
Health risks:
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAOS) have been established for each criteria air
pollutant. The' NAAQS are intended to prevent the
variety of health effects that criteria air
pollutants may cause, often particularly affecting
sensitive groups such as children or people with
asthma. Despite substantial progress in reducing
emissions of criteria air pollutants and attaining
NAAQS, in 1988 over 121 million people in the U.S.
resided in counties which exceeded at least one air
quality standard (USEPA, 1990).
a) Ozone standards are those most frequently
violated. Approximately 112 million people live in
\counties not attaining ozone standards. Both
clinical and epidemiological studies have found
links between acute (short-term) exposures to ozone
and a variety of adverse health effects, including
nose and throat irritation and respiratory problems
including changes in pulmonary function tests and
asthma attacks. Some animal toxicological studies
have suggested that prolonged exposures to ozone
may increase the risk of chronic pulmonary
problems, but there is as yet no confirmatory human
epidemiological evidence, even in populations
exposed to relatively high levels for long periods
of time.
b) Paniculate matter is a more localized
pollutant. Although some 26 million people live in
non-attaining counties, only some of them are
actually subject to levels above the standard.
Acute exposure to such levels has been linked to
respiratory problems, particularly for sensitive
populations like people with asthma, small
children, or the elderly. Extended chronic
exposure is thought by some to cause premature
death.
c) Carbon monoxide in ambient air affects
relatively few individuals among the 29
people in non-attainment areas. In high
concentrations, CO aggravates angina and may cause
developmental or neurological effects.
d) Nitrogen oxides can irritate the lungs, cause
bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to
respiratory infections. Over 8 million people live
in counties which exceed the nitrogen dioxide
standard.
e) Sulfur dioxide standards are exceeded in areas
affecting 1.7 million people. It can aggravate
asthma.
f) Lead can cause learning disabilities and is
particularly dangerous to children. Though 1.6
million people live in lead non-attainment areas,
a very small proportion of them are children
exposed to levels above standards. Lead may cause
adverse health impacts by several means in addition
to inhalation.
g) Acid aerosols do not have air quality
standards, but are associated with various criteria
pollutants. These particles have been linked to
lung damage, aggravated respiratory disease, and
increased mortality (perhaps several thousand cases
per year).
The health effects of criteria air pollutants are
well known, based on extensive animal studies,
human experiments, and epidemiological
investigations. Human exposure can be modelled
using ambient air monitoring data of good quality.
Ecological risks;
Plant damage from ozone and acid deposition has
been documented. The underlying dose response
relationships have been established in experimental
settings. However, in the field, plant damage is
difficult to link to specific criteria pollutants.
Damage is often due to a combination of pollution
and natural phenomena, such as droughts, pests, or
harsh winter weather.
Ozone damage to vegetation includes leaf damage,
reduced growth, altered reproductive capacity, and
altered sensitivity to pests. Damages vary by
species and location, but the potential for damage
is nationwide. Despite the predominance of urban
sources of ozone, long range transport results in
elevated ozone levels in many forested, rural
areas.
Deposition of acidic sulfur and nitrogen compounds
causes damage to lakes, streams, and forests in
some parts of the U.S. Increased acidity from
deposition to lakes and streams can affect the
reproduction and growth of many aquatic species.
In several areas of the country (the Adirondacks,
Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and Florida) up to 12X
of the lakes have been acidified. Acid deposition
can also leach nutrients fro* soil, inhibit
photosynthesis, and kill microorganisms. It may
66
-------
also riiobilize toxic metals so that they enter soils
or harm aquattfr. life, crops, or trees. Acid
deposition is suspected, though not proven, to be
a factor in forest dieback and declines in
coniferous growth.
Welfare risks:
Criteria air pollutants cause large welfare
damages; these damages have been more closely
studied than those for any other environmental
problem. Materials damage and soiling, reduced
commercial agricultural and forest yields, and
reduced visibility result in economic losses
estimated in the tens of billions of dollars
annually.
A.1.2. Policy Background
Federal, state, and local governments have been
implementing programs to control criteria air
pollutants many decades. In general, state and
local governments have primary responsibility for
preventing and controlling criteria air pollutants,
which they do by conducting permitting, monitoring,
inspection, enforcement, and planning programs.
The federal government supports these activities
through research and development, technical and
financial assistance, and establishment of national
standards. These programs have had impressive
effects and have carried impressive costs.
Despite growth in population of 10X and real GNP of
26X over the 10 years from 1979 to 1988,
improvements in both ambient concentrations and
emissions have been seen for five of the six
criteria pollutants (USEPA, 1990).
Trends for 1979 - 1988
air pollution control regulations we currently
spend about $35 billion per year, almost all o'
which is directed at criteria air pollutants. Of
this total, about half goes for emissions control
at stationary sources and half goes to controlling
emissions from cars, trucks, and buses. Over the
past two decades, total expenditures necessitated
by the Clean Air Act have exceeded $200 billion
(U.S. DOC, 1988).
In spite of the air pollution control efforts to
date, emissions are still significant and
pollution-related risks remain. For
example.ambient ozone concentrations remain high in
many areas, most notably Los Angeles. Concern
about acid deposition from sulfates and nitrates
has prompted pending legislation that would almost
halve annual emissions of sulfur dioxide in the
U.S. Concern also exists in some areas about
ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide, fine
particulates (particularly acidic sulfates} and
nitrogen oxides. The sources responsible for the
emissions of each criteria air pollutant in 1988
were (USEPA, 1990):
Sources of Total National Emissions
(in percent)
Pollutant
Particulates
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
VOCs
Lead
20
4
67
41
33
34
25
79
12
55
5
7
38
17
8
3
46
26
17
0
13
1
16
33
Avg. Monitored
Pollutant Cone.
Total National
Annual Emissions
Transportation * A
Fuel Combustion * B
Industrial Processes * C
Solid Waste I Miscellaneous = D
Particulates -20X
Sulfur dioxide -36X
Carbon monoxide -28X
Nitrogen oxides - 7X
Ozone + 2X
Lead -89X
-22X
-17X
-25X
- 8X
-17X (VOCs)
-97X
Ozone concentrations appear to have increased
because of an unusually warm summer in 1988 and
alternatively a cooler 1989 resulted in
substantially lower ozone levels. These
improvements (except for ozone) in air quality have
reduced health, ecological, and welfare damages
from criteria air pollutants. Although some
attempts have been made to quantify these
beneficial effects in physical terms and to place
dollar values on at least some of them, we
currently have no really clear idea of the overall
economic value of the benefits; however, they are
clearly substantial.
The costs associated with twenty years of air
pollution control are somewhat more amenable to
quantification. In order to comply with federal
A.1.3. Possible Strategy Options
Four major challenges must be faced in developing
a strategy for criteria air pollutants:
b.
Reduce sources of SOx and MOx that lead to
acid deposition.
Reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds that are considered the major
contributors to ozone formation.
Pursue pollution prevention steps to assist
in achievement of standards, and even more
important, to assure their maintenance.
Research, development, and monitoring
support compliance efforts.
to
a. Reducing sources of SOx and NOx that lead to
acid deposition. President Bush recommended that
annual emissions of sulfur cxides be reduced by 10
million tons per year, whetsver number is finally
chosen, an acid deposition control program is
crucial to coping with criteria air pollutants.
67
-------
Although acidic rain and acid aerosols do not
represent criteria pollutants per se, their control
is inextricably intertwined with control of
criteria pollutant*.
While a regulatory program would be established to
achieve the reduction mandated, it is important to
use a market mechanism to drive 'actual remedial
actions. The marketable permit proposal could
reduce the costs of a control dramatically. For
example, a 10 million ton per year reduction in SO,
emissions will cost about S4 billion annually if
marketable permits are used. Under this proposal,
utilities with opportunities to reduce 502
emissions at low cost would reduce their emissions
more than is required, and would sell their credits
for having overcontrolled to utilities facing
higher costs. If, however, an equivalent reduction
is pursued through the required installation of
scrubbers at coal-fired power plants, the annual
costs of the program jumps to approximately M
billion. Moreover, the marketable permit approach
provides incentives to utilities to find least cost
innovative control technology or other measures
that would not exist if legislation were instead to
mandate that all utilities install a particular
control technology.
The marketable permit approach, however, must be
applied carefully, so as not to allow trading
between sources which affect different impacted
regions.
S.1.1 Use marketable permits to lower costs and
spur innovation in reducing acid rain. MI, EP
b. Reducing volatile organic compounds. The
Subcommittee considered many options for reducing
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The Subcommittee endorses steps EPA is examining,
such as volatility restrictions, on-board controls,
vapor recovery nozzles at filling stations, and
vapor recovery technology at re-filling operations.
The Subcommittee also looked at other possible ways
to reduce VOCs, particularly since VOC use is
likely to increase with population and per capita
GNP growth.
One option available is a deposit/refund system or
tax on the VOC components in solvents. Imposing a
front-end charge would create strong incentives for
users of solvents to find substitutes, to reduce
use and to find recycling possibilities. To
encourage recycling, no tax or deposit would be
levied when recycled solvents are purchased.
Instead of or in addition to the front-end charge,
there might be a refund for solvents returned for
recycling. This option would be less onerous to
industry. However, it might be difficult to
determine the quality of the solvents returned.
These technical issues must be dealt with to
determine if this option is viable.
Regulation of volatile solvents in paints and other
products represents either an independent option or
a supplement to the tax or deposit/refund system.
Finally, the Congress could mandate an across-the-
board reduction in the VOC content of solvents,
using a marketable permit system to achieve the
reduction cost-effectively. This proposal would
have the same effect as a solvent tax, raising the
price and thus creating market for reducing
solvent use, and establishing the option to sell
rights to other companies.
S.1.2 Reduce VOC emissions through deposit-refund
programs, taxes or marketable permits. MI
c. Pursue pollution prevention efforts to assist
in the achievement of standards, and more
importantly, to assure their maintenance. The
approaches listed above for reducing VOC emissions
can help apply pollution prevention principles to
one class of criteria air pollutants. There are
numerous other pollution prevention approaches that
can be worthwhile. Probably the most significant
pollution prevention activity in the U.S. has been
the substantial improvements in energy efficiency
over the past 17 years. While GNP has grown over
40 percent, energy use has been roughly constant.
The majority of criteria air pollution emissions
result from combustion of fossil fuels. If energy
use had followed GNP growth, our pollution problems
would be much more severe.
Substantial future energy conservation potential
still exists. The Subcommittee focused on
conservation in only two sectors: the electric
utility and transportation sectors. Numerous
promising pollution prevention and energy
conservation strategies exist beyond several listed
below.
Electric utilities are responsible for most of the
SOx and NOx emissions, and a substantial fraction
of particulate emissions. Rate systems for
utilities encourage expansion and penalize
conservation. Even during a period when
incremental costs exceed average costs, utilities
stand to return more to investors by adding
capacity. If utilities could make money on
conservation investments, or at least not lose
money, then they would have incentives to develop
conservation programs, such as installing high
efficiency equipment at their customers'
facilities.
Some states have developed incentive systems
designed to overcome current barriers to
conservation in utility procedures. The Federal
government, at modest cost, could assure that a
number of these systems are demonstrated.
Conservation incentive rate structures could
potentially promote conservation goals within the
industry, just as the Public Utilities Regulatory
Policy Act (PURPA) has revolutionized production by
independent power producers.
S.1.3 Alter state utility rate structures to
persuade utilities to sell conservation rather than
BTUS. PP. MI, EP
A wide variety of measures to improve energy
efficiency in the transportation sector could have
a substantial effect in reducing emissions of
criteria air pollutants from vehicles and
production and marketing of motor fuels.
Improvements in fuel efficiency might be
obtained by strengthening the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, or by imposing a tax
on purchase of fuel-inefficient autos (a "gas
guzzler tax"). Although these measures would
reduce gasoline use, they would have to be designed
carefully to reduce criteria air pollutant
emissions from vehicles. Since these emissions are
68
-------
now regulated on a grams per mile basis,
manufactures mgy use less effective pollution
control equipment on more fuel efficient car and
achieve no improvement in emission per mile
relative to a "gas guzzler". To the extent-, that
tighter CAFE standards or taxes raise the purchase
cost of new cars, a countervailing effect may also
come into play -- older, more polluting cars may be
kept in use longer. Policies to accelerate fleet
turnover, such as the recent offers by companies in
California to purchase older cars and retire them,
may be beneficial. Other means of improving
vehicle fuel efficiency would include measures to
smooth traffic flow and reduce congestion.
Measures to reduce the number of vehicle miles
traveled could also be adopted: car pooling, mass
transit alternatives, better land - use planning,
etc.
Increasing the gasoline tax might be the most
desirable of all measures. It would provide an
incentive for purchasing more fuel efficient cars;
for retiring older, fuel-inefficient cars, and for
reducing vehicle miles travelled.
Although unpopular, a gasoline tax would solve
many national problems at once; it would: create
a strong revenue source, reduce the negative
balance of payments, reduce future oil prices and
energy insecurity, and promote environmental
improvement. U.S. gasoline taxes are among the
lowest of any developed country. A gasoline tax of
50 cents a gallon would still result in U.S.
gasoline prices being among the lowest in the
world. To reduce regressivity a system could be
created to rebate funds to the driving poor.
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through
a gasoline tax and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI,
REGS, EP, TH, TAX
Finally, pollution from the transportation
sector might be prevented by modifying the engines,
vehicles, or fuels used. Alternative fuels,
reformulated gasoline, or electric vehicles
represent some possibilities. A substitute for
conventional gasoline is attractive, assuming that
is does not add to global warming or jeopardize
energy security. While the Subcommittee does not
express an opinion on the best option, some steps
must clearly be taken to reduce VOC pollution from
automobile fueling and use in many areas of the
country. Electric vehicles offer an interesting
option, but they would require substantial capital
investment in vehicles and fuel distribution
infrastructure.
As a final theme in discussing pollution prevention
approaches for criteria pollutants, we note that
efforts to speed up capital turnover broadly
throughout manufacturing, transportation, housing
and many other sectors would result in less
polluting, less energy-using facilities. Federal
tax and fiscal policies have a substantial effect
on the rate of capital replacement through
provisions for capital gains, depreciation,
investment tax credits, tax treatment of research
and development, etc. Policies that encourage
greater investments in new plant and equipment
would have positive environmental impacts.
d. Research, development and monitoring efforts.
Because criteria air pollutants are relatively well
understood, research and development and monitoring
strategies are not as attractive as for othe
environmental problems before the Subcommittee.
However, accelerated scientific work may be
particularly warranted in two areas:
1. Establishing more remotely sited air pollution
monitors for ozone and its precursors.
Currently, almost all air pollution monitors
are located in more highly populated
metropolitan areas. As population centers grow
in heretofore rural areas, however, it is
important to understand the pollution levels to
which residents there are exposed. This means
more diffusely situated monitoring devices.
Such monitors will also help provide data on
the actual pollution levels to which forests,
agricultural crops, and visitors to national
parks are exposed.
5.1.5 Establish more remote monitors for ozone.
S&T
2. Further investigating the relative roles of
VOCs and NOx in ozone formation. Recent
evidence suggests a more important role for NOx
than previously thought in sow areas. With
major VOC sources now reasonably well
controlled in most ozone nonattainment areas,
very expensive or intrusive measures
addressing smaller sources are now under
consideration (e.g. restrictions on use of
lighter fluids for backyard barbecues).
Substantial cost and inconvenience may be
avoided if control of NOx emissions can
substitute for this next generation of VOC
controls in some areas.
The research should attempt to identify areas
where VOC control alone is most effective,
where NOx control is effective, and where
control of both is necessary.
If research does suggest substantial ozone
reduction benefits from NOx controls,
developing and disseminating information on NOx
control techniques will be essential.
S.I.6 Further investigate the relative roles of
VOCs and NOx in ozone formation. SAT
e. Note that many of these approaches for
mitigating problems from criteria air pollutants
would provide substantial benefits for other
environmental problems considered by the
Subcommittee. Energy conservation, for example,
will reduce the problems associated with toxic air
pollutants and global warming. As another example,
reduction on volatile solvents in paints and other
products will cut air toxics emissions and improve
indoor air quality.
References
USOOC, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis (1988), Survey of Current
Business, May 1983.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990),
National Atr Quality and Emissions Trends Report,
1988, EPA-450U-90-002, Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
69
-------
A.2 Toxic Air Pollutant*
There are hundreds or even thousands of chemicals
that may occur in concentrations in air sufficient
to cause adverse human health effects. Hunan
exposure is generally to a mixture of these
chemicals. Many different health effects
(carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) may occur and
various susceptible or highly exposed
subpopulations (e.g., children, elderly) may be at
greater than average risk.
A.2.1 Risk Background
The control program for criteria air pollutants,
particularly volatile organic compound* (VOCs), has
reduced emissions of many air toxics substantially.
However, urban air is characterized by the presence
of numerous chemical substance* that may pose
significant risk for city dwellers. The present
air toxics data base is inadequate to characterize
accurately current exposures, risks, and the
sources of risks. The most recent scientific
assessments conclude that:
a) air toxics are probably not responsible for a
significant proportion of the national cancer
incidence;
b) insufficient toxicity data and lack of more
accurate information on real human exposure prevent
reliable estimates of the exposure levels,
potential health effects and risk from air toxics;
and
c) the current cancer risk assessment methods used
by EPA have shortcomings with regard to evaluating
complex mixture* that are particularly important
for air toxics.
Significant sources of air toxics include:
a) mobile sources through fuel combustion
(gasoline and diesel - PAHs, benzene, 1-,3-
butadiene, fine particles),
b) use of solvents by industry, commercial,
businesses, and consumers (electronics industry,
dry cleaning, paints, cleaning products and
personal products),
c) combustion of fuels and use of a wide variety
of toxic chemicals in industrial processes.
Although present data are highly uncertain,
estimates suggest that mobile source*, including
the secondary formation of formaldehyde, contribute
approximately 58 percent, and stationary source*
approximately 42 percent, of the total annual
cancer incidence due to air toxics. The same
preliminary estimate* indicate that are* source*
are responsible for approximately 80 percent and
point sources 20 percent, of the total annual
incidence associated with high outdoor exposure to
air toxics.
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
point and area sources of air toxics. The
following source categories can b* considered are*
sources: motor vehicle*, treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSOFs), woodsmoke, asbesto*.
demolition and renovation, gasoline marketing, coal
and oil combustion (residential only), solvent
use/degreasing, publicly owned treatment works, dry
cleaning, pesticide usage, chlorinated drinkirv
water, paint stripping, and benzene fugitives.
A major review by EPA (1989) of studies examining
the sources and risks from air toxics has concluded
that of the approximately 90 pollutants evaluated,
12 accounted for over 90X of total estimated annual
cancer incidence for the chemical group. Of these,
a poorly defined category-products of incomplete
combustion (PlCs)-were responsible for about 3SX of
the calculated total. Other major contributors
included 1, 3-butadiene, hexaval«nt chromium,
benzene, formaldehyde, and chloroform.
Unfortunately, these risk estimates suffer from a
high level of uncertainty in assessing the
carcinogenic potency (unit risk) and the real human
exposure to air toxics. Two recent EPA studies
have investigated personal exposures during common
activities in various microenvironments and
identified certain consumer products or personal
activities (such as wood-staining and painting,
visits to beauty shops and autobody shop*, etc.) as
source* of VOC exposure* that far exceed
simultaneously measured outdoor concentrations,
even in chemical manufacturing and petroleum
refining area*. Thus the present emphasis on
outdoor concentrations of air toxics -- both in
assessing risks and in controlling source* -- may
be inappropriate.
A.2.2 Policy Background
To date EPA and state agency strategies have
focused on regulating one toxic air pollutant at a
time. This method ha* proved slow, ineffective,
and costly, and it may be ignoring synergistic
effect* of pollutants. This approach may also
result in substitution of unregulated pollutants in
the course of controlling the few pollutants that
are regulated.
Title 3 of the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization
Act (SARA) provided the public with its first look
at the air toxics emission* from industrial source*
in their geographical area. Public disclosure of
this information galvanized a number of group* into
challenging industries in their areas to reduce
their us* of toxic compounds. It also appears to
have induced some corporate managers to reduce
their emissions voluntarily.
State* began to establish program* to control
sources of air toxics in the early 1980* without
guidance from EPA. A* result, a multitude of
program* have been developed each of which look at
compound* and structure regulation* differently.
States and the USEPA are just now beginning to look
at multi-exposure pathway* fro* air toxics from
stationary sources.
EPA and the states have been active in exchanging
information on air toxics. The USEPA ha* been
improving technology transfer to state* and sources
through the National Air Toxic* Clearinghouse and
the computer data base Air Risk Information Support
Center (AIRISK). The Control Technology Center has
also been instrumental in providing State and local
agencies with critical technical assistance.
Congressional revision* to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
70
-------
regarding air toxics have looked at technology-
based controls followed by a determination of
residual risk" through risk assessments and
decisions regarding additional controls on all
sources. This approach involves identification of
a list of hazardous air pollutants and
determination of controls for all major stationary
sources emitting these pollutants without regard to
their potential risks. Air toxics emissions from
mobile sources are addressed by several measures.
These are provisions for specific additional
reductions in mobile source VOCs and toxics, as
well as for the use of clean fuels. Additional
research will be needed to implement these
provisions. Studies of specific problems (e.g. air
deposition of toxics to the Great Lakes, solvents
in consumer products, urban soup) are also included
in the proposed amendments.
Since gasoline and diesel combustion are major
sources of airborne toxics, interest in alternative
fuels and reformulated gasoline has led to changes
in fuel combustion in mobile sources. The oil and
auto industries have formed a research organization
that will spend more than $10 million by the end of
1990 researching reformulated gasoline and other
alternative fuels. Vehicle manufactures and energy
suppliers are gearing up to provide fuels such as
methanol and compressed natural gas and
demonstration fleets of vehicles that can use these
fuels to evaluate their potential over the next 3-5
years. Also, California has a major program to
promote the use of clean fuels throughout the state
in the next 10 to 20 years.
Considering air toxics as a discrete problem may
not be the most effective way to address these
compounds. Most of the reduction in air toxics
emissions to date has probably occurred as a result
of control technologies installed primarily to
abate emissions of criteria air pollutants from
industrial and mobile sources. In the future, many
air toxics problems could effectively be addressed
by strategy options in other areas being suggested
by this Subcommittee. For example, strategies
being developed to control volatile organic
compounds and ozone will also control air toxic
compounds of concern. Second, energy conservation
measures that will reduce the amount of fuel
combusted for mobile and stationary sources will
also reduce the amounts of PAHs, benzene and other
products of incomplete combustion which are air
toxics of concern.
A.2.3 Possible Strategy Options
The Risk Reduction Subcommittee has considered four
broad classes of strategy options that could reduce
risks of exposure to air toxics. They overlap
substantially with the strategy options already
cited for criteria air pollutants. Numerous
strategies in addition to those cited below are
undoubtedly also attractive.
a. Reducing the amount of fuel consumed in
transportation. Market incentives could be
developed to encourage consumers to use convenient
and inexpensive public transportation as an
alternative to driving their cars to work each day
and using them to run errands. A number of
strategies can be designed to reduce the fuel
consumed per mile travelled or to reduce the
pollution produced per mile by changing the fuel.
These strategies often require cooperation among
agencies involved in land use planning. For
example one goal could be to increase the densr,
of suburban areas. This serves to reduce the
distance travelled to work or play. In addition,
transportation planning should support modes of
travel that are more energy efficient. for
example, moving goods by rail travel is more energy
efficient than by truck travel. These strategies
are expensive, but dependable, and have multiple
benefits besides decreasing exposure to air toxics.
Mobile source strategies could include incentives
aimed at reducing the number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and increasing fleet turnover.
Reducing each automobile's VMT could be
accomplished through improved transportation and
land use planning, employee and employer incentives
for carpooling, and high - occupancy vehicle
strategies like vanpools. In addition,
restrictions on parking in high density areas and
increased parking fees, combined with changes in
the tax structure, could decrease the amount of
time people travel in single occupant vehicles. An
increase in vehicle engine efficiency would reduce
the amount of energy used to power a vehicle per
mile and, therefore, reduce the emissions produced
per mile. Other mechanism* that need to be
investigated include high speed railways in urban
corridors like that between Boston and Washington.
Such trains could reduce air pollution by keeping
many low-occupancy vehicles off the road.
There is mounting evidence that half or more
of mobile source emissions of VOCs and air toxics
coma from a small fraction of highly emitting,
mostly older vehicles that are improperly tuned or
have been tampered with. Mechanisms or incentives
to identify and remove these vehicles should be
applied.
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle
miles travelled through better land use planning,
car pooling, and mass transit alternatives. PP,
INFO, EP, TH
b. Demonstrating the uses and feasibility of clean
fuels and alternative fuels (other than hydrocarbon
based) in vehicles. This would include improved
formulations for gasoline that are less toxic and
reactive, as well as non-gasoline based fuels. Any
discussion of conventional and/or alternative fuels
should review the entire production process for the
new fuels. That is, the risks associated with the
entire life of the fuel, from production through
use, must be investigated. Modeling of the air
quality improvements expected from these new fuels
as well as an estimate of the reduction in risk
from exposure to toxic compounds would have to be
investigated in isolated air basins, as well as in
transport corridors. For example, the potential
exists for increases in ambient formaldehyde as a
result of increased use of alcohol based fuels.
Efforts are underway in California and at federal
laboratories (both environmental and energy labs)
to investigate these issues. The estimated costs
to produce and distribute these fuels range from a
few cents per gallon above the current price of
gasoline to as much as 25-30 cents above the
current price. The dependability is uncertain,
given the above concerns about the production and
distribution of the fuels. In addition, consumer
acceptance of new fuels is untested and will depend
heavily on availability and ease of use.
71
-------
S.2.1 Promote the use of clean and alternative
fuels in cars and-trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
c. Requiring process audits at manufacturing
plants. This would include a comprehensive look at
a manufacturer's process and periodic reviews to
target the sources of air toxics in a manufacturing
setting. Audits offer a mechanism different from
technology-based control standards, which take a
long time to put in place and actually implement.
Audits require manufacturers to inspect their
processes in an integrated fashion to identify
places where substitutes could be made for a toxic
chemical, points where chemicals could be recycled
and reused, and places where the use of a specific
chemical could be reduced. These audits can also
be viewed as compliance as well as a process
audits. An audit can be a mechanism for finding
sources of fugitive emissions, such as leaks In
piping, that are often contributors to air toxics.
Doing energy and material balances for a specific
chemical allows manufacturers to discover where and
when a chemical is released to the atmosphere or
other media. A process audit is an excellent way
to find locations in a production facility from
which toxics are escaping. The audit enables
manufacturers to reduce their releases of toxic
chemicals, provides opportunities for the* to save
money through reduced use of toxic chemicals, can
improve their company's community relations by
demonstrating improved process control and reduced
consumption and release of toxic compounds, and can
save their firm the cost of disposing of toxic
compounds.
S.2.3 Require process audits of manufacturers to
find fugitive sources of pollution, leaks in
piping, and other preventable releases. PP, ENF
d. Reducing the use of solvents in consumer
products (paints, cleaners, personal products)
through regulations and demonstration projects.
Several states are already promulgating regulations
to reduce the solvent content of paints. Other
states are looking at regulation* to reduce the
solvent content in other home use products, such as
deodorants and hairsprays. These measures may
reduce an individual's exposure to air toxics at
home and work. This strategy can cost -
effectively reduce exposures, when compared to
technology-based controls on manufacturing
facilities. The strategy is very dependable since
a product is redesigned and the toxic in dispute is
no longer used in the formulation of the product.
These goals might be achieved through direct
federal regulations of products under TSCA, cr by
supporting and publicizing successful state
efforts.
S.2.4 Reduce use of solvents in consumer products.
PP, INFO, REGS
References
USEPA, Cancer Risk From Outdoor Exposure to Air
Toxics, Office of Air Quality Planing and
Standards, External Review Draft, October 1989, 2
volumes.
USEPA, The Air Toxics Problem in the United States:
An Analysis of Cancer Risks for Selected Pollutants
(the Six Month Study), Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA 450/1-85-001, May 1985.
A.3 Radon
A.3.1 Risk Background
Radon is a radioactive gas produced by the natural
decay of radium. It occurs naturally in most soils
and rocks and can migrate from them into the
ambient air. Radon can enter buildings through
cracks or other openings in foundations or through
release from water in showers, washers, tubs, etc.,
and accumulate to levels which cause a significant
risk to human health. Studies of thousands of
underground uranium and other miners have found
that long-term exposure to elevated levels of the
natural decay products of radon causes lung cancer.
Federal and state surveys of homes since 1985
indicate that a substantial number of homes have
significantly elevated radon levels (See Table 1).
Approximately 4.4 million of the 59 million single
family homes (7.5X) are estimated to have average
radon levels which exceed 4 pCi/L (Puskin and
Nelson, 1989). Based on risk models of the
National Academy of Sciences (BEIR IV Committee)
(MAS, 1988) and the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP 50 Committee) (ICRP,
1987), exposure to radon at 4 pCi/L over a lifetime
can cause one of every 200 people to die from lung
cancer. Based on the distribution of radon levels
in homes indicated in Table 1, EPA projects that
exposure to radon is causing from 5,000 to 20,000
lung cancer deaths per year and may be the second
leading cause of lung cancer after cigarette
smoking. EPA has established a level of 4 pCi/L as
the level above which building owners should take
action to reduce exposure to radon.
Table 1. Distribution of Houses and Radon-Induced
Lung Cancer Risk With Respect to Radon
Concentration. The estimated values are based
on the lognormal distribution of radon levels
estimated by Nero et. al.
Radon Percent of
Radon Portion Level in Risk Associated
Level X of Houses Houses Above with Houses
(pCi/L) Above X X (pCi/L) Above X
no
x10g
1.5
4.6X10"1 2.7
2.2x10"1 4.2
7.4x10"2 7.0
9.7x10"3 15
20 1.3x10"3 28
50 4.8x10"5 65
100 2.4x10"6 130
0
1
2
4
10
100
82
60
33
9
2
0.2
0.01
A.3.2 Policy Background
The current EPA and state programs for reduction of
risk from indoor radon are oriented toward reducing
exposure to radon in existing buildings and
preventing exposure in new buildings. The approach
is to inform the public of the potential hazards
72
-------
and provide cooperative technical assistance
through state and Federal governmental agencies
with the hope 'that building owners will act
voluntarily to reduce exposure to radon. Quality
control programs for air testing and analysis,
research and demonstration of techniques for radon
mitigation and risk communication, and
epidemiological studies of homeowners are being
actively implemented. EPA is working on the
development of building codes to prevent elevated
radon levels in new buildings. These efforts are
being publicized as part of an active EPA public
awareness program.
Elevated radon levels have been found primarily in
single family homes. Elevated, multiple family
structures usually have low radon levels.
Monitoring to date indicates that there is no
simple way to characterize which homes may have
elevated radon levels based on location. Radon
levels vary dramatically from house to house in a
given neighborhood and elevated radon levels occur
in areas which are not considered high risk areas
based on soil/geology criteria. Basements of homes
have the highest levels; higher floors usually have
levels 2-4 times lower. The only certain way to
determine the radon risk in each home is to test
the air quality in the home. A nationwide program
of radon testing in all 59 million single family
homes would cost approximately SI billion.
There is a great deal of attention being given to
reducing the EPA guideline for mitigation action
from 4 pCi/L to 2 pCi/L. EPA estimates that most
of the population cancer risk is from the large
number of people who live in homes with a radon
level which is between 0 and 4 pCi/L. If all homes
greater than 4 pCi/L were brought to 2 pCi/L, an
estimated 7,000 excess cancer deaths per year could
be eliminated. This could be done at a cost of
S2.7 to $5.4 billion ($300,000 - $600,000 per life
saved; a very low cost relative to many other
environmental programs). The 2 pCi/L level is
achievable in 75X of the .homes through subs lab
ventilation which costs about $1,500 per home (Oge,
1990). If all homes greater than 2 pCi/L were
brought to 2 pCi/L another 2,000 excess cancer
deaths could be eliminated.
Despite EPA and state public awareness programs,
only 5X of the nation's homes have been tested for
radon and less than 3X of those with levels above
4 pCi/L have taken action to reduce radon exposure
(Oge, 1990). A major issue for EPA is public
motivation for testing and mitigating action. In
several states, commercial financial lenders and
potential homebuyers are requiring testing and
mitigation before the sale of existing homes.
Public assurance that radon mitigation work
performed by contractors will be effective and done
properly is also a major issue for EPA.
A recent national survey by EPA of 130 schools
found that SOX of the schools had at least one room
with a radon concentration exceeding 4 pCi/L. Of
the 3000 rooms tested in the program, 20X exceeded
the action level. The survey is too limited in
scope to make any national projections on the
magnitude of the exposure in school buildings.
However, EPA is concerned about the potential for
significant radon exposure in schools. The
exposure is involuntary; the size of the school
population is large; children spend 4-7 hours per
day, five days per week in school; and children are
being exposed to a carcinogenic substance at very
early ages.
The current EPA program for radon risk reduction is
largely conducted separately from programs for
other indoor air pollution problems. Indoor air
pollution from tobacco smoke, household chemicals
and building materials (e.g., asbestos and
formaldehyde) has been estimated by EPA to cause
5000 - 8000 cancer deaths per year (USEPA, 1989).
Should the EPA program of public awareness, action,
and exposure prevention in new buildings address
other indoor air pollutant problems concurrently
with radon? Many of the strategy options we
discuss below will abate problems associated with
other indoor air pollutants in addition to radon.
A.3.3 Possible Strategy Potions
The Subcommittee views indoor radon as an
environmental problem causing serious health risks
that may be mitigated quite cost-effectively
through expenditures by individual homeowners. The
primary role for EPA should be to ensure that
homeowners know and understand these risks, and to
facilitate remedial actions by individuals choosing
to undertake them.
To date, the public appears surprisingly apathetic
about the health risks of radon (Cothern, 1990).
Some examples of public reaction to radon are:
reluctance to mitigate the problem, forgetting to
put out the testing device, hesitance to purchase
a testing device, suspicion about the testing firms
viability or competence, failing to relate housing
prices and high radon levels, and minimal and
decreasing interest in services like testing and
mitigation. As the result of an intensive
information campaign in Washington, O.C., over
100,000 test kits were purchased. However, only
about 1.2X of those with levels over 4 pCi/L have
taken convincing remedial action (Doyle et.al.,
1990). Despite an aggressive EPA nationwide
program and state public awareness programs only 5X
of the nation's homes have been tested for radon
and less than 3X of those with levels above 4 pCi/L
have taken action to reduce radon exposure (Oge,
1990). There have even been articles in newspapers
suggesting that the problem is not nearly as
serious as many scientists feel it is (Washington
Times, 1989 sib). A recent survey by the Roper
organization shows that concern regarding radon has
decreased 4X in the last year while the concern for
most environmental problems has increased (Roper,
1990).
a. Information for home owners at time of
transfer. A first strategy option might focus on
making homeowners more aware of the radon levels
that exist in their homes. Testing for radon
levels might be required at the time at which
properties are transferred, just as homes are
typically inspected now for termites prior to sale.
If high radon levels were found, the buyer and
seller could negotiate various possibilities,
including remediation paid for by the seller, a
lower sale price, etc.
EPA could work with other federal agencies (HUD,
Treasury, VA) to make radon testing and disclosure
mandatory for government financed mortgages (FHA,
VA, Fannie Mae. Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac). EPA
could work with states and local governments and
73
-------
private tending institutions to extend this
requirement to all mortgages or to all home sales.
Several states^ have already adopted such
requirements.
5.3.1 Ensure that homeowners understand radon
risks by requiring testing before properties can
change hands. INFO, MI, TH
b. Improved radon communications program. Knowing
the radon level* that prevail in tht hoot is only
the first step toward a homeowner making an
informed decision about a course of action.
Homeowners must also know what these radon levels
mean in terms of risk. Better decisions would also
result with more confidence in the accuracy of the
radon testing, and assurance that any radon
mitigation work undertaken wilt be done properly
and effective. EPA has efforts under way already
in some of these areas. Perhaps the most immediate
need is to improve risk communication. We have
little solid understanding of which risk
communication techniques are effective and which
are not. More research in this area would be
profitable.
S.3.2 Improve techniques of communicating radon
risks so public can make informed decisions. S4T,
INFO
c. Regulate testing and remedial actions for
schools and other public buildings. While
homeowners can be left to decide for themselves
whether to mitigate a radon problem they find,
owners of schools or other public buildings should
be required to mitigate any problems they find.
Exposure to radon in schools and other public
buildings is involuntary and potentially
significant. EPA should establish a regulatory
program for mandatory testing for and remediation
of radon levels in primary and secondary schools.
If national surveys demonstrate problems in other
public buildings the requirement should be
established for them also.
5.3.3 Require radon inspections for schools and
certain other buildings. REGS, TH
d.
Standards for^airftow and radon protection for
new buildings.Mitigation of high radon levels in
IKS
i le
existing buildings can be costly. It is far less
costly to build a new home correctly in the first
place. EPA might seek to have federal, state and
local building codes require new homes and other
buildings to be built in a manner which reduces
exposure to ail indoor pollutants including radon.
Requirement of vapor barriers for radon (average
cost of S300 per home), proper building ventilation
and careful choice in building materials will
result in a large reduction in future health risks
from indoor air pollution. This focus on new
construction could eventually yield impressive
benefits. It is estimated that 40X of the housing
by the year 2020 will have been built after 1990.
S.3.4 Establish airflow and radon protection
standards for new buildings. REGS, TH
e. Increase scientific understanding of exposure
patterns, epidemiology, and mitigation techniques
for radonTFinally, our scientific understanding
ofradon problems might be improved in several
ways. we need to understand better which
subpopulations are at greatest risk and how radon
exposure affects them, in order to develop a cost-
effective national strategy. Further surveys to
characterize the magnitude, extent and duration o'
population exposure in homes and schools should be
performed. Additional epidemiologies! studies to
provide more information on the magnitude of the
health risk among building dwellers should be
conducted. Research and demonstration on
prevention and mitigation techniques, with
particular emphasis on passive/low maintenance
technology, should be expanded.
S.3.5 Increase knowledge base for radon, including
exposure patterns, epidemiology, and mitigation
techniques. S&T
References
Cothern, C. Richard, Widespread Apathy and the
Public's Reaction to Information Concerning the
Health Effects of Indoor Radon Concentrations, in
Toxicology and Industrial Health, Volume 613, 1990.
Doyle, J.K., et. al. (1990). An evaluation of
Strategies for Promoting Effective Radon
Mitigation. Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
ICRP, "Lung Cancer Risk from Indoor Exposures to
Radon Daughters, ICRP Publication 50",
International Commission on Radiological
Protection, Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K., 1987.
MAS. "Health Risk of Radon and Other Internally
Deposited Alpha-Emitters:BEIR IV, National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, 1988.
Oge, M. U.S.E.P.A, Office of Radiation Programs,
Personal Communication, February, 1990.
Puskin, J.S. and Nelson, C.B., "E.P.A's Perspective
on Risks from Residential Radon Exposure", JAPCA.
Vol. 39, No. 7, July 1989, pp. 91S-920.
USEPA, Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality,
Volume 2, Assessment and Control of Indoor Air
Pollution, Office of Air and Radiation, August
1989, Chapter 4.
Washington Times, Radon terrorism unleashed by EPA?
June 29. 1989a, p F1.
Washington Times, Scare tactics on radon. November
2, 1989b, p F1.
A-4 Indoor Air Pollution
A.4.1 Risk Background
In the past few years, a growing body of scientific
evidence has begun to show that air within homes
and other buildings can be more seriously polluted
than outdoor air in even the largest and most
industrialized cities. Studies of where people
spend their time have indicated that they spend
roughly 90X of their time indoors (USEPA, 1988).
Thus, for most of the people most of the time, the
health risk due to exposure to air pollution may be
greater due to indoor exposure than that due to
outdoor exposure. Besides homes, other buildings
that exhibit indoor air problems include public
74
-------
buiMings, schools and office buildings. Indoor
air problems in factories are normalty addressed
differently, as Occupational exposures.
In addition, people who may be exposed to indoor
air pollutants, especially those exposed for long
times, are often those most susceptible to the
adverse effects involved. Such group* include the
very young, the elderly and the chronically ill,
especially those suffering from respiratory or
cardiovascular disease.
Of all the potential indoor air contaminants, radon
appears to lead to the largest number of
fatalities. It is for this reason that indoor air
radon is discussed in a separate category in the
current study. Environmental tobacco smoke may be
the second most important contaminant in indoor
air, leading to as many as 5000 lung cancer deaths
annually (Repace, 1985).
Potential biological contaminants can pervade
indoor air including bacteria, mold and mildew,
viruses, animal dander and cat saliva, mites,
cockroaches, and pollen. These can trigger
allergic reactions, including hypersensitivity,
pneujnonitis, allergic rhinitis, and sow types of
asthma. Some transmit infectious illnesses such as
influenza, measles, chicken pox, and Legionella.
In addition to environmental tobacco smoke, other
sources of combustion products include invented
kerosene and gas heaters, fireplaces, and gas
stoves. The major pollutants released from these
sources are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
particulates. These can cause fatigue in healthy
people; chest pain in people with heart disease;
eye, nose, and throat irritation; and respiratory
infections and bronchitis (USEPA, 1988).
Other indoor contaminants include organic gases,
formaldehyde, pesticides, asbestos, and lead.
These may derive from building products (e.g.
plywood, insulation, paint), consumer products
(e.g. cleaners, hairspray); and elsewhere. Some
surveys provide a more extensive list of indoor air
contaminants and problems (NRC. 1981, USEPA, 1988
and Nero, 1988).
Because indoor air is a relatively new research
area, gaps in our knowledge exist and plans have
been developed to provide this missing information
(USEPA, 1987).
A.4.2 Policy Background
It is often commented that the Environmental
Protection Agency does not have the necessary
authority to regulate indoor air contaminants.
However, through such Acts as the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Superfund Amendments Reauthorization act (SARA) the
Agency is already regulating indoor air
contaminants. For example, SARA Title IV requires
the USEPA to establish a committee to coordinate
Federal indoor air quality activities. The
committee attempts to allocate the total Federal
budget for indoor air to specific problems
according to the relative risk associated with each
problem. The Agency is also involved in monitoring
activities such as the Total Exposure Assessment
Methodology (TEAM) study. Although further
authority may be needed and may be provided, some
already exists in this area.
Areas in which indoor pollutants have been
regulated include asbestos in schools and smoking
in public places. A major study from Johns
Hopkins, Yale, and other institutions recently
concluded that the available data do not indicate
that asbestos associated lung cancer or functional
impairments can occur as a result of exposure to
concentrations of airborne asbestos in many
buildings. (Mossman et al, 1990) On the contrary,
health risks may be generated when asbestos is
released during the removal process. Within a
year, the USEPA will likely propose a regulation
for radon in the drinking water source. Some new
proposed regulations that affect the indoor
environment include the recent proposal concerning
lead at the tap; such regulations are important,
since some of the major sources are in the home
itself.
Another area that could be regulated is the home
use of various pesticides like termiticides and
wood preservatives.
The effort to make homes and other buildings more
energy efficient by tightening the* up has
heightened concern over indoor air pollutants in
recent years. This seaI ing-up of buildings has
lowered the rate of exchange between indoor and
outdoor air, which has led to higher concentrations
of contaminants indoors. The air exchange rate is
one of the most important variables in determining
the concentration of indoor air contaminants (NRC,
1981). Recent policy analysis from the National
Research Council suggests that energy management
strategies that could lead to reduction in indoor
air quality should be weighed against the potential
reduction in productivity that could result (NRC,
1987).
A.4.3 Possible Strategy Options
a. Educate state and local governments about
existing technical information on indoor air
pollution. One of the strategy options in the
indoor air area is the general concept of providing
information to state and local governments to
stimulate their involvement in addressing the
problem. There are several ways to do this,
including dissemination of information that can be
used to educate the public, training of
environmental personnel, providing technical
assistance, and providing a clearinghouse for
information.
Because of the many different contaminants that
contribute to indoor air contamination, the task of
developing information resources is large and
complex. This effort would involve developing
information in areas where research is needed,
collecting existing information, and packaging the
information in pamphlets, books, papers, and
reports suitable for a wide variety of audiences.
Although providing information to such a diverse
audience is a complex task, it is of low cost to
both EPA and society. Currently the Indoor Air
Division budget is $1.3 M, of which approximately
1/2 is for direct dissemination of information.
Past efforts to provide information have been shown
to be dependable and quick in transferring the
75
-------
needed information to those who can use it. This
is an immediately implementable strategy.
S.4.1 Provide statt and local governments with
technical information to help the* address indoor
air pollution. SIT, INFO
b. Cooperate with other Federal Agencies to
regulate indoor air. Another strategy option is
for EPA to cooperate with other Federal Agencies to
identify high risk sources and pollutants, in order
to pool authorities to control them and provide
more complete information.
A number of other Federal Agencies are involved in
the area of indoor air, including the Department of
Energy, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
the Department of Health and Human Service*
(including the Center for Disease Control and the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health). Cooperation with these and other Federal
Agencies can lead to cost efficiencies, increased
speed in dealing with the problem, and can also
lead to a more dependable solution.
S.4.2 Work with other agencies to regulate
products that cause indoor air problems. PP, INFO,
REGS
c. Establishment of ventilation standards and
practices for new and exising homes. A final
strategy option is a more active Federal
involvement in the development of ventilation
standards and practices for both new and existing
structures. The ventilation rate is one of the
most important parameters in controlling the
concentration of indoor air pollutants; better
information and more effective control are needed
in this area. Since it is one of the most
important variables, it is most cost effective to
look at this area first. This control strategy or
policy could be easily implementable and is a most
dependable way to reduce indoor air pollution.
Because of the time needed for new buildings to
adopt a code change and because new buildings are
only a few percent of all buildings, this strategy
could take many years to be effective. However, if
implemented now, approximately 40X of buildings
could be controlled by the year 2020.
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new
and existing homes. REGS, EP, TH
S.4.4 Develop better instruments to diagnose sick
buildings. S&T
References
NRC, National Research Council (1981) Indoor
Pollutants, Committee on Indoor Pollutants, Board
on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 20418.
Mossman, B.T., Bignon, J., Corn, M., Seaton, A. and
J.8.L. Gee, (1990) Asbestos: Scientific
Developments and Implications for Public Policy,
Science, 247:294-301.
NRC, National Research Council (1988) Policies and
Procedures for Control of Indoor Air Quality,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 20418.
Nero, A.V., Jr. (1988) Controlling Air Pollution,
Sci. Am. 258:42-48.
Repace, J.L. (1985) A Quantitative Estimate of
Nonsmokers' Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking,
Environment International, 11:3-22.
USEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency (1987)
EPA Indoor Air Quality Plan, EPA/600/8-87/014,
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
USEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency (1988)
The Inside Story, A Guide to Indoor Air Duality,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
A.5 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
A.5.1 Risk Background
Stratospheric ozone shields the earth's surface
from uttraviolet-B radiation (UV-8). As the ozone
is depleted, increased UV-B causes more skin
cancers, cataracts, and suppression of immune
systems, as well as possibly damaging crops and
aquatic organisms. Chemicals containing chlorine
that reach and persist in the stratosphere cause
such ozone depletion; these include
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) like CFCl, and CF?Cl?,
ha I oos like CBrF, and CBrCIF,, and to a IBssCr
extent, methyl chloroform (OUCCU) and carbon
tetrachloride (CCU). The ozone depleting action
of these chemicals may be lessened by the presence
of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen oxides (NO, N02),
and methane (CH4). Nitrogen dioxide, for example,
normally acts as a catalyst in photochemical
reactions which destroy and create ozone (roughly
at the same rate). However, in the presence of
chlorine atoms, nitrogen dioxide
-------
consumption (production minus exports plus imports)
rights or allowances. These implement the Montreal
Protocol and are marketable. CFC quantities are to
be reduced to 1986 levels, followed by a 20X
reduction by 1993, and an eventual reduction to SOX
by 1998. Halons are frozen at their 1986 levels
starting in 1992. In London, in late June 1990, an
agreement signed by 93 countries at a meeting of
the parties to the Montreal Protocol set a new
phase-out plan, although it must be ratified before
it is official. The new agreement calls for a 20X
reduction in CFC production by 1993; a SOX
reduction by 1995; and 100X reduction by the year
2000 (all from 1986 levels). A ha I on phase-out is
also described, with a cessation of halon
production by 2000. In addition, a "declaration of
intent" is formulated for a phase-out of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs); the proposed
deadline is 2040, with 2020 preferred. Alternative
options evaluated but not selected were "regulatory
fees," "auctioned rights," and "engineering
controls and product bans" (Federal Register,
1988).
b) Excise Tax; A tax is assessed on each pound of
regulated chemical based on its ozone-depleting
potential. The tax is progressive, thereby
increasing the cost of the material through future
years. It provides an economic incentive for
recycling, as recycled material is not taxed, and
also generates a market for substitutes (Omnibus
Budget Act, 1989).
c) Evaluation of Alternative Chemicals; EPA is
reviewing environmental and lexicological effects
of alternatives to CFCs and haIons. Environmental
concerns include not only ozone-depleting
potential, but also effects on energy consumption
and consequent increased carbon dioxide production.
d) Technology Transfer to Developing Countries;
The agreement signed at the London meeting o* the
parties to the Montreal Protocol established a fund
to aid developing nations \n pinpointing the ozone-
depleters they use and in installing ozone-safe
technology. A fund expected to total $240 million
will be managed by the World Bank.
e) Recoverv/RecycIe/Reolacement; EPA is working
closely with user sectors to eliminate barriers to
recycling by setting industry standards for product
purity, by establishing a program for certification
of refrigerant recovery devices, and by
co-sponsoring projects on alternative refrigeration
mixtures and foam structures. Several other
consortia with producers and users have been formed
concerning appliances, fire fighting foams, aid
solvents.
f) Other Ozone Oepleters; Under the London
agreement, methyl chloroform will be reduced 70X
(from 1989 levels) by the year 2000 and its
production will be halted by 2005. Carbon
tetrachloride will see a SOX reduction (from 1989
levels) by 1995 and will be phased out entirely by
2000.
Preliminary estimates place the U.S. cost of the
phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons and haIons by the
year 2000 at $2.7 billion over the next decade for
the schedule of intermediate reductions currently
incorporated in the Montreal Protocol. (U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1990). The cost for
the accelerated program under the London agreement
will presumably be higher.
The Subcommittee views the current EPA effort (EPt ,
Nov. 1989) on ozone depleters at least in a
qualitative sense to be of the broad-based nature
required to address global issues in an effective
manner. Some in this area question whether
sufficient resources are being placed on fully
implementing all the programs that are being
undertaken.
A. 5. 3 Possible Strategy Options
a. Use global cooperation to virtually eliminate
use of CFCs. halons and other stratospheric ozong
depleters. Ozone depletion is a global problem and
efforts to stow it require global cooperation.
Strengthening of the Montreal Protocol is the key
to achieving this. The effects of a complete phase
out of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloroform are being evaluated by EPA. The
President has called for a complete elimination of
CFCs and halons by the year 2000, providing safe
substitutes are available. An international
meeting of all parties to the Montreal Protocol
took place in June 1990 to address similar issues.
while the agreement in which the meeting resulted
steps up the phase-out of CFCs and halons and sets
timetables for the elimination of methyl
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and possibly
HCFCs, the timetables will not be official until
the agreement is ratified. Furthermore, some
environmentalists think that the deadlines at or
beyond the year 2000 are too lenient and that
phase-outs of ozone-depleting substances should
occur much more quickly. In any case, we should
work towards a timely ratification and realization
of the goals set in the London agreement.
Renegotiation to speed up phase- outs even further
and to establish some concrete language concerning
HCFCs provide additional possibilities for ozone
protection.
Besides strengthening the Montreal Protocol, EPA
should consider tracking by regulatory means the
application and usage of various CFC and halon
substitutes that significantly deplete ozone.
S.S.I Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to
virtually eliminate use of CFCs, halons, and other
ozone depleters. PP, FOR
b. Work with other countries to develop ozone-safe
technologies. In addition to strengthening the
Montreal Protocol, its original supporters could
take steps to encourage participation by other
nations, particularly that of lesser developed
countries. At this point only 12 developing
countries have signed the Montreal Protocol. The
London agreement, through its provisions for
technological transfer, added both India and China
to the list. EPA-sponsored teams plan to visit
developing countries to aid their evaluation of
alternative, ozone-safe technologies. Financial
assistance to lesser developed countries that wish
to support the Montreal Protocol is also provided
by the London agreement. A fund of S240 million
will be available to those countries, in order that
they may identify their use of ozone-depleters and
implement ozone-safe technologies. An active
technical transfer program, as well as one which
supplies financial aid, is crucial to worldwide
involvement in the Montreal Protocol.
77
-------
S.5.2 Help other countries develop ozone-safe
technologies. PP, FOR
c. Develop recycling techniques and safe
alternatives for CFCs. Recycling of CFCs will be
necessary if the U.S. hopes to cut CFC use and
still maintain its standard of living. EPA plans
to develop a program to encourage or require
recycling of CFCs in selected areas.
Also, the need to recycle CFC substitutes (HCFCs
and HFCs) will be investigated.
Development of recycling techniques that are
complete and widely accepted needs to be fostered
by EPA. This can be done through testing and
evaluation, financial aid, or other means similar
to those in the CERCLA SITE program. Recycling
also is needed to support CFC-using products past
the year 2000 to avoid costly retrofit or premature
retirement. The EPA National Advisory Council for
Environmental Technology Transfer has published a
series of very useful reports on how to foster
technological innovation (e.g., Palmisano 1989).
The Agency should provide technical information to
small user firms on safe substitutes and recycling
opportunities. The efforts of the Pollution
Prevention Office could be focused on extensively
promoting application of safe alternatives
(including chemical and process alternatives) known
to be avaiI able for any current ozone- depleter
uses. The ozone-depleter phaseout is the most
prominent pollution prevention effort currently
undertaken in the world, and this office's network
capabilities could be focused on taking advantage
of the opportunities presented and on ensuring that
it accomplishes the most broad pollution prevention
possible.
EPA should consider a more aggressive effort to
promote known safe alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances. In its efforts to expedite testing of
chemical alternatives, the agency should not miss
opportunities to ensure that known safe
alternatives are implemented by users wherever
possible. This is particularly true with respect
to substitutes for the solvents CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform. The agency has stated its desire to
ensure that users do not replace these solvents
with solvents which are considered to be ozone
depleters or probable human carcinogens (Federal
Register, 1989). However, the agency, to our
knowledge, has not yet taken positive regulatory
steps to ensure that this does not happen, e.g., by
invoking its significant new use rule powers under
TSCA (GAO, 1939) or by undertaking focused
technology transfer efforts to promote superior
alternative processes, such as aqueous cleaning.
EPA might also consider coordinating a program to
allow "ozone-friendly" labels on substitute
products to increase public awareness.
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and
development of safe alternatives. PP, SIT, INFO,
HI, TAX
References
"Excise Tax on the Sale of Chemicals which Deplete
the Ozone Layer and of Products Containing Such
Chemicals," Section 7306, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989.
Federal Register, "40 CFR Part 82, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone, Final Rule," vol. 53, No. 156,
pp 30Soe-30602, August 12, 1988.
Federal Register, "40 CFR Part 82, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone, Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking," Vol. 54, No. 72, pp 15228-15231, April
17, 1989.
General Accounting Office, "Stratospheric Ozone:
EPA1 s Safety Assessment of Substitutes for Ozone
Depleting Chemicals," GAO/RCEO-89-49, Washington,
0. C., February 1989.
Jackson, C. H., "Stratospheric Ozone Change,"
Environmental Science Technology, Vol. 23, No. 11,
pp 1329-1332, 1989.
Palmisano, J., "Recapturing EPA's Institutional
Memory: Innovation- Promoting Activities from
1979-1985," Technological Innovation and Economic
Committee of National Advisory Council for
Environmental Technology Transfer, USEPA,
Washington, 0. C., November U, 1989.
"Strategic Plan for Ozone Depletion," EPA, draft
November 1989.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Economic Report of
the President, 1990.
A.6 CO-, and Global Warming
A.6.1 Risk Background
The earth's atmosphere traps heat from the sun,
thus making the planet habitable. This phenomenon,
called the "greenhouse effect", can be exaggerated
if human activity changes the composition of the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, methane (natural gas),
NpO, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs -- used in
refrigeration, foam products, etc.) result in about
86X of human impact on the atmosphere's greenhouse
effect even though they are a small fraction of the
total atmosphere (USEPA, 1989). About half of the
human impact results from the consumption and
production of energy (USOOE, 1990). Deforestation,
agriculture, mining, and other activities
contribute the rest.
Human activities have increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations 25X above preindustrial
levels (Ramanthan, 1986). It is likely that human
activity will double carbon dioxide concentrations
during the next 30-40 years (USEPA, 1989, USOOE,
1990 and OECD, 1989). Methane concentrations have
more that doubled. Human activities are now
responsible for about half of the N,0, and methane
released into the environment.
There is controversy over the consequences of
doubling carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
because of the extreme difficulty in using computer
models to simulate unprecedented global climatic
conditions. However, a significant body of opinion
suggests that emissions equivalent to doubling
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase
global temperatures 1.5-4.5 degrees centigrade.
While not all the effects of climate warming would
be negative, it is clear that a temperature change
of this magnitude would, at a minimum, result in
major disruptions. Temperature increases of this
magnitude could disrupt agricultural practices,
78
-------
alter ecosystem, and create severe drought
conditions in some areas and violent storms in
others (USOOE, 1990). The destructive power of
hurricanes and other storms could increase 40-SOX
due to global warming (Emmanuel, 1987). It is even
possible that world ocean levels could rise a meter
or more, threatening the coastal areas where most
people of the world now live. Most of the world's
productive wetlands and fisheries are also in these
coastal areas. There is no certainty that
biological systems could adapt rapidly enough to
avoid major ecological calamities. Areas with
marginal agriculture and poor coastal nations (such
as Egypt and Bangladesh) would be most greatly
affected.
A.6.2 Policy Background
Policy designed to affect global climate change
should be made recognizing that:
a) Enormous uncertainties about the magnitude and
timing of the risks involved will remain for some
time.
b) If we wait to take action on climate change
until these uncertainties are resolved or until
climatic change has clearly occurred, the
atmosphere will have changed sufficiently to
prevent reversing the changes for a century or
more.
c) The U.S. is responsible for about 20X of the
emissions affecting global climate change; the
problem and the solutions are international in
scope.
d) Programs designed to slow climate change
significantly could reduce releases of greenhouse
gases from human activity by 50-80X.
e) No simple change can result in significant
reductions of greenhouse gases. A comprehensive,
balanced program will be required to increase
global energy efficiency and to replace existing
energy supplies with low-carbon substitutes (such
as renewable* and passively safe nuclear power).
f) Programs designed to encourage major changes in
energy production may require research on new
technologies, a regulatory environment that
encourages environmentally acceptable technologies,
and programs providing subsidies to low-carbon
energy sources or taxes on less desirable fuels.
g) Since the greenhouse gases already released are
likely to have significant effect on the global
climate, it will probably be necessary to develop
programs for adapting to climate change as well as
programs to slow the change.
Many policies designed to deal with global climate
change can be justified on other grounds; the
threat of climate change gives the* greater
urgency. Programs to encourage energy efficiency
and alternatives to carbon-based fuels, for
example, can reduce criteria and toxic air
pollutants, provide cost-effective energy services,
and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign suppliers.
A.6.3 Possible Strategy Options
A comprehensive international approach is needed to
make the changes needed for a significant effect on
global warming. The following specific strategic
provide several of the necessary elements of such
an approach. An international climate change
protocol should be developed to tie these elements
together. (USEPA, 1989, USOOE, 1990 and Project
88. 1988).
a. Increased research to better understand global
warming mechanisms. Increased research will help
us understand the way human activities can change
the global environment, and the impact of climate
change. Research could focus on improving our
ability to predict changes in air and water
temperatures, sea-levels, rainfall, and storm
conditions and evaluate the implications of these
changes on managed and urmanaged ecosystems. This
will require improvements in models treating
interactions between different components of the
earth (the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere,
and biosphere), including such phenomena as cloud
formation, ocean currents, assimilative capacity of
forests and oceans, and the circulation of carbon
dioxide and other gases in the oceans (NRC, 1975).
The President's 1991 budget proposal includes $1.03
billion in funding for global climate change
research (U. S. Government Printing Office, 1990).
S.6.1 Understand better the potential for global
wanning and its impacts. S4T
b. Investigate navs to prevent and adapt to global
warming. Increased research on agricultural
practices that reduce methane produced from cattle,
rice production, fertilizer uses, and other
activities could result in significant reductions
in greenhouse emissions. Technologies to minimize
emissions have not received priority.
Excess greenhouse gases already released wilt
affect the global climate, thus increased research
in adaptive techniques is important. Priority
should be given to development of drought-and heat-
resistant species, increased efficiency in
irrigation, and methods for protecting shorelines
against sea level rises and severe storms.
Planning should be undertaken to explore ways low
lying areas can adapt. This would require accurate
predictions of new water-levels and other impacts
on coastal areas. Land-use and water management
plans should also be modified to reflect climate
change concerns.
S.6.2 Increase research on ways of preventing and
adapting to global warming. SAT
c. Use energy conservation as a method for slowing
global warming. Technologies that increase energy
efficiency are often the most cost-effective way to
reduce production of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuel
in the United States is used in roughly equal
quantities by buildings, industry, and
transportation (taking into account the fossil
fuels used to generate electricity). About 70X of
all electricity in the U.S. and 97X of all
transportation energy comes frost fossil fuels
(USOOE, various issues). Promoting energy
efficiency requires research investment in a broad
range of technologies for buildings, industry, and
transportation. It also requires creating a market
79
-------
for energy-efficient techniques. Some of the most
effective strategy options include:
1. Consider imposing a fuel tax based on the
carbon content of the fuel and/or imposing a tax on
gasoline. A gasoline tax might be set at a level
high enough to expand markets for efficient
vehicles and products -- at least 50 cents per
gallon. The carbon tax would be the most effective
way to reduce CO? emissions, but the economic
dislocations it would cause are unknown. Revenues
from a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline alone
would yield $56 billion annually; this money could
be used to subsidize investments in efficiency
elsewhere in the economy.
2. Tax inefficient vehicles and provide rebates
for purchases of efficient vehicles. Encourage
use of more efficient modes of transportation, such
as public transportation in preference to private
autos.
c) Public Utility Commissions could provide
utlities incentives to make cost-effective
investments in efficiency. Utilities could also be
required to include environmental costs explicitly
in capacity-expansion planning decisions. Better
analytical tools for utilities, changes in federal
utility regulation, and creative management of
federally regulated power marketing authorities
would help.
3. Develop model energy-efficient building codes
and encourage their adoption nationwide. Federally
owned and leased buildings should set a national
standard.
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy
conservation. PP, MI, EP, TAX
d. Technologies involving non-fossil and non-
carbon energies to be encouraged. An obvious long
term solution would be to develop energy sources
that do not produce greenhouse gases. Energy
supply problems are dominated by: 1) the need to
provitle a liquid fuel substitute for
transportation, and 2) the need to supply rapidly
growing demands for electricity. Unless changes
are made, fossil fuel consumption for
transportation could grow rapidly worldwide.
Increased demand for electricity in the U.S. and
elsewhere is likely to be met primarily by coal.
While it is technically possible to capture the
carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels,
the process is cumbersome and expensive. Important
initiatives include:
1. Promoting development of alternative approaches
and substitutes for fossil-based transportation
fuels and supporting greater use of alternative
fuels in the near-term. Promote research on
conversion of wood and other biological materials
to liquid fuels and production and storage of
hydrogen for the long-term. Combustion of wood and
other biological materials releases carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, but the carbon can be captured
if new plants are grown to replace them (and
provide a future source for more fuel). Such a
cycle adds no net carbon dioxide. Hydrogen can be
produced from electricity.
2. Promoting development of non-carbon sources of
electricity. The UX of U.S. energy needs not met
by fossil fuels comes from nuclear power and
renewable energy sources - primarily hydroelectric
power, direct combustion of wood and wood products,
and geothermal power. A vigorous research prograr
is needed to increase this share. In the near-
term, high-efficiency uses of natural gas should be
encouraged as alternatives to coal combustion.
Research for long-term power sources should focus
on development and deployment of a variety of
renewable resources (wind, photovoltaic,geothermal,
gassified biomass) and the possible use of
passively safe nuclear power.
3. Creating incentives for the adoption of non-
carbon energy sources through utility regulation.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act requires
utilities to purchase power from independent power
producers at its avoided cost. Considering the
externalities associated with coal use, a further
increase might be appropriate.
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy
technologies. PP, SiT, EP
e. Promote international cooperation to preserve
and enhance the world's forests. The world
population continues to grow at a rapid rate. As
energy demands will increase with population, it
will became even more important to have worldwide
cooperation in controlling global production of
greenhouse gases. International cooperation is
also needed to preserve and enhance forests
worldwide through debt-for-forest trades,
reforestation programs, and regulation* requiring
planting that offsets carbon production from new
generating facilities. A global convention for
international trading in greenhouse gases would
provide a world market for such trades.
S.6.5 Reduce CO, accumulation in the atmosphere by
creating incentives to preserve and enhance the
world's forests. MI, TAX, MR, FOR
f. Develop international agreement on greenhouse
gases. The problem of global warming is clearly
international in scope and its solution requires an
international effort. The efforts of the
Intergovernmental Policy Coordinating Committee
(IPCC) should be encouraged.
S.6.6 Pursue an international agreement on
greenhouse gases. FOR
g. Develop strategies to reduce use of CFCs and
halons. Finally, strategies to reduce CFC's, which
are greenhouse gases as well as stratospheric ozone
depleters, would be helpful in slowing global
warming.
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5
strategies). PP, s*T, INRO. Ml, TAX, FOR
References
Emmanuel, K.A., The dependence of hurricane
intensity on climate, Nature, 326:458-435, 1987.
OECO, Energy technologies for reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases: Proceedings of an Experts'
Seminar, OECO Paris, 12th-Uth April, 1989, Global
Energy: Assessing the Future, Oxford University
Press: New York.
National Research Council, Understanding Climatic
Change, report of the U.S. Committee for the Global
80
-------
Atmcsoheric Research Program, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1975.
Project 88: Harnessing market forces to protect our
environment: Initiatives for the New President,
Washington, D.C. 1988.
Ramanathan, V., L. Callis et el.. Variations
between 1861 and 1984, Nature, 322:430-434, 1986
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Policy options for stabilizing global climate,
Executive summary, page 12, 1989.
USOOE, U.S. Department of Energy, Report of the
DOE multi-laboratory climate change committee,
March 1990.
USDOE, various issues of Energy Information
Administration, Monthly Energy Review.
A.7 Non-Point Source Discharge* to Surface Hater
A.7.1 Risk Background
Non-point source discharges are the largest
contributing source type to pollution of surface
waters. Nonpoint sources are responsible for most
of the loadings of conventional pollutants -- 96X
of the sediment, 79X of the nitrogen, 74X of the
phosphorus and 41X of the BOO -- and similarly high
fractions of many toxic pollutants (Gianessi,
1986). In recent water quality assessments, states
found that nonpoint sources contributed to
impairment of beneficial uses in many more miles of
streams than did point sources (USEPA, 1990).
Percentage of Impaired River Miles Affected by Each
Source of Pollution
Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture 55
Resource Extraction 13
Hydrologic Modification 13
Silviculture 9
Construction 6
Land Disposal 4
Nontraditional Point Sources
Storm Sewer/Urban Runoff 9
Combined Sewers 4
Traditional Point Sources
Sewage Treatment Plants 16
Industrial Plants 9
Distinctions between point and nonpoint sources of
pollution are not always clear; states have
generally addressed them based more upon how they
are controlled than how they originate. Point
sources are generally controlled via permits that
limit allowable amounts of pollutants and are
subject to enforcement action if their permit
limits are violated. Nonpoint sources, on the
other hand, are addressed primarily via voluntary
controls such as best management practices and
incentive programs. Few regulatory programs exist
for nonpoint sources, and these are managed only at
the state or local level.
Some sources have both point and nonpoint elements.
Storm sewers/urban runoff is a leading example;
historically regarded as more of a nonpoint source,
it is now becoming subject to point source
controls. Even sources widely acknowledged «.
nonpoint may contain some point source elements
(e.g., permits may be required for some
agricultural activities such as animal feedlots;
many mining discharges are regulated under the
point source permit program).
As the table above shows, agricultural activities
contribute substantially more to non-point source
pollution across the country than any other
activity. Agriculture is responsible for between
68 and 83X of the non-point source loadings of four
conventional pollutants (Gianessi, 1986). A survey
of states found agriculture responsible for 64X of
the river miles affected by non-point source
pollution (ASIWPCA, 1985). In some specific
regions, though, urban runoff, silviculture,
grazing, mining, construction, septic tanks,
contaminated in-piace sediments, air deposition, or
discharge of contaminated ground water may be the
major contributor to a nonpoint source problem.
Some of the various ecological damages from
nonpoint source discharges include: eutrophication
from excessive nutrient loadings, siltation and
loss of spawning habitat from sediment in runoff,
reduction in water transparency leading to loss of
submerged aquatic vegetation, bioconcentration of
toxics in fish (pesticides from farms, metals in
urban runoff), and acidification from mine
drainage. The intensity of damage can range from
long stretches of streams rendered lifeless from
acid mine drainage in the Appalachians, to radical
changes in the nature of aquatic communities in
eutrophic lakes, to more subtle impacts on fish
health and reproduction from low levels of
persistent toxic chemicals. Adverse human health
impacts can result from consumption of contaminated
fish, shellfish, and drinking water.
A.7.2 Policy Background
Several decades ago, point sources were the largest
contributors to water quality problems, but annual
expenditures of roughly $20-30 billion on control
of point sources (USOC, 1987) have resulted in
their now being far better controlled than nonpoint
sources. At present, the great majority of
industrial point sources comply with permits
requiring use of "Best Available" control
technology, and 84X of the nation's municipal
wastewater is treated to secondary or better
standards (EPA, 1990). Certainly more remains to
be done in controlling point sources -- municipal
sewage treatment plants, for example, are usually
regulated to control only a subset of the toxic
constituents in their effluent. But nonpoint
sources, in contrast, have received little control
effort. For example, over 40X of the nation's
cropland is eroding at excessive rates (USDA,
1989). Nitrogen application to agricultural soils
often exceeds that recovered by crops by 50 - 70X
(Johnson, 1989). Much overapplication is due to
widely varying carryover from the previous crop
year; farmers gear application to the unusual year
when large amounts may be needed. This results
from a lack of information about nitrogen actually
remaining in the soil (Magdoff, 1984; Fox and
Pechielek, 1983).
It is difficult to evaluate the results of this
concentration of control effort on traditional
81
-------
point sources. Water quality trend analysis has
been hampered by the lack of good baseline data,
changing definitfon* of what constitutes good water
quality, and a focus on chemical rather than more
meaningful biological indicators. It appears that
improved point source controls have led to improved
water quality immediately downstream of the
treatment plants (Leo, 1984). But modeling studies
suggest that relatively few river reaches
nationwide are sufficiently affected by point
sources to profit substantially from improved point
source controls. One analysis found that only
about 7X of river reaches would show detectable
water quality improvements with typical
improvements in point source treatment (Gianessi,
1981). By contrast, nonpoint sources affect many
more river reaches. The broadest statistical
analysis of water quality trends found no clear
nationwide improvement over the period 1974-1981.
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted statistical
analyses of water quality trends over this period
for 34 constituents at several hundred monitoring
stations across the country. For all constituents,
far more stations showed no statistically
significant change than showed an improving or
worsening trend. Constituents for which many more
stations showed improving rather than worsening
trends included microbial contaminants (presumably
due to improved sewage treatment) and lead (from
general reductions in Che use of lead).
Constituents for which concentrations grew
substantially worse over this period included
nitrate, dissolved solids, turbidity, and several
metals (Smith,' et.al., 1987). Presumably, these
trends developed as a result of lack of attention
to nonpoint sources, despite intensive investment
in point source controls.
Most types of nonpoint sources have proven far more
difficult to control than point sources primarily
because a command and control regulatory approach
is difficult to implement for them. Nonpoint
source dischargers are numerous and widespread, and
are difficult to identify, monitor, establish
control requirements for, and enforce against.
They discharge sporadically (primarily when it
rains) and in highly variable amounts and
concentrations. Also, with regard to agricultural
nonpoint source* in particular, virtually no
jurisdictions have shown the political will for a
regulatory approach.
A.7.3 Strategy Options
A first option is for EPA to increase its efforts
with the Department of Agriculture to reform
farming practices. Farming can be conducted
profitably in a manner that minimize* off-site
damages to water resource* (National Research
Council, 1989). The following art some of the
practices that should be encouraged:
a) Reduce us* of fertilizers and pesticide*
through increased use of technique* such a*
integrated pest management, crop rotation,
alternative tillage practices (such as ridge till)
and soil testing.
b) Use best management practice* (BMPs) that
reduce off-site losses of soil and those chemical*
that are applied (e.g., no-till and low-till
planting, filter strips, grassed waterway*)
c) Reduce farming activity on credible acreage in
priority watersheds.
d) Maintain or create vegetative stream buffers.
Modifying farming practices on 2 million farms
across the nearly 400 million U.S. acres of
cropland is an ambitious goal. The best chance for
success lies in working with USOA to build greater
concern for off-farm environmental impacts into the
huge existing federal agriculture programs. If the
S10 - 26 billion recently spent annually on Federal
farm programs, the $2.4 billion spent on
agricultural conservation programs, and the
agricultural extension agents in nearly 3,000 U.S.
counties can be oriented even marginally more
toward environmental protection, the impact will
dwarf that achievable by direct EPA and state
nonpoint source control programs. (By contrast
with the resources directed at agricultural issues,
EPA's resources devoted directly to nonpoint source
controls total less than $100 million per year.)
Desirable revisions in agricultural policies could
include:
a) Seek certain changes proposed by the
Adninistrqtion. community group*, and many others
in the upcoming farm bill and in future farm
legislation. The calculation of a farmer's base
acreage on which price support payments will be
made should b* revised to eliminate the current
strong disincentive against crop rotation. The
Conservation Reserve Program1 (CRP) should be
reoriented to target areas within priority
watershed* that contribute significantly to water
pollution, instead of targeting area* that are
highly erosive (in effect, the targeting should
reflect off-farm impact* rather than on-farm
impacts). A higher ceiling price should be adopted
for CRP acre* taken out of production. Uith a
better targeted CRP, fewer acres ultimately need be
enrolled. Even with a higher ceiling price, the
total costs of the CRP will not increase, while
water quality benefits will increase substantially.
b) Support development of an integrated farm
management program incorporating low-incut
sustainab e agriculture (or as some prefer to call
it. incut-efficient agriculture), integrated pest
management, improved tillage practices, and other
nonooint source BMPs. USOA's research budget in
these areas is small and fragmented and should be
increased. Agricultural extension agents should be
directed and funded to emphasize these approaches
to farmer* a* mean* to maximize long-term farm
prof itabiIitv (a* opposed to short-term farm yield)
and as elements of farmers' environmental
responsibilities. Demonstration projects should be
conducted that show convincingly that this approach
to farming is effective, economical and
environmentally protective relative to traditional
practice*. EPA should become more active in this
area, participating in and reviewing USOA research
and demonstration project*.
There are several major attraction* to this
agricultural policy strategy:
1. Although potentially involving large sum* of
money, it relies primarily on redirection of USOA
resource*, and hence will have a minimal additional
cost to the government.
2. Most of the change* in farming practice* it
seeks will increase farm profitability. To the
82
-------
extent slightly reduced agricultural production
results, it will affect heavily price-supported
commodities. Social costs should be at most small;
an actual reduction in the total cost of farming is
more likely.
3. The likely risk reduction from widespread
adoption of more benign farming practices is
extremely large, constituting much of the total
risk from nonpoint sources. Reduced use of
agricultural chemicals will have substantial risk
reduction benefits in other areas also, for
example, reducing pesticide residues on foods and
reducing ground water contamination by nitrates and
pesticides.
This strategy will, however, clearly be difficult
and slow to implement. EPA has little direct
influence over USOA or farmers. It might require
a decade or so before a substantial payoff is
realized.
c. To accelerate progress. EPA might begin to
investigate whether and where regulatory controls
over environmental problems caused by agriculture
should be adopted. Virtually all of the current or
potential USOA programs seeking environmentally
sound farming practices rely on voluntary
participation by farmers. Farmers are offered
technical assistance, subsidies, cost sharing and
other inducements to act in an environmentally
responsible manner, and they are free to accept or
reject them. By contrast, standards have been
established prescribing the levels of water
pollution allowed from industrial and municipal
point sources, and compliance with these standards
is vigorously enforced. Regulatory controls
imposed by federal, state or local authorities are
the norm for several other sources of nonpoint
source pollution, including silviculture, mining,
and construction. Why should farmers be treated
differently than other polluters? Several of the
traditional arguments against regulating fanners
appear to be valid no longer:
1. "Point sources of water pollution are a bigger
problem, and can be controlled more cost-
effectively." After several decades of progress in
controlling point sources, nonpoint sources now
seem to be an equal or larger water quality
problem. Studies conducted by EPA's Regulatory
Innovations staff on point-nonpoint trading in the
Great Lakes, wicomico (HO), Boor* (TN), and Dillon
(CO) watersheds have found that nonpoint source
controls could abate nutrient load* at a lower cost
per pound than further point source controls.
2. "Farming is a worthy, independent way of life.
The government should not tell farmers how to
farm." Farming is a business -- with high
technology, heavy capital investment and large
enterprises -- like others whose environmental
impacts are regulated. Total assets of the farm
sector nearly equal that of manufacturing. The
largest 4X of farms account for SOX of agricultural
sales (Cook, 1985).
3. "Direct regulation of agricultural nonpoint
sources is not administratively feasible." While
it may be impractical to establish effluent
limitations for farms and monitor their compliance,
it is administratively feasible to establish design
and operating standards prescribing farm BMPs that
are tailored to local environmental condition*.
Other nonpoint source types are successfully
regulated in this manner. Requiring installation
of BMPs via permits for individual farms might alsr
be feasible, if limited to large farms in critical
areas.
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to
reduce nonpoint source pollution. PP, SAT, INFO,
HI, AP
d. Another strategy option regarding nonpoint
sources is for EPA to work with states to enhance
water quality management programs. The bulk of EPA
and state attention in water programs is devoted to
regulating, permitting and enforcing against point
sources. To the extent the focus begins to shift
to a concern for water quality, the attention given
to nonpoint sources wilt increase. For several
years EPA has leaned hardest on states to reduce
point source permit backlogs, implement
pretreatment programs for POTWs, and take
appropriate enforcement actions against point
sources. EPA has not similarly emphasized the
states' water quality responsibilities
establishing meaningful water quality standards,
upgrading water quality monitoring, identifying
water bodies not meeting standards, calculating
total maximum daily loads for those water bodies,
and assigning control responsibilities beyond
technology-based requirements to the appropriate
point and nonpoint sources in order to meet the
standard*. EPA appears recently to have begun
shifting some of its effort* from developing and
implementing technology-based standards to a water
quality-based approach. The agency should continue
to do so. We further suggest targeting this water
quality concern. Attention should not be directed
broadly at all water bodies in violation of
standards, but should be focused on the specific
water bodies where inadequate water quality is
preventing realization of particularly high
potential ecological, recreational, water supply or
commercial values. Several specific actions might
include:
1. Seek increased funding for the Clean Water Act
Section 319 program of grants to state* for
nonpoint source planning and targeting. Of the
UOO million authorized for 1987-1991, only $40
million has been appropriated. Only SIS million is
sought for FY 1991. States can use these funds
very effectively in levering programs of other
federal agencies that affect water quality (e.g.,
USOA agricultural programs, USFS silvicultural
programs, DOI range management programs). EPA
Headquarters can develop informational materials
for state* that suggest how they can interact with
these other programs, and EPA arid USOA need to find
ways to coordinate these programs.
2. Encourage state water quality agencies to take
a broader view of their responsibilities. Water
quality agencie* should try to influence the
activities of resource management agencies (e.g.,
agriculture, forestry, fish and game, mining, oil
and gas). Water quality agencies should try to
broaden the range of financial resources that are
applied to nonpoint source control activities
(e.g., coastal zone management planning grants).
3. Develop guidance materials on the concept of
trading control obligation* between point and
nonpoint sources when both source types contribute
the same pollutant to a specific area. This
83
-------
approach may provide a particularly cost-effective
way to attain water quality standards where point
sources have met their technology-based
requirements, yet further controls are still
necessary. Although the number of area* to which
this approach might be applied is now very limited,
the utility of such an approach may increase in the
future. With this option we are not advocating
relaxation of controls or requirements for point
sources; we are advocating that further progress
toward water quality goals be achieved in a cost-
effective fashion.
Like the agricultural strategy, this approach of
working with states to emphasize water quality
management will probably be relatively slow to
bring results. Lacking any direct ability to
regulate nonpoint sources, EPA must resort to such
an indirect, cooperative approach.
S.7.2 Focus EPA and state water programs more on
enhancing water quality and less on permitting
point sources. REGS, NR, AP
e. Finally. EPA should consider increasing its
research and technical assistance efforts on a
variety of non-agricultural _ nonooint source;
problems that are of substantial importance to
particular regions of the country. While
agriculture is responsible for the bulk of nonpoint
source loadings nationwide, it also is beginning to
receive virtually all the federal attention to
nonpoint sources. Other nonpoint source problems
can cause locally severe impacts. Septic tanks
provide one example. In some regions (Long Island,
Cape Cod, some rural communities) septic tanks are
a major contributor to pollution of ground and
surface waters with nutrients and pathogens. EPA's
research on low-techno logy (improvements to or
alternatives to septic tanks has been reduced, as
have the agency's technology transfer efforts in
this area through the "Small Flows Clearinghouse"
and the National Rural Water Association. These
efforts should be reinvigorated. In several other
areas of nonpoint source concern (urban runoff,
silviculture, mining, construction), EPA might
increase its efforts to study and disseminate
information on successful state and local control
programs. Numerous successful program* exist, yet
are not widely known of and copied. EPA might
consider, for example, drafting model language that
local governments could use to manage nonpoint
sources based upon their land use control
authorities. EPA could work with Federal land-
managing agencies (USFS and BIN primarily) to
mitigate the substantial impact* fro* grazing,
forestry, mining and construction on Federal land*.
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control
land uses that generate nonpoint source pollution.
PP, S&T, INFO, AP, MR
References
ASIWPCA. Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators. The States'
Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985.
Fox, Richard H. and William P. Pechielek.
"Response of Corn to Nitrogen Fertilizer and the
Prediction of Soil Nitrogen Availability with
Chemical Test* in Pennsylvania." Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 843, Pennsylvania State
University. 1983.
Cook, Ken. "Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution
Control: a Time for Sticks" in Journal of Soil an
Water Conservation. Volume 40, Ho. 1, January-
February 1985.
Gianessi, Leonard and Peskin, Henry. "Analysis of
National Water Pollution Control Policies. A
National Network Model" in Water Resources
Research. Volume 17, 1981, pp 796-821.
Gianessi, Leonard and Henry Peskin. Resources for
the Future Environmental Data Inventory. 1986.
Johnson, Karl T. "Fertilizer and Water Quality."
Association of Plant and Food Control Officials,
Official Bulletin No. 40. 1989.
Leo, W.M., Thomarm, R.V., and Gallagher, T.W..
Before and After Case Studies; Comparisons of
Water Quality Following Municipal Treatment Plant
Improvements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CEPA-430/9-007], 1984.
Hagdoff, F.R., D. Ross, and J. Amadon. "A Soil
Test for Nitrogen Availability to Corn." Soil
Science Society of America Journal, No. 48. 1989.
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture.
1989.
Smith, Richard A., Alexander, Richard 8., and
WoIman, M. Gordon. Analysis and Interpretation of
Water-Quality Trends in Major U.S. Rivers. 1974-
1981. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
2357, 1987.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
Water Quality Inventory. 1986 Report to Congress.
March 1990.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Second RCA
Appraisal; Soil. Water and Related Resources on
Nonfederal Land in the United States - Analysis of
Conditions and Trends. 1989.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Survey of Current Business. May 1987.
A.8 Wetland*
A.8.1 Risk Background
For over 200 years, wetlands have been drained,
cleared, filled, and exploited for whatever
resources could be extracted from them. In their
natural state, wetlands also produce significant
benefits for society by: filtering and purifying
water; providing essential habitat for flora and
fauna; regulating flows; storing water; and
buffering the effects of storms.
Wetlands help maintain water quality by trapping
sediments and filtering out pollutants. Indeed,
artificial ones are now being created as a cost-
effective mean* of treating sewage. For example,
the town of Arcadia, California, restored
approximately 154 acre* of wetland* a* an integral
part of it* wMtewater sewage treatment system.
But the capacity of wetland* to improve water
quality is limited and improper solid waste
disposal in "sanitary landfills* cause* significant
nationwide detrimental impact* on wetland*.
Discharges of irrigation return flows, stormwater.
-------
othe- non-point source run-off, and municipal and
industrial wastewater pose substantial risks to
wetlands. Hazardous waste threats to wetlands are
sizable: more than 40X of Superfund sites are
directly associated with wetlands (see our
discussions of municipal and hazardous waste
problems). One recent study indicates that 72%,
90%, and 97X of sanitary landfills are within 1/4,
1/2, and 1 mile of wetlands, respectively (Lambou
et al, 1989).
Forested and other wetland areas are also valuable
as habitat for fish and wildlife. Nearly one-third
of the 21,588 plant species found in the US occur
in wetlands, although only 5X of the land area of
the lower 48 states is comprised of wetlands. One-
third of the nation's endangered or threatened
species live in or depend on wetlands, and between
60X . and 90X of U.S. commercial fisheries use
coastal wetlands as spawning grounds and nurseries.
Wetlands also support a major portion of the
nation's multimillion-dollar fur and hide harvest.
Sport fishing, hunting, bird watching, and other
wet land-related recreational activities generate
billions of dollars of economic activity annually
(USOTA, 1984).
Despite the fact that wetlands are vital elements
in ecosystems, they are disappearing rapidly.
Approximately 215 million acres of wetlands existed
in the 48 contiguous states at the time of European
settlement, but by the mid-1970's, less than half
of the original wetland acreage remained. During
a recent 20-year interval, wetland losses averaged
458,000 acres annually; an area about half the size
of Rhode Island was lost each year. Losses in
specific regions have been even more dramatic.
Originally, there were 26 million acres of wetlands
in the Mississippi Delta; only 5 million remain.
The prairie potholes in the Upper Midwest have
shrunk from 20 million to 7 million acres.
Florida's Everglades covered 2.3 million acres at
the turn of the century; less than half survive.
The wetlands of California's Central Valley have
been reduced from 4 million to 300,000 acres
(Tiner, 1984).
If wetlands are so valuable in their natural state,
why are they nevertheless being so rapidly
depleted? The answer is that although wetlands
serve society in multiple ways, the nature of
wetland benefits are such that their owners
typically cannot capture those benefits for use or
sale. Flood protection benefits accrue to others
downstream; fish and wildlife that breed and
inhabit wetlands migrate; and benefits associated
with improved water quality and sediment trapping
cannot be commercially exploited. Hence, for the
owner of a wetland to benefit from this resource,
it is often necessary to develop it. Since most
wetlands are privately owned, these areas are
extremely vulnerable.
The most important economic sector absorbing
wetlands has been agriculture (See our discussions
of non-point source pollution and pesticides),
accounting for 67% of recent wetland conversions
through the mid-1970's. Although urban development
and other commercial conversions accounted for only
13X of wetland losses in the twenty-year period,
1955-1975, such uses are likely to pose increasing
threats in the years to come (USOTA, 1984).
A.8.2 Policy Background
A number of Federal programs are intended to
protect wetlands, but Federal policies tend to push
and pull wetlands in opposing directions. Some
Federal programs, such as flood-control and
drainage projects of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service,
encourage wetland conversion by reducing the cost
and risk while increasing the revenue of wetland
development. Simultaneously, other Federal
programs, such as Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (PL 92-500), control or manage wetland use
through regulation and mitigation to offset the
effects of development projects (Tripp, 1988).
Additionally, the Federal government acquires
wetland areas for protection through the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) "Water Bank" program has been
offering some protection to wetlands since 1970,
and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has
enrolled 400,000 acres of wetlands for 10-year
contractual periods (See our discussion of non-
point source water pollution for further comments
on USDA's Conservation Reserve Program).
President Bush has enunciated a policy goal of no
net loss of wetlands, but a national wetland
protection policy has yet to be established to set
priorities and reconcile conflicting programs. By
offering funds for activities that protect wetlands
with one hand and for harmful developments with the
other, agencies work at cross-purposes, and Federal
activities wind up being inconsistent and
financially wasteful.
A.8.3 Possible Strategy Potions
A successful plan for conserving the nation's
wetlands will make use of a variety of approaches
(Conservation Foundation, 1988). We suggest four
possible strategy options: (1) remove government
subsidies for wetland development; (2) develop new
and appropriate funding sources for Federal
acquisition and management of wetlands; (3) reform
conventional wetland regulation; and (4) consider
direct and indirect impacts in environmental impact
statements for federal flood control and drainage
projects.
a. Remove Government Subsidies for Wetland
Development Wetlands are widely dispersed,
government budgets for acquisition are extremely
small relative to the amount of vulnerable acreage,
and conventional regulation is frequently not
palatable. Hence, a comprehensive approach to
wetland conservation should include self-enforcing
inducements for people to take into account the
full social value of wetlands. Although this may
sound difficult to implement, an important step
would simply be to remove government subsidies
85
-------
which promote economically inefficient and
environmentally unsound development in wetland
areas (Stavins, 1990). This would provide two
additional benefits: 1) promote a stronger, more
competitive economy by restricting government
programs which distort market signals and thus
foster unsound development; and 2) reduce
goverrment expenditures at a time of chronic
budgetary deficits.
There are a number of strategy options which could
be considered. First, total subsidies on
construction of Federal flood-control and drainage
projects could be reduced or eliminated. Some
progress has been made in this area with passage of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-
662). The Act provides for increased local cost-
sharing (2SX) of project costs and emphasizes
proper identification and compensation for all
project environmental costs. It is too early to
say, however, whether full benefit financing and
the laudable efficiency and environmental goals of
the Act will be implemented through subsequent
legislation and regulation.
Second, favorable tax treatments of wetland
conversion (to agricultural and other uses) could
be eliminated. Moves in this direction have
already occurred with the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
whereby several tax code provision* which
previously provided an incentive for wetland
conversion were eliminated. Third, consideration
could be given to strong cross-compliance
legislation linked to receipt of Federal commodity
program payments. A broad range of agricultural
programs and subsidies provide incentives for
economically inefficient and environmentally
unsound development of wetland areas, including
price- and income-support programs, and subsidized
loans (Goldstein, 1988). While these programs
obviously benefit individual farmers and others,
they are in conflict with increasing recognition of
the importance of reforming economically
inefficient agricultural policies. In this regard,
the so-called "swampbusting provisions" of the 1985
"farm bill" constitute a move in the right
direction. Title XII-C of Public Law 99-198, the
Food Security Act of 1985, provides that a farm
operator is ineligible for price-support payments,
farm storage facility loans, crop insurance,
disaster payments, and insured or guaranteed loans
for any year in which annual crop* were produced on
converted wetland*.
These strategy option* for reducing or removing
government sub sidies for wetland development are
attractive for a number of reason*. First of all,
they are likely to be effective in achieving
wetland protection. Second, they will do so at
minimal cost to government; indeed, net government
revenues ought to be increased. Third, because
subsidies for inefficient activities are removed,
costs to society are minimized; in other word*,
these approaches are cost-effective. Fourth, those
strategies which work by removing existing
subsidies (in all cases) will require little, if
any, monitoring and enforcement by government.
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development
in wetlands. HI, AP, TH, TAX, MR
b. Develop new funding sources for Federal
acquisition and management of wetlands. Since lack
of funding is the primary limit on current wetland
acquisition programs, the development of new,
appropriate funding sources is crucial. Properly
managed, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) ought to be adequate for this task. The
LWCF was established in 1964 to ensure that a
portion of receipts from Federal offshore oil and
gas leasing would be invested in acquiring
inholdings and additions to the public lands.
Thus, through the Fund, the depletion of
nonrenewable resources finances the protection of
renewable resource*.
Dedication of some part of these monies to wetland
acquisition could be helpful and appropriate. But,
annual outlays from the LWCF have dwindled to
historic lows, despite increases in revenues from
offshore leasing. We find attractive a previous
recommendation by the President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors that a new fund be created that
would accumulate sufficient capital to generate a
steady stream of $1 billion per year in interest
income for land acquisition, and that the Fund be
used to leverage state, local, and private action
(President's Commission, 1987).
A number of other appropriate potential funding
sources for wetland acquisition merit
consideration. First, it would be valuable to
modify the Federal-Aid in Fish Restoration Fund
(Dingell-Johnson Act) program, which authorizes
matching grants to the states for up to 75X of the
cost of projects undertaken to enhance sport fish
resources, so that matching grants would include
wetland acquisition and restoration projects. This
proposed change would place part of the
responsibility for wetland protection on the
beneficiaries of these resources, as most species
of sport fish depend upon wetland habitats for some
portion of their life cycle.
Wetlands are just as important for maintaining
commercial fisheries, for both domestic and foreign
harvesters. Thus another possible source of
funding would be a tax on all commercial sales of
fish and shellfish in the U.S.
Complementary funding could also be made available
from a portion of the Federal-Aid in Wildlife Fund
(Pittman-Robertson Act), since number of wildlife
species are also dependent upon wetland habitats.
A recent move in the right direction is the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (Public Law 101-
224, 103 Stat. 1905 (1989)), which established a
Wetland Trust Fund which is financed by interest on
the Pittman-Robertson account, fines and penalties,
and direct appropriation*. Appropriation* of S15
million annually are authorized for the period
1991-1994, and a Morth American Wetlands
Conservation Council is established to approve
wetland restoration projects.
86
-------
For the long run, consideration could be given to
creating a "Sport Fishing Conservation Stamp,"
modelled after tfre highly successful "Duck Stamp"
program, carried out by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (in the U.S. Department of the Interior)
under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act of 1934. Through the Duck Stamp program,
wetland habitats are acquired with revenues from
the sale of mandatory Federal Duck Stamps to
holders of state hunting licenses. Likewise, the
proposed fishing stamp could be required of all
state-licensed fishermen, with the revenues used
exclusively for wetland acquisition.
The logic behind this proposal is analogous to the
reasoning behind the Duck Stamp program and our
suggestion for restructuring the Federal-Aid in
Fish Restoration Fund. The proposed stamp would
essentially be a user fee, in which beneficiaries
of wetlands are paying for their provision and
protection. How much wetland protection would this
proposal provide? A SI stamp would raise up to S20
million annually (Uolf, 1988).
Strategy options of augmenting current funding for
wetland acquisition can be cost-effective if
appropriate sources of funds are utilized, as in
our suggestion* regarding the LUCF and the Sport
Fishing Conservation Stamp. The former requires
essentially no monitoring or enforcement; and the
stamp program presents a minimal burden in this
regard because of its association with existing
state-level licensing programs.
Also, research and guidelines are needed on wetland
restoration, wetland mitigation (i.e. trades for
wetland losses), and constructed wetlands for
wasteweter treatment.
S.8.2 Develop new funding sources for federal
acquisition and management of wetlands. NR
c. Reform Conventional Wetland Regulation Current
wetland regulatory programs are flawed and could be
reformed in a number of ways. First, jurisdiction
under current laws and regulations could be
expanded to cover a broader set of wetland
alterations. Currently, the Section 404 program
covers only wetlands altered by dredging and
filling, but there are nunerou* other ways --
including drainage -- in which wetlands are altered
and degraded. Indeed, a Congressional Research
Service study found in 1982 that approximately SOX
of U.S. wetland losses are not subject to Section
404 provisions (Environmental and Energy Study
Conference, 1989). Federal and state regulatory
programs need to address explicitly: removal or
excavation of soils; drainage and flooding;
destruction of plant life; and placement of
obstructions.
Second, the 404 program could be amended to allow
for state delegation in the case of navigable
waterways. Currently, states are discouraged from
developing programs due to an important legislative
constraint: the ability of states to accept
jurisdiction is limited to waters defined as
"navigable" (Clean Water Act (PL 92-5000). Section
*04 (g) (1)). Hence, there is split jurisdiction
between state programs and the Federal (Corps of
Engineers) permit program. This creates problem
for potential permittees and discourages many
states from devoting their greatest attention to
the wetland areas of most concern. By changing
this statutory provision and allowing states to
accept 404 delegation for all waters (while
preserving the Corps' ability to comment on permits
to insure navigation servitude), the delegation
process can be made more effective.
Third, penalties sufficient to discourage
violations could be utilized. It is frequently the
case that when a wetland violation is discovered,
instead of a penalty, either a retroactive permit
authorizing the activity is issued or the violator
is given a cease-and-desist order. Rarely does the
damage get repaired and the wetland restored.
Fourth and finally, a strong executive order may be
needed to restrict Federal actions which encourage
development of sensitive ecological areas,
including wetlands. Since most actions which alter
these habitats are undertaken by 'individuals and
firms, direct regulation of all such actions is
infeasible. But a substantial portion of those
development projects are instigated, subsidized, or
licensed by the Federal government. Hence, it
would be effective amj feasible to require Federal
departments and agencies to consider alternatives
to any wet Iand-alter ing actions.
A new executive order for a broad class of
sensitive habitats could be based upon existing
wetlands Executive Order 11990, which states that
Federal agencies "shall avoid undertaking or
providing assistance for new construction located
in wetlands unless ... there is no practicable
alternative ... and the proposed action includes
all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands which may result ..." A broader executive
order for the protection of sensitive habitats
might include: (1) extended coverage for non-
construction activities such as agriculture and
silviculture; (2) extended coverage for the
issuance of Federal permits and licenses; and (3)
enumeration of sensitive ecological areas to be
protected.
S.8.3 Reform conventional wetlands regulation.
REGS, ENF, TN
d. Use Accurate Impact Areas in Environmental
Impact Statements A question, in the context of
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) and
elsewhere, is whether the estimated areas of impact
of Federal flood-control and drainage projects on
wetlands should be limited to (minimal)
construction impacts, or whether they should
include impacts which occur when such projects
cause private landowners to drain and clear their
wetland holdings. In more general terms, should
"secondary" (economically induced) impacts of
projects be considered as part of the EIS process?
From a legal standpoint, the answer is clearly yes,
but during the past fifteen years, in preparing
their EIS's, Federal agencies typically have not
87
-------
included areas of secondary impacts, such as
wetland areas cleared and drained by private
landowners. It has now become clear, however, that
Federal flood-control and drainage projects
directly induce private landowners to convert their
wetland holdings to dry croplands (Stavins and
Jaffe, 1990).
These impacts should be candidly assessed through
the NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (PL 91-190)) process. Whether environmental
impacts together with other costs of Federal
projects will be found to outweigh project benefits
is a question which must be addressed on a case-by-
case basis, but it is essential that "environmental
impact areas" be correctly defined to include areas
where drainage and clearing are induced, not simply
the relatively small areas where project
construction occurs. More generally, so-called
secondary (economically induced) impacts of Federal
projects of all kinds should be assessed through
the existing NEPA process. Significantly, this
should include housing projects and highway
development projects which receive Federal support.
This strategy option could be cost-effective, but
it will involve increased costs for Federal
agencies. Its impact will be limited by the
limitations of the E1S process in general, i.e.
agencies are not precluded form taking actions
found by EISs to have adverse consequences; they
are required only to take these consequences in to
account in making their decisions.
S.8.5 Include consideration of direct and indirect
impacts in Environmental Impact Statements for all
federal programs including flood control and
drainage projects. NR, INFO, TH
References
Conservation Foundation, The, Protecting America's
Wetlands: An Action Agenda. The final report of the
National Wetlands Policy forum. Washington, O.C..
1988.
Environmental and Energy Study Conference. Briefing
Book, Environmental, Energy and Natural Resource
Issues, Washington, D.C., December 22, 1989.
Goldstein, J.H., ed. The Impact of Federal Programs
on Wetlands, Volume I., The Lower Mississippi
Alluvial Plain and the Prairie Pothole Region,
Washington, O.C., U.S. Department of the Interior,
October 1988.
Heimlich, R.E. The Swampbuster Provision:
Implementation and Impact, Paper presented at the
National Symposium on Protection of Wetlands fro*
Agricultural Impacts, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, April 25-29, 1988.
Lambou, V.W., J.E. Moerlins, R.C. Herndon, J.N.
Kuperberg and R.L. Cebhard, "Proximity of Sanitary
Landfills to Wetlands and Deepuater Habitats in
Eleven States", D.W. Fisk, Ed., Wetlands: Concerns
and Success, Proceedings of the American Water
Resources Association Special Symposium, September
17-22, 1989.
President's Commission, Americans Outdoors: The
Legacy, The Challenge, Report of the President's
Commission, Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1987.
Stavins, R.N., Alternative renewable resource
strategies: a simulation of optimal use, Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 18, in
press, 1990.
Stavins, R.N. and Jaffe, A.B., unintended Impacts
of Public Investments on Private Decisions: The
Depletion of Forested Wetlands, American Economic
Review, Volume 80, number 3, June 1990.
Tiner, R. W. Jr., Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends, Newton Corner,
MA. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1984.
Tripp, J.T.B. and Hen, M., Wetland preservation
and restoration: Changing federal priorities,
Virginia Journal of Natural Resources Law 7:221-
275, 1988.USOTA, U. S. Office of Technology
Assessment Wetlands: Their use and regulation,
Washington, O.C., Congress of the United States,
1984.
Wolf, S.A., The Sport Fishing Conservation Stamp:
A Proposal for Wetland Protection, Unpublished B.A.
thesis. Harvard College, 1988.
A.9 Estuaries. Coastal Waters and Oceans
A.9.1 Risk Background
Estuaries support some of the world's most diverse
and productive ecosystems. Many species of fish
and birds depend on estuaries for one or more of
their critical life stages. Estuaries serve
different species as breeding areas, nursery areas,
wintering areas, feeding areas, and migration
pathways. More than 70X of the American fish
species of commercial importance depend on
estuarine and coastal waters in one or more of
their life stages. The Gulf of Mexico provides
critical habitat for 75X of North American
migratory waterfowl.
Environmental conditions in estuaries are fragile
and highly subject to perturbation by human
activities (NRDC, 1989). Municipal and industrial
effluents, agricultural and urban runoff, and air
deposition can contribute pollutants changing the
chemical composition of estuarine waters.
Eutrophication (from nutrients), low dissolved
oxygen concentrations (fro* BOO and nutrients),
reduced light penetration (fro* suspended
sediment), and bioconcentration of toxic chemicals
(fro* pesticides, heavy metals, and toxic organics)
have resulted in many areas. Development of
shorelines and filling of coastal wetlands have
altered habitat conditions needed for survival by
many estuarine species. Consumptive water
88
-------
withdrawals upstream of estuaries have changed
fresh-water flws and salinity gradients in
estuaries. Excessive commercial or sport
harvesting have sharply reduced the populations of
many species.
A coherent national summary of the condition of
estuarine and coastal aquatic ecosystems is not
available. Several statistics suggest concern,
however (USEPA, 1989):
a) About 1/3 of the Nation's productive shellfish
beds are closed by NOAA and FDA to commercial
harvesting, mostly because of bacteriological
contamination fro* inadequately treated human
waste.
b) About 1/2 of the coastal wetlands existing in
the mid-1700's have been lost. (However, this
trend is not inevitable. Since strong shoreline
protection programs were adopted by Maryland and
Virginia in the 1970's, coastal wetland losses in
the Chesapeake Bay have been stopped.)
c) About 1/4 of monitored estuarine waters have
elevated levels of toxic substances. State and
local governments have advised limited or no
consumption of fish and shellfish in many areas.
d) In the Chesapeake Bay, submerged aquatic
vegetation covered about 30X of the bottom acreage
in 1970, but only about 6X in 1986. Eutrophication
and reduced light transmission in more turbid water
are responsible. Partially as a result,
populations of key fish and shellfish (e.g.,
striped bass, white perch, shad, oysters) have
declined. The harvest of Bay oysters, for example.
has declined from 3.4 million bushels in 1981 to .9
million bushels in 1988 (USEPA, 1990)
Estuaries are not, however, universally degraded.
A compilation of 1988 data from 23 states reporting
on the quality of their estuarine waters shows 72X
of estuarine square miles fully supporting
designated uses, 23X partially supporting them, and
6X not supporting them. These figures on
support/non-support are nearly identical to those
characterizing the quality of rivers and streams.
The causes of non-support in estuaries were cited
as (USEPA. 199C):
Nutrients
Metals
Pathogens
Siltation
Organic enrichment/ low DO
Unknown toxic ity
Oil and grease
Organ ics
SOX
10X
48X
7X
29X
SX
23X
4X
Relative to rivers and streams, the causes of non-
support in estuaries are more often nutrients and
pathogens, and less often siltation. Human waste
is cited as the most common source of these
pollutants, with agriculture second.
A.9.2 Policv Background
Until recently, the Federal government had no
comprehensive policy regarding estuaries or coastal
waters. Federal programs included a variety o;
uncoordinated measures that served to protect these
areas (e.g., prevention and cleanup of oil spills
by the Coast Guard, restrictions on ocean dumping,
coastal zone management planning grants,
designation of marine sanctuaries, pollution
control requirements for point sources of air and
water pollution). There were also many Federal
activities that encouraged development of estuarine
watersheds, unintentionally contributing to
deterioration of estuarine water quality (e.g.,
Federal flood insurance, financial support for
construction of infrastructure).
Although the Great Lakes Program began in 1970 and
the Chesapeake Bay Program in 1977, it was not
until 1985 that the Federal government recognized
estuaries as a class of resource needing focused
protection. In 1985 Congress directed EPA to
conduct targeted programs in four estuaries, two
more were added in 1986, and the 1987 Clean Water
Act Amendments named 11 estuaries for priority
consideration. Now, EPA is conducting programs in
nearly 20 estuaries, with several more projects
awaiting approval.
EPA's estuaries program is intended to improve
water quality and enhance living resources in
nationally significant estuaries. For an estuary
accepted into the program, EPA will convene and
provide financial support for a planning process (a
"management conference") that will (USEPA, 1989):
a) Conduct a phased program to identify and define
priority problems, establish their probable causes,
and devise alternative strategies to address them;
and
b) Coordinate all concerned Federal, State and
local agencies, and secure commitments from them to
carry out the recommended actions.
EPA's role is limited by statute to supporting a 5-
year planning and management effort for each
estuary; it is not expected that EPA will provide
financial support to implement remedial measures
called for by the plan.
The longstanding programs of this sort for the
Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay are showing success.
Water quality and living resources in these areas
appear to be improving recently. However, EPA's
financial and administrative support for these two
programs has far exceeded the five years and
limited resources that are contemplated for other
estuaries.
EPA has also recently established a program to
solve problems in coastal waters other than
estuaries. The "Near-Coastal Waters Program" is
identifying threatened and impaired coastal waters,
and supporting several innovative management
actions in these waters that are intended to
demonstrate useful techniques for application
elsewhere.
89
-------
A.9.T Possible Strategy Options
The key to preserving and enhancing the quality of
an estuary is focusing on it as a resource. Nearly
all of EPA's program focus on sources, pollutants,
or products. To focus on a resource is different -
- the needs of the resource become paramount, and
the approaches necessary to meet them typically
extend well beyond controls on sources, pollutants,
and products. To protect a resource, far greater
capabilities and authorities are needed than those
of EPA alone. EPA's major role must become
supporting research and planning to identify needs
and solutions, and then marshalling the resources
of other federal, state, local, and private
agencies to achieve mutually agreed-upon goals.
a. View and deal with estuaries as integrated
systems and avoid focusing only on water Quality.
The history of the Chesapeake Bay Program provides
an example (CEC, 1988, 1989). EPA's initial focus
was on water quality. EPA supported revision of
Bay water quality standards, conducted
sophisticated water quality modeling efforts, and
contributed to huge investments in advanced
wastewater treatment by communities in the
watershed. However, the alarming decline in some
of the Bay's resources (fish, shellfish and
waterfowl populations, SAV, and natural shoreline)
continued. It 'became clear over time that the
public was fundamentally concerned not with
chemical quality of the Bay's water, but with
preserving the living resources and even the
culture of the Bay. Scientific studies established
that several factors other than water pollution
from point sources were primarily responsible for
deteriorating conditions:
1. Rapid shoreline development was shrinking the
amount of wetland* and other natural habitat
necessary for species breeding, nursing, and
feeding.
2. Overfishing was placing severe stress on the
population of several species.
3. Critical pollutants were contributed mostly by
nonpoint sources. Nutrients causing eutrophication
and a decline in SAV derived primarily from
agriculture in the Susqueharma basin and the
Eastern Shore, and also substantially from long-
range air deposition. At least half of the
sediment that reduced light penetration and SAV
growth came from shoreline erosion, exacerbated by
construction and development activities. Toxics
accumulating in some species came from long-ago
contaminated sediments, often stirred up by
dredging.
The policy measures adopted to respond to these
problems relied largely on noo-EPA authorities:
1. Maryland adopted a Critical Areas Program,
implemented by localities through their land-use
control authorities, that ha* carefully limited
development. This program and other* appear to
have reduced the rate of loss of coastal wetland*
in the Bay to zero.
2. A joint ban on rockfish harvesting by Maryland
and Virginia has resulted in a significant recover,
of population.
3. USOA and State incentive-based programs for
farmers have reduced agricultural nonpoint source
nutrient loadings.
In its design of other estuary programs throughout
the country, EPA seems clearly to appreciate these
lessons. The Subcommittee applauds the basic
thrust of EPA's focus on an estuary as a resource.
Scientific studies followed by policy development
are both defined broadly enough to cover the full
scope of threats to the resource: pollution,
habitat alteration, harvesting, and development and
growth in general. All relevant Federal, State,
local, and private agencies contribute in a
coordinated manner to the study and implementation
phases of the project.
The Subcommittee believes that this broad resource
protection model being used for estuaries has
promise for application in other fields. EPA's
protection efforts toward key wetland areas,
important aquifers, and valuable airsheds are
perhaps not as aggressive as they might be. In
such areas EPA typically limits its involvement to
using the tools under more direct Agency control
(e.g., 404 permits, sole source aquifer
designations, PSO permitting), which are able to
address only some of the threats facing the
resource. EPA might consider a more comprehensive
approach relying extensively on cooperation with
other agencies.
Although the Subcommittee thinks highly of EPA's
resource-oriented approach toward estuaries,
several potential institutional problem* associated
with the program will need attention:
1. What is to limit the number of estuaries to
which EPA can give such individual attention? The
number of estuaries in the program seems to be
growing inexorably. It is not clear that any of
the current estuary projects are finishing, and new
areas are petitioning to be added to the program.
It does not seem that, as was hoped, the existing
projects are providing demonstrations or models
that other areas are adopting without needing
assistance from EPA.
2. Can and should EPA limit its assistance to
planning and management within a five year period?
Or should EPA assist with the much higher costs
inherent in long-term, continuing remediation and
protection? How can EPA extricate itself after
some reasonable period of time from a program for
managing a specific estuary, and leave a viable
institutional structure to continue the program?
3. If EPA personnel are to understand habitat
alteration, fisheries and growth management issue*
in addition to pollution control, their education
and training will have to be significantly broader
than it typically is now.
90
-------
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems;
avoid focusing only on water quality. S*T, AP, TH,
NR
b. Protect estuaries in general, though, a broad
emphasis on pollution prevention.
Estuaries constitute a major zone for accumulation
of pollutants. In contrast to upstream flowing
waters, estuaries typically have long residence
times. Pollutants flowing into estuaries will tend
to remain there, accumulating in sediments, the
water column, and biota. Also, given the
relatively large surface area encompassed by
estuaries, they receive substantial additional
pollution loadings through air deposition. Because
of this potential for long-range transport of
pollutants to estuaries, it is often difficult to
identify and control the specific sources of
pollution affecting an estuary. The following are
some recent findings regarding unexpected sources
of estuarine pollution (Hi Her, 1990).
1. Air deposition of nitrates is thought to
provide about 30X of the nutrient load to the
Chesapeake Bay and 20X of that to Long Island
Sound.
2. Air deposition is the largest source of toxic
chemical loadings to the Great Lakes.
3. A small and declining population of Beluga
whales lives in the estuary of the Saint Lawrence
River. A key toxic chemical found in the whales it
mi rex, a pesticide that has apparently never been
produced or used in the St. Lawrence basin. Where
did the mi rex come from? Atlantic eels are a
primary food source for the whales. The eels
migrate from the Great Lakes to the mid-Atlantic
Ocean. As they pass through Lake Ontario, they
pass two plants near Niagara, New York that
produced and used mi rex, and must have discharged
it. The eels appear to pick up mi rex in Lake
Ontario, and the major impacts of the pollutant are
eventually felt among a population of whales at
least 600 miles away (CF, 1990).
Specific measures to prevent pollution (e.g., by
reducing nonpoint source discharges and pesticide
use through the strategy option* in A.7 and A.13)
in the catchment area for a particular estuary can
be important. But when the sources of pollution to
estuaries can be as distant and unexpected as the
examples cited above, a broad nationwide pollution
prevention effort seems appropriate.
S.9.2 Protect estuaries from accumulation of
pollutants transported long distances through
general waste reduction and pollution prevention
efforts. PP
c. Manage contaminated sediments in estuaries bv
developing an ecologically protective and cost-
effective technology. In a final observation
regarding estuaries, the Subcommittee wishes to
comment on the increasingly serious consideration
being given to large projects to dredge and clean
contaminated estuarine sediments. More research on
this subject is needed. Highly contaminated
sediments can pose serious risks, as evidenced by
designation of several areas of contaminate,
sediments as Superfund sites. But dredging,
cleaning, and disposing of these sediments can also
be dangerous -- resuspending contaminants in the
water -- and costly. Sediment/water/biota
interactions are not well understood, and
satisfactory sediment quality standards have not
yet been developed. The relative merits of
covering, removing, or ignoring contaminated
sediments should be investigated more thoroughly
before action is taken in most cases.
S.9.3 Develop ecologically protective and cost-
effective technologies to manage contaminated
sediments in estuaries. SiT
References
CEC, Chesapeake Executive Council (1988, 1989),
Reports: Population Growth and Development in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the rear 2020; The
Second Progress Report Under the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement; The State Chesapeake Bay -- Third
Biennial Monitoring Report, 1989.
CF, The Conservation Foundation (1989),
Conservation Foundation Letter, The Great Lakes
Basin: A Great Resource at Risk, 1989, No. 5
Killer, Michelle. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,
personal communication, 1990.
NRDC, The Natural Resources Defense Council (1989),
Ebb Tide for Pollution: Actions for cleaning up
Coastal Water, New York, NY.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990),
National Water Qualilty Inventory, 1988 Report to
Congress, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C. 20460.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989),
Saving Bays and Estuaries, a Primer for
Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects,
EPA/503/8-89-001, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
20460.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989),
The Water Planet, Office of Water Strategic Plan,
November 1989.
A.10 Habitat Alteration
A.10.1 Risk Background
Physical alteration of aquatic and terrestrial
habitats caused by human activity has been ranked
as one of the most serious ecological risks by both
the original Unfinished Business participants and
by the Science Advisory Board's Ecology and Welfare
Subcommittee (a sister committee to ours).
Modification of natural habitats can also cause
substantial loss of economic and aesthetic values.
Development, resource extraction, agriculture, and
91
-------
timber harvesting represent the major categories of
activity affecting aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. Practice* that can have particularly
important effects on aquatic habitats include
dredging and filling, creation of impoundments,
drainage, channelization, shoreline stabilization,
and upland activities that significantly change the
magnitude, timing and temperature of water flows
(e.g., water withdrawals, forestry, urbanization of
a watershed). Terrestrial habitats can be affected
by a wide variety of construction activities --
roads, housing and other structural development -
and land uses including agriculture, grazing,
forestry, mining, and even recreation.
Physical alteration of habitats results in
substantial ecological damage because of the
intensity, scale, and permanence of the effects
caused. Physical alteration can cause critical
alteration of conditions in an ecosystem (e.g.,
change in moisture, temperature, disease agents or
other stress) or complete destruction of a given
habitat. The range of impacts could include:
stress on individual species in an ecosystem,
elimination of one or more species, conversion to
another type of ecosystem, or complete loss of an
area as a natural habitat. The threat to
biological diversity is especially serious. A
particular species can become extinct if features
of its habitat crucial to its development are
destroyed or significantly altered. Similarly, if
a habitat is sufficiently fragmented, migration and
general movement paths of the species will be
disturbed; this isolation makes the species more
vulnerable to other stresses such as disease
outbreak.
Over time, the scale of physical alteration in the
U.S. has become immense. About 1/2 of the wetlands
existing during colonial times no longer exist
(Tiner, 1984). Only about 1/3 of the original
acreage of riparian plant communities now remains
in a near natural condition (Swift, 1984). The
amount of the U.S. land area (excluding Alaska) in
developed uses (cropland, urban land, homesites,
etc.) has increased by about 1/3 between 1910 and
1982 (USDA, 1988). Some habitat alteration can
have effects on a larger than regional scale, such
as deforestation and its effect on the global
carbon cycle.
Host worrisome is that adverse effects of this
habitat alteration often approach being
irreversible. Whereas ecosystems can recover from
most pollution impacts within years or decades
following cessation of the pollution, the SAB
Ecological and Welfare Subcommittee of this project
projected a century or more as the typical time
frame for recovery of an ecosystem fro* physical
alteration.
A.10.2 Policy Background
The federal government conducts a wide variety of
programs to protect specific varieties of important
habitats. Such programs include acquisition and
management of park, refuge, and wilderness lands;
protection of wetlands, endangered species habitat,
coastal zones, barrier islands and floodplaing; and
the environmental impact statement (EIS)
requirements for major federal actions. Most
federally owned land (USFS and BLM) is managed for
multiple purposes, based on a planning process that
weighs preservation against use values for the
land. State, local, and private agencies are also
very active in protecting important habitats,
operating such programs as park systems, property
tax abatements for open space preservation,
critical area zoning, and prohibitions of
construction in wetland areas.
These programs are, however, highly fragmented and
tend to be poorly coordinated. They apply to some
types of important habitats and not to others.
There exists no consistent nationwide inventory of
all critical ecological areas, and no nationwide
plan to protect them.
Arrayed against these programs that protect habitat
from alteration are a great variety of governmental
programs that encourage development. Federal
programs include subsidies for agriculture,
housing, water resource projects, sewage treatment,
water supplies, highways, airports, mass
transportation, energy production, businesses,
rebuilding after disasters, etc.. It is not clear,
on balance, if the Federal government does more to
encourage physical alteration of important habitats
or to discourage it.
EPA has limited authority to preserve habitats from
physical (as opposed to chemical) alteration.
Important EPA programs include review and comment
on federal EISs, responsibilities under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, and support for integrated
management of estuaries (particularly Chesapeake
Bay) threatened by both pollution and physical
alteration. EPA's major participation in the
alteration of habitats is through community growth
induced by the sewage treatment construction grant
and revolving loan programs. Through these
programs, EPA provided about 40X of the money spent
on constructing municipal sewage treatment plants
in the U.S. between 1974 and 1984 (Apogee Research,
1987).
A.10.3 Possible Strategy Options
As a general matter, EPA could begin by asserting
an interest in protecting ecosystems from physical
damage as well as from chemical (pollution) damage.
EPA has traditionally been concerned with pollution
control and not with comprehensive protection of
the environment from the full rang* of threats.
This expanded role for EPA will have to be
coordinated carefully with other federal agencies.
Although each of EPA's major statutes gives the
agency a broad mandate to protect the environment
as a whole, impacts from physical alteration of the
environment have traditionally been the province of
others: e.g. the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
provides central role for the Fish and Wildlife
Service in protecting habitats for wild animals,
and the National Environmental Policy Act
establishes the responsibility of each federal
agency to consider alternatives to environmentally
92
-------
harmful actions that it proposes. Our strategy
options for reducing the risks of habitat
alteration are not primarily for direct EPA action.
Instead, they involve EPA working to convince the
entire executive branch to take concerted action.
a. EPA could support the development of a national
inventory of important ecological areas. Wo
integrated national inventory of important
ecological areas currently exists. If one did, it
would serve an important function in organizing a
broad range of federal, state, local, and private
preservation efforts, as well as demarking areas
that should be avoided by development interests.
Several of our further strategy options listed
below are practical only if they can be targeted at
designated, limited land areas.
Partial inventories do currently exist: for
wetlands and endangered species habitat, for
natural areas in many states, and by the Nature
Conservancy in many areas. They can serve as a
starting point in developing the national
inventory. The most difficult aspect of developing
a national inventory may be reaching a consensus on
the criteria defining lands that are to be
included. Habitat preservation is motivated by
various concerns -- protecting genetic diversity,
open space, land for recreation, endangered
species, game species, wilderness -- each of which
suggests different areas on which to focus. Some
areas to be included in such an inventory would be
key wetlands, old growth forests, critical habitats
for endangered species, and unique ecosystems.
A planning process might follow completion of the
inventory: assessing the condition of the
inventoried areas, evaluating threats to them, and
establishing priorities and strategies for
preserving the most vulnerable and important ones.
S.10.1 Develop a nationwide inventory and
preservation plan for important habitats. NR
b. A second strategy option is to consider an
executive order that will restrict federal actions
encouraging development of important ecological
areas. Most actions altering important habitats
are undertaken by private individuals or
corporations. Direct regulation of the vast number
of such actions is clearly infeasible. However, a
substantial portion of such actions are probably
instigated by (e.g., accelerated economic
development subsequent to completion of a federal
water project), subsidized by (e.g., clearing
forest land to plant federally subsidized crops),
or licensed by (e.g., federal environmental permits
for a new factory) the federal government. If each
federal agency can be required to consider
alternatives to supporting any habitat-altering
action, many such actions will not go forward.
The proposed executive order could be modeled after
the existing wetlands executive order (EO 11990).
Under this order, each federal agency "shall avoid
undertaking or providing assistance for new
construction located in wetlands unless the head of
the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable
alternative to such construction, and (2) that the
proposed action includes all practicable measures
to minimize harm to wetlands which may result frc.
such use." Several modifications to the wetlands
approach might be considered for a habitat order:
1. Extend the coverage to any of a series of
inventoried important ecological areas,
2. Extend the coverage to include non-construction
activities such as farming and timber harvesting,
3. Seek legal authorization for citizen suits to
enforce compliance with the order.
It is clear that such an executive order could be
implemented only if the land areas to which it
applied were: a) Clearly designated in advance, and
b) Limited in geographic extent (probably well less
than 1X of the U.S. land area). The inventory
would be critical.
Several other elements of current or proposed
strategies for protecting wetlands might also be
extended to designated ecologically important
habitat areas, for example, adoption of a "no net
loss" goal, enactment of a requirement to obtain a
permit before destroying them, or adoption of a
requirement for federal agencies to mitigate or
offset any damage they do to them.
S.10.2 Restrict federal activities that contribute
to development of ecologically important areas.
MI, REGS, *P, TH, TAX, NR
c. The most direct, though expensive, option for
preserving important habitat areas is to acquire
them. EPA could support substantially increased
federal acquisition of these areas. Several
federal programs provide funding for acquisition of
natural areas, the largest among them being the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LUCF). In recent
years these programs have been funded at less than
$200 million annually, far less than their levels
in many years during the 1970's and early 1980's.
The LWCF now contains an unappropriated balance of
about 18 billion, with receipts mostly from
offshore oil and gas leasing of about $900 million
being added annually. Legislation establishing the
LUCF argued that the federal government should
invest the funds it obtains from depleting the
nation's oil reserves in a countervailing
preservation effort. Increasing the annual
appropriations from the LWCF for federal land
acquisition to $1 billion or more would be
consistent with this argument. Two other actions
should accompany this increase in appropriations:
1. A plan could be developed that determines which
land is most worthy of federal acquisition to
preserve its ecological value. The LWCF finances
acquisition of properties serving somewhat
differing purposes: urban recreation and historic
preservation, as well as ecological preservation.
It is important to obtain the maximum ecological
value from the portion of the LWCF spent for this
purpose. A careful, long-range acquisition plan
focusing on lands of national ecological importance
93
-------
could help in obtaining the greatest ecological
bang for the buck (see (MantelI, 1989) for a
general discussion of LUCF).
2. Careful consideration could be given to
acquisition of less than full interests in land
(e.g., conservation easements) when doing so would
fulfill preservation goals at reduced cost.
S.10.3 Drastically increase federal acquisition of
important ecological areas and open space. NR
d. The federal government currently owns
ecologically important habitats: these should be
identified and managed to assure preservation pf
their ecological communities. The multiple use
agencies (US Forestry Service and the Bureau of
Land Management) seem to identify their
ecologically important landholdings satisfactorily,
and conduct open and arguably successful planning
programs to determine how to manage the*. It is
unclear, though, that other land-owning agencies
(000, DOE, those holding assets of failed financial
institutions) have similar procedures.
Ecologically important federally owned land should
not be developed or sold; it should be preserved in
federal ownership and managed appropriately.
S.10.4 Identify important habitats now in federal
ownership and manage then to preserve ecological
communities. NR
e. While federal habitat preservation is
important, support of state, local, and private
preservation programs would be beneficial also.
There are numerous diverse ecological preservation
efforts under way relying on tax abatements,
zoning, local ordinances, charitable trusts, user
fees, hunting stamps, volunteer groups, educational
campaigns, and many other mechanise*. Innovation
is rampant. EPA could provide an important
organizing service by evaluating many of these
programs, publicizing the successful ones, and
providing technical assistance to organizations in
replicating the*. There exist many initiatives to
preserve wetlands areas that appear successful. EPA
should explore these initiatives for use as
possible sources of innovation in other areas.
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts
to preserve important habitat areas through tax
breaks and technical asstistance. SIT, MI, TH,
TAX, NR
References
Mantel I, Michael; Phyllis Myers; and Robert B.
Reed. "The Land and Water Conservation Fund: Past
Experience, Future Decisions". Audubon Wildlife
Report 1988-1989. 1989. pp.257-281.
Swift, Bryan L. "Status of Riparian Ecosystems in
the United States". Water Resources Bulletin,
Volume 20. No. 2. April 1984.
Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. Wetlands of the United
States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton
Corner, MA: U.S. Oept. of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 1984.
USD A. Council on Environmental Quality (USD A
figures). Environmental Quality 1987-1988.
A.11 Hazardous Waste
A.11.1 Risk Background
In 1985 the amount of hazardous liquid and solid
wastes managed in accordance with requirements of
Subtitle C of the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) totaled about 275 million
metric tons (USEPA, 11/88). Other wastes subject
to the less-stringent requirements of Subtitle D of
RCRA totaled a much larger amount, greater than 11
billion tons (USEPA, 10/88). These wastes included
industrial nonhazardous wastes (7 billion tons),
wastes associated with oil and gas production (up
to 3.5 billion tons), and mining wastes (greater
than 1.4 billion tons).
There are risks associated with all of these wastes
from the point at which they are created, through
handling, transport, treatment, and disposal.
Although these risks have not been precisely
quantified, EPA indicates that the greatest current
risks are most likely from those wastes which are
not currently regulated, and from facilities: 1)
for which adequate management standard* have not
yet been set, 2) that have not been permitted, or
3) that are not in compliance with existing
standards (USEPA, 1989).
Assuming that these problems are addressed, the
greatest future risks may come from wastes for
which there is not adequate recycling, treatment,
or disposal capacity, if such a capacity shortfall
arises. However, it is very difficult to predict
whether there will be any future capacity shortages
until final waste treatment standards are
established; companies select alternatives to
current land disposal practices; and states, the
Federal government, and generators determine to
what extent reduced creation of waste will be
successful (GAO, 1988).
Past mismanagement of hazardous materials has left
the United States with a legacy of contaminated
sites. EPA has identified approximately 30,000
possible sites, 1,226 of which EPA has included or
proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPt). EPA has determined that 17,500 of the
sites do not qualify for this list and is
investigating the rest (EPA, 1989). EPA has
projected that the NPL could grow to some 2100
sites in the next ten years, while the U.S.
Congress1 Office of Technology Assessment projects
that the list could grow to greater than 10,000
sites (OTA, 1989). OTA based this figure on its
estimate that the total number of potential sites
could range from 130,000 to 439,000, taking into
account current hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities; municipal landfills;
mining waste sites; non-petroleum underground
storage tanks; federal facilities; and other sites.
94
-------
Few people disagree that the extent of
contamination of air, water, and land fro* these
contaminated sites has been very significant, yet
the health problems caused by and risks
attributable to these sites are very difficult to
quantify. The potential pathway of exposure most
often found is groundwater contamination; other
significant pathways at some sites are windblown
particles, direct exposure at unrestricted areas,
and surface water contamination. Recent studies of
NPL sites indicate that less than thirty percent of
such sites - perhaps less than ten percent - at the
time of discovery pose significant current health
risks which are of concern in the short term
(Travis and Doty, 1989). Risks which may occur in
the future are considered to be more significant at
mor* sites, but are usually estimated based on
hypothetical exposure scenarios. Possible economic
risks include loss of home values, loss of a
community's economic activity and development, and
loss of current and future water supplies. Current
and potential environmental degradation is not
well-assessed but is thought to be significant; in
1984 EPA estimated that about half of NPL sites
pose threats to sensitive areas such as freshwater
wetlands, coastal wetlands, and critical habitats
(OTA, 1989).
A.11.2 Policy Background
Hazardous waste management and site remediation
have been two of the most debated and controversial
environmental issues of the last decade. Congress
has established a detailed set of guidelines for
tackling these problems, most recently through the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act of 1984
and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
of 1986. The issues remain controversial, but in
recent years there has emerged greater consensus on
a number of points, ranging from an increased
emphasis on pollution prevention techniques, to
more targeting of Superfund resources to those
sites posing the greatest current risks. To a
great extent, the following strategy options
reflect emerging points of agreement.
A.11.3 Possible Strategy Options
Hazardous Waste Management
a. Reduce the generation of hazardous wastes bv
using EPA's authorities broadly. Our primary
strategy option is that EPA could increase its
efforts to promote the reduced generation of
wastes. Many analyses indicate that the amounts of
wastes currently generated could be substantially
reduced through changes in raw materials,
production processes, and products. For example,
Congress1 Office of Technology Assessment concluded
that a reasonable goal would be for
United States generators as a whole to reduce their
generation of all types of wastes of a hazardous
nature entering all media by 10 percent each year
for five years (OTA, 1986). EPA could take action
to, and where necessary seek Congressional
authority to: 1) require companies to conduct
audits of their production processes in order to
identify and evaluate the feasibility of generation
reduction opportunities; 2) require companies to
track their progress at achieving reductions and o.
their goals/plans for future achievements; 3)
assist states in implementing such programs and in
providing technical assistance to generators who
need such help; and A) continue to enforce against,
and establish needed standards for, generators and
waste management facilities.
This effort to press for reduction should not be
seen as solely a RCRA - based program. Other
statutory authorities could be used where possible
and appropriate, e.g. SARA Title III, TSCA, or the
Clean Air or Water Acts. Multimedia permitting
concepts could be explored and tested. Provisions
in single-media statutes that cross reference other
media should be exploited to press for the reduced
generation of all forms of hazardous wastes and to
prevent shifting of wastes from one medium to
another.
S.11.1 Use EPA's authorities broadly and
creatively to reduce the generation of hazardous
wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
b. By ensuring that waste reduction goals are met
and bv adding new facilities is necessary, help
states acheive adequate treatment and disposal
capacity. Our second strategy option is that EPA
could continue under its SARA authority to work
with states to facilitate planning to determine
whether additional waste handling capacity will be
needed in the future and if so, to help ensure that
necessary facilities are constructed. To help with
the former task, EPA could establish necessary
waste treatment standards which are protective of
public health and the environment, and which,
consistent with our first strategy option, require
states to set concrete goals for how much waste
generation will be reduced in their states.
Generation reduction should be the preferred method
for ensuring capacity. States could be required to
explain how they will ensure that such reduction
goals are met. EPA could also monitor industry
efforts to reduce waste generation, the extent to
which economic incentives and market forces are
spurring new capacity, and industry's choices of
new treatment technologies as they move away from
-land disposal, and communicate what EPA finds to
the states. EPA also could issue any further
needed location criteria for facilities, and
facilitate the exchange of information among states
regarding successful or potentially successful
approaches to facility siting.
S.11.2 Help states achieve adequate treatment and
disposal capacity -- by ensuring that waste
reduction goals are met, and by adding new
facilities if necessary. PP, INFO, REGS
c. Support the product stewardship concept. Our
third strategy option is that, in order to better
address problems associated with small generators
of hazardous waste, EPA could promote the concept
of "product stewardship". Under this concept,
large producers of chemicals work with their
customers to help engender responsible use and
95
-------
handling of chemicals and associated wastes.
Certain chemical companies have already begun such
programs, in part because of concerns over
potential liability for chemicals that they
manufacture. EPA should study and implement, and
where necessary seek Congressional authority to
implement, measures to promote such product
stewardship. One attractive option may be a
front-end tax for certain chemicals or products
(e.g. lubricating oils, solvents) which works as a
deposit, with a refund payable when quantities of
the chemical or product are turned in to designated
facilities operated by the seller, whether for
recycling, proper treatment, or disposal (Russell,
1988; Bohm, 1981). Such a deposit-refund system
would provide important incentives: first, there is
an incentive to follow rules for proper disposal
and to recapture would-be losses from the
production process; second, there is an incentive
for producers and users to look for non-hazardous
substitutes; and third, agencies' monitoring
problems will no longer include the nearly
impossible task of preventing illegal dumping of
small quantities at dispersed sites in the
envi rornent.
S.11.3 Support the "product stewardship" idea --
a manufacturer has a responsibility to contribute
to appropriate use. reuse, recycle, and disposal of
his products. PP, INFO, MI, MR
d. Simplify RCRA regulations and provide a more
flexible array of hazardous waste management
standards. Our fourth strategy option is that EPA
could simplify and where necessary recommend to
Congress simplifications of, the RCRA regulatory
framework in order to provide the agency with
greater flexibility in how it regulates wastes.
The current RCRA scheme with its many categories of
wastes and associated requirements is too complex
and inflexible. The result is that important
wastes which do not fit into categories regulated
to date are virtually unregulated. The system
leads to loopholes and confusion and poor
compliance on the part of the regulated community.
The system should be made more flexible so that EPA
is able to apply to any particular waste the
management standards which the agency finds to be
adequately protective of public health.
S.11.4 Simplify RCRA regulation* and provide a
more flexible array of hazardous waste management
standards. REGS
Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
The first two of our strategy options are related.
They apply to the Superfund program, the RCRA
corrective action program, and other federal
cleanup programs: 1) EPA could focus its cleanup
efforts on discovering all sites posing significant
current risks, i.e. those of concern in the
short-term, and then quickly taking steps necessary
to bring them under control, using permanent
cleanup techniques to the extent practicable; and
2) as its next priority, EPA could develop and
apply at sites which pose future risks technologies
which achieve permanent cleanup at reasonable
costs. Together, these two strategy options
establish an approach to cleanup which emphasizes
finding and acting at sites which pose the greater^
and more immediate risks first; this approach also
emphasizes a commitment to the accelerated
development and use of truly permanent cleanup
technologies, which we define to mean treatment
technologies which destroy, detoxify, or recover
contaminants.
a. Identify contaminated waste sites posing
immediate threates and Quickly bring them under
control. With respect to the first strategy
option, recent reviews of EPA's Superfund program
have concluded that there has been little
correlation between the risks posed by sites and
the sites given priority for attention by EPA
(Travis and Doty, 1989 and OTA, 1989). Those
reviews and EPA's own recent management review
(USEPA, 1989) have recommended that EPA should give
priority to those sites posing immediate or
short-term risks. Measures should be taken quickly
to eliminate such current risks and, where
necessary, stabilize sites to control contamination
sources until final remedies can be applied.
An important corollary to acting first at the
highest current risk sites is that the highest
current risk sites must be found. Therefore we
also urge, as did the OTA review, that EPA much
more aggressively attempt to discover sites which
pose significant health, environmental or economic
risks. One way to do this which EPA and Congress
should pursue is to require hazardous waste
generators, transporters, and disposers to disclose
where they disposed of wastes in the past.
Authorities for such information gathering
authority may be found in TSCA Section 8, CERCLA,
and perhaps other statutes also.
S.11.5 Identify contaminated waste sites posing
immediate threats and quickly bring them under
control. REGS, ENF
b. Identify long-term cleanup and permanent
cleanup techniques. Our second strategy option is
that EPA could give much greater emphasis to
accomplishing long-term cleanup using truly
permanent remediation technologies, i.e. those
which destroy, detoxify or recover contaminants.
The reviews noted above have concluded that EPA is
not giving sufficient consideration to the
permanence of the remedies being implemented. One
review which examined fifty of the 74 final
decisions made by EPA during fiscal year 1987 found
that only nineteen percent of the source remedies
afforded permanence to the maximum extent
practicable. Forty-five percent of the remedies
were found to provide minimal permanence (Travis
and Doty, 1989). We suggest that EPA devote far
greater attention to fostering the development and
use of technologies that destroy or recover
hazardous materials. This suggestion goes further
than EPA has proposed in the Agency's recent review
and strategy (EPA, 11/89). EPA commits to
technologies which provide long-term effectiveness
and reliability, but doe* not commit more
specifically to technologies that destroy or
96
-------
recover contaminants. We also emphasize that
remediation at any particular site should, after
application of any initial measures necessary to
address current risks, in general be held until
permanent measures are available at reasonable
costs.
S.11.6 Address future risks from contaminated
waste sites by developing and applying permanent
cleanup techniques. S*T, REGS, EMF
c. Encourage third-party cleanups and though
enforcement. Our third strategy option for
contaminated sites is that EPA could encourage
third-party cleanups through greater and tougher
enforcement and the use of reasonable settlement
procedures. This suggestion also is consistent
with those of recent reviews and with recent EPA
management initiatives. Possible approaches to
accomplishing this goal through existing
authorities would be aggressive searches for more
potentially responsible parties at sites and
obtaining cleanup orders through the courts, as
well as using other strong enforcement powers which
EPA has but has not used, e.g. penalizing parties
who do not cooperate. Another approach worthy of
exploration is the establishment of arbitration
procedures or special courts to help speed
agreements. In addition, we recommend that EPA
review the current liability, enforcement, and
settlement scheme to determine whether it might be
modified to involve smaller responsible parties
more effectively in paying for cleanups, while
retaining all of the incentives that it currently
provides for third-party cleanups and better waste
management.
S.11.7 Encourage site cleanup by third parties
through enforcement and use of reasonable
settlement procedures. REGS, EMF
References
Bohm, P. "Deposit-Refund Systems: Theory and
Applications to Environmental, Conservation and
Consumer Policy,1* Resources for the Future,
Washington, O.C.
1981.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Report to
Congress: Solid waste Disposal in the United
States, Volume 1", EPA630-SW-M-011. Washington,
D.C., October
1988.
Environmental Protection Agency, "The Waste
System", Washington, D.C., November 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency, "A Management
Review of the Superfund Program," Washington, D.C.,
June, 1989.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, "Strategic Plan FY
1992-1995," Washington, O.C. November 30, 1989.
General Accounting Office, "Hazardous Waste:
Future Availability of and Need for Treatment
Capacity are Uncertain,"
Washington, D.C..
April 1988).
GAO/RCED-88-95,
General Accounting Office, "Mew Approaches Meeded
to Manage RCRA," GAO/RCED-88-115, Washington, D.C.,
July 1988.
Office of Technology Assessment, "Serious Reduction
of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and
Industrial Efficiency," Washington, O.C.,
September 1986.
Office of Technology Assessment, "Coming Clean:
Superfund Problems Can be Solved .... OTA-ITE-433,
Washington, D.C., October 1989.
Russell, C.S. "Economic Incentives in the
Management of Hazardous Wastes", Columbia Journal
of Environmental Law 13, 1988, pp 257-274.
Travis, C.C. and Doty, C.B., "Superfund: A Program
Without Priorities," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 23, No. 11, 1989.
A.12 Municipal Sol id Waste
A.12.1 Risk Background
Americans generated approximately 160 million tons
of municipal solid waste in 1986. With current
purchasing and disposal practices this amount was
expected to increase by approximately IX per year
to a total of 193 million tons by the year 2000
(USEPA, 1988c). By far, the dominant method for
disposal of these wastes at present is landfill ing,
but an estimated one-third of the nation's
landfills are expected to close by 1991 (EPA,
1988c). Rathje (1989) notes that, on average, most
landfills have always had only a five year
remaining lifetime, since they were routinely
designed for a ten-year time horizon; what is new
now, however, is the vastly increased cost and
difficulty in siting replacement facilities. Mew
landfills are proving far more costly and difficult
to site than in the past.
With the exception of waste reduction (generating
less waste material in the first place), each of
the principal methods for solid waste management --
landfill ing, composting, incineration, and even
recycling -- has potential risks for public health
and the environment if implemented poorly.
Landfill ing and composting pose health and
environmental riski associated wiU. teaching of
chemicals into both surface and groundwater, and
gaseous emissions to the air; they also pose
welfare risks associated with both the prohibitive
costs (to many communities) of designing and
operating new landfills and of safe closure of old
ones, with the side effects of operations (odor,
dust, truck traffic, etc.), and with the related
social and political stigma of siting new landfill
facilities.
Incinerators involve many similar hazards, but, if
poorly designed and operated, also more
97
-------
concentrated risks associated with the release of
toxic metal contaminants, acid gases, and organic
toxins to the air. Even recycling may involve high
direct exposures of waste management workers and
neighbors to heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and
other hazardous materials in the waste stream.
As yet, there has been no definitive risk
comparison among these management methods, though
more limited comparison of landfills and
incinerators was conducted in 1987 (ESRG, 1987).
Such a comparison is needed to provide guidance for
choices among management methods, but the best
choice is likely to vary from location to
location. Similar comparisons are also needed to
identify the overall risks of alternative product
materials (for example, paper versus plastic or
styrofoam) throughout their life cycles from
extraction through disposal (National Research
Council, 1990).
In short, therefore, managing current and future
solid wastes involves a potential for at least
medium-degree risks to hunan health and the
environment, and medium to high risk to human
welfare due to the rapid escalation of wacte
management costs and diminishing availability of
disposal capacity.
A.12.2 Policy Background
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
charged all federal agencies explicitly to "use all
practicable means... to enhance the quality of
renewable resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable resources" (42
USC 4331.b.6). EPA has had additional authority
since 1976 for policy initiatives to promote
municipal solid waste reduction and recycling,
including a specific mandate to publish federal
procurement guidelines for including tht highest
practicable percentages of recovered materials in
products purchased. By 1987, however, it had
produced only one such guideline, and a second was
promulgated (and four others promised) only after
a 1987 lawsuit; several were produced in 1988 and
1989. In practice, EPA has limited its role to
modest amounts of technical, assistance to state and
local agencies-. Federal policy initiative* and
resource commitments for HSW management, and even
for HSU research, have been almost nonexistent.
Primary policy responsibility for solid waste
management has traditionally rested with municipal
and county governments, with some involvement of
state governments (Kelosi, 1981, 1988). Their
exercise of this responsibility, however, is
pervasively influenced by EPA regulatory policies.
EPA requirements in the 1970s led to the cessation
of open burning and closing of dump*, the
abandonment of most ocean dumping, the accumulation
of greatly increased quantities of ash and sludge
from air and water pollution control equipment, and
the diversion of waste streams from all these
destinations into a far smaller number of sanitary
landfills. Therefore, along with population growth
and increases in per capita consumption, these
policies contributed to the accelerated fill rate
of existing landfills, which has precipitated the
current crisis of waste disposal capacity.
Similarly, more recent EPA policies -- both
existing and anticipated -- are among the major
forces shaping current local decisions in solid
waste management. These policies include present
or proposed EPA regulations ending the disposal of
hazardous wastes into municipal landfills (RCRA
Subtitle C); setting stringent standards for
landfill construction and operation and financial
assurance for safe closure (RCRA Subtitle 0); and
regulating emissions and ash disposal from
municipal solid waste combustion facilities. The
costs and restrictions imposed by these sets of
regulations are probably the most important
influences, along with political opposition to new
waste facility siting, driving the current trend
toward aggressive waste reduction and recycling.
The EPA Administrator in 1989 promulgated an
explicit policy statement endorsing pollution
prevention through waste reduction as EPA's primary
approach to environmental protection (EPA, 1989a).
The Strategic Plan prepared by EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSUER) for FY
1992-1995 identifies as its . first goal the
minimization of the quantity and toxicity of waste
created by commercial, domestic, and governmental
activities. Its second objective, next in priority
after encouraging hazardous waste reduction and
recycling, is to reduce the quantity of municipal
solid waste disposed of or sent to combustion
devices from an estimated 160 million tons in 1986
to 133 million tons by 1992 (USEPA, 1988c, 1989d).
In addition to these federal policies directly
influencing local solid waste management decisions,
several other potential strategies for solid waste
reduction are exclusive prerogatives of the federal
rather than local governments. These include
quality, labelling, and packaging standards for
many products sold in interstate commerce; federal
procurement standards, as the federal government is
probably the single largest customer for many
products; federal tax policies and subsidies (for
instance, third-class postal rates); and policies
for forest products and minerals extraction, many
of which underprice or subsidize the extraction of
virgin materials that compete against waste
reduction and recycling of materials already in use
(Kovacs, 1988).
Some policies simply are more effectively
administered by the federal government than by
state and local agencies. Examples include
environmentally harmful trade standards for
products, such as excessive brightness standards
for paper products (which increase water pollution
due to chlorine bleaching and limit the use of
recycled paper fibers); deposit/refund systems for
many nationally marketed products; and restrictions
on the heavy-metal content of consumer products.
Finally, proposals have been mad* that EPA use
federal mandates to force states to assure more
aggressive siting of incinerators and landfill
98
-------
capacity. Such capacity assurance requirements
have already h*«n enacted for hazardous waste
disposal facilities, but not yet for nonhazardous
solid waste disposal capacity.
A.12.3 Possible Strategy Options
Any risk reduction strategy for municipal solid
wastes ought to include two basic elements. The
first is a set of strategy options for waste
reduction and recycling, to reduce, insofar as
possible, the volume and toxicity of the materials
that are discarded as wastes in the first ptace and
the costs of disposing of the* (USEPA, 1987,
1988a,b). The second is a strategy to assure there
are adequate and safe facilities for handling of
the remaining wastes, using a risk-Minimizing
combination of the known technologies -- landfills,
composting, combustion, and any others that may be
identified -- that are available for waste
treatment and disposal. A third element, the
cleanup of contaminated sites of past solid waste
disposal, is discussed elsewhere as an issue of
hazardous substance site cleanup (Superfund).
a. Use existing authorities to reduce toxic
materials in consumer products. EPA has
authorities under existing legislation, chiefly
RCRA, but also TSCA, that it could possibly use to
undertake a leadership role in waste reduction and
recycling. These authorities are significantly
underutilized. If EPA were to use them to their
full potential, it would signal a serious federal
commitment; it would expand the markets for
recovered materials, providing both encouragement
and necessary support for local waste reduction and
recycling initiatives; and it would stimulate
needed economic investments in industrial
modernization to make more efficient use of
materials and energy.
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products
and expand markets for recovered materials. PP,
INFO, HI, REGS, ENF.NR
b. Eliminate federal standards, subsidies and
procurement specifications that discourage waste
reduction and recycling. Some of the most
important strategies for reducing risks from NSW do
not require promulgating new regulations or
subsidies, but simply eliminating old ones whose
effects are costly and perverse (Bower, 1977,
1989). An example is standards for paper
brightness that make paper far whiter than
necessary, which requires extra bleaching that
increases water pollution and limits the use of
recycled fibers. Another example is the federal
subsidies and tax benefits for the extraction of
virgin materials, such as minerals and forest
products, that compete directly against recycled
materials. A third example is the subsidized
postal rates for commercial third class mail ("junk
mail"). Finally, procurement specifications that
require virgin materials content could often be
replaced by performance requirements that could
also be met (sometimes more cheaply) by recovered
materials.
Strategically, what needs to be done is: (1) to
create markets (i.e., federal purchasing, uniform
labelling of recycled rmaterials, etc.); (2) create
supply (mandate recycling); (3) overcome barriers
(tax subsidies for virgin materials, unnecessary
specifications): (4) reduce waste products (reduce
subsidies for junk mail, etc.).
5.12.2 Eliminate federal standards, subsidies and
procurement specifications that discourage waste
reduction and recycling. PP, MI
c. Change tax structure to promote waste reduction
and recycling. A basic flaw in current waste
management is that in most localities, disposal
costs are paid out of property tax revenues rather
than in proportion to the amounts of waste
discarded. This system provides no incentive for
those who dispose of wastes to reduce or recycle:
waste disposal seems "free." Correcting this
disincentive, by charging for both the human and
the environmental costs of waste management in
proportion to wastes generated, is a fundamentally
important principle for solid waste management.
One form of such a charge is already being imposed
locally in some communities, such as Seattle (and
in many cities in Europe), where residents are
charged by the container for the amounts of waste
generated.
A useful supplement or alternative at the national
level would be a raw materials tax, based on weight
and density and levied at the point of first
manufacture of the materials into primary products.
Proceeds from the tax could be redistributed to
local governments by formula and restricted to use
for recycling and waste management services.
Relatively simple refinements could be added to
cover exports and imports, and to offset the equity
impacts of an extra tax on material goods.
S.12.3 Tax wastes and virgin materials to promote
waste reduction and recycling. MI, TAX, NR
d. Deposit-refund systems. A national
deposit-refund system for lead-acid batteries would
be an effective and efficient strategy for reducing
this major type of toxic waste materials. It would
also provide a model for other problem wastes.
This approach would involve a front-end tax which
works as a deposit, with a refund payable when the
battery is turned in to a designated facility for
recycling or safe disposal (Russell, 1988; Bohm,
1981). Such a system would provide an effective
incentive for safe management rather than haphazard
discard. The approach could be applied also to
other "problem" products such as tires, car hulks,
used oil, and packaging containers.
A deposit-refund system is only a mechanism for
segregating and collecting problem wastes and it is
of little use unless there is a market for the
collected waste, or a safer method for disposing of
these wastes in concentrated rather than dispersed
facilities.
99
-------
S.12.4 Create deposit/refund systems for tires,
batteries, car hulks, used oil and packaging
containers. MI
e. Local planning for old facilities. Many state
and local governments do not now have effective
programs to assure adequate future capacity for
solid waste management. EPA could play a useful
information transfer role by identifying successful
strategies and disseminating information about them
-- even supporting temporary transfers of staff
members to help other states emulate them -- to
other states and local governments. Examples might
include negotiated siting procedures (e.g.
Wisconsin's), risk communication strategies,
regional cooperative facility development, and
local capacity mandates such as Florida's and
California's. EPA could also provide training
assistance for state and local solid waste
planners, a category of professionals who have not
existed in most communities and many states, but
who now are widely needed.
The major unsolved problem, however, is the
declining capacity of permitted waste management
and disposal facilities as old facilities reach
their capacities and few new ones are sited. One
option for EPA would be to seek a federal statute
mandating that each state assure adequate capacity
for its solid waste streams, backed by threats of
federal fund withdrawals, similar to the mandate
that now exists for hazardous waste disposal
capacity. It is not yet clear that such mandates
are effective, however, nor that there is any
fundamental reason why all such wastes should be
disposed of in the state of origin. Lacking such
justification, such policies would represent a
major new federal intrusion into a policy arena in
which state and local governments have historical
primacy.
S.12.5 Encourage better state and local planning
for solid waste management capacity. INFO, REGS,
TH
References
Belzer, R. and A. Nichols. 1988. Economic
Incentives To Encourage Hazardous Waste
Minimization and Safe Disposal. Prepared for
USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
(Cooperative Agreement No. CR813491-01-2).
Bohm, P. 1981. Deposit-Refund Systems: Theory
and Application* to Environmental, Conservation,
and Consumer Policy. Washington, D.C.: Resources
for the Future, Inc.
Bower, B. 1977. Economic Dimensions of Waste
Recycling and Reuse: Some Definitions, Facts, and
Issues. Chapter 1 in D. Pearce and I. Walter,
Resource Conservation: Social and Economic
Dimensions of Recycling. NY: NYU Press.
Bower, B. 1989. Economic, Engineering, and Policy
Options for Waste Reduction. Paper prepared for
the National Research Council Workshop on Waste
Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May
8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Comnittee on Opportunities in Applied
Environmental Research and Development).
Curlee, T.R. 1989. Source Reduction and Recycling
as Municipal Solid Waste Management Options: An
Overview of Government Actions. Prepared for
USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
and Office of Solid Waste (Contract No.
DE-AC05-840R21400). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
Energy Systems Research Group. 1987. Managing
MSW: A Comparative Risk Analysis of Landfill and
Resource Recovery Facilities, COMEG Policy Research
Center Report, ERSG Report 87-102. Boston, MA:
Energy Systems Research Group.
Kovacs, W. L. 1988. The Coming Era of
Conservation and Industrial Utilization of
Recyclable Materials. Ecology Law 0. 15:537-625.
Melosi, M. 1981. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse,
Reform, and the Environment, 1880-1980.
Chicago: Dorsey.
Melosi, M. 1988. Hazardous Waste and
Environmental Liability: An Historical
Perspective. Houston L. Rev. 25:741-779.
National Research Council. 1990. Waste
Reduction: Research Needs in the Applied Social
Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
National Solid Waste Management Association.
1989. Resource Recovery in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: NSWMA.
Opschoor, J. B. and H. B. Vos. 1989. Economic
Instruments for Environmental Protection. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Rathje, W. L. 1989. Rubbish! Atlantic Monthly,
December 1989: 99-109.
Russell, C. S. 1988. Economic Incentives in the
Management of Hazardous Wastes. Columbia J. Envr.
Law 13:257-274.
TEN Foundation. 1989. Environmental Labelling in
the EFTA-Countries. Proceedings of an Invitation
Seminar, August 28-29, 1989. Sjobo, Sweden:
Foundation TEM, University of Lund.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987c.
Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality with
Economic Benefits. Report No. EPA/530-SW-87-025
(Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
October 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988*.
Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s.
Report No. SAt-EC-88-040 (Science Advisory Board,
September 1988).
100
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19886.
Strategies for Risk Reduction Research. Report No.
SAB-EC-OAOE (Science Advisory Board, September
1988, Appendix E).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988d.
Report to Congress, Solid Waste Disposal in the
United States, Volume II. Report No.
EPA/530-SU-88-011B, October 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988e. The
Solid Uaste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. Report
No. EPA/530-SU-88-052 (Office of Solid Uaste,
September 1988).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a.
Pollution Prevention Policy Statement. Federal
Register 54/16.-3M5-47 (January 26, 1989).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c.
Promoting Source Reduction and RecycI ability in the
Marketplace. Report No. EPA/530-SU-89-066.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989e.
Characterization of Products Containing Lead of
Cadmium in Municipal Solid Uaste in the United
States, 1970 to 2000. Report No.
EPA/530-SW-89-015C.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989.
Nonhazardous Uaste: State Management of Municipal
Landfills and Landfill Expansions. Report No.
GAO/RCED-89-165BR.
A.13 Pesticides
A.13.1 Risk Background
Pesticides are designed to control living
organisms. It should come as little surprise that
unintended effects, often involving non-target
organisms, are common once pesticides are released
deliberately into the environment. This is
particularly true when compared with other
environmental issues under ERA'S mandate, as
confirmed in EPA's original Unfinished Business
report, where pesticide risks ranked in the highest
category.
Pesticides can cause unintended health risks to
pesticide applicators and farmworkers, and to the
general population through the food supply, through
contamination of groundwater and surface water, and
through air contamination (spray drift and
volatilization), and through long range transport.
Pesticides may also cause ecological risks by
direct exposure to non-target organisms and by
contaminating soil, water, air, plant matter, and
pests consulted by wildlife (NRC, 1987 and EPA,
1988).
There are about 850 active pesticide ingredients in
production that potentially can cause ecological or
health risks (EPA, 1983). In addition, there are
hundreds of pesticidally inert, but not
lexicologically inert, compounds which are mixed
with the active ingredients to make formulated
pesticide products. Products registered at the
Federal level have numbered as many as 50,000 (EPA,
1989). Examples of pesticide inert* include
methylene chloride, formaldehyde, and othe
solvents or carriers, some of which have been shown
to have potential or actual health and
environmental risks. Risks from pesticides result
from both active and inert pesticidal ingredients.
About 1.1 billion pounds of conventional active
pesticide ingredients are used in the United States
each year. The agricultural sector accounts for
about 75 percent of pesticide usage; the
industrial, commercial, and government sectors
account for about 18 percent; and the remaining 7
percent is used in homes and gardens. Pesticide
usage consists of about 58 percent herbicides, 24
percent insecticides, and 12 percent fungicides.
There are about 1 million certified private
pesticide applications (mostly farmers) and about
250 thousand certified commercial pesticide
applicators (EPA, 1989).
EPA's Pesticide Program categorizes pesticides
according to the following uses:
a) Agriculture (including farms and greenhouses)
b) Post harvest use
c) Urban (including household and garden use)
d) Other non-food uses (including anti-foul ing
paints, structural pest control, disinfectants,
wood preservatives, forests, right of ways,
nurseries, and aquatic applications for weed and/or
insect control).
These uses of pesticides result in differing
exposure scenarios. A wide range of strategies can
be pursued to reduce exposure to and risks from
pesticides.
A-13-2 Policy Background
Of all EPA's regulatory programs, the pesticide
program is the oldest. Long before EPA was formed
in 1970, pesticides were registered under a USOA
licensing regime. Over the years, the pesticide
regulatory program has changed from a program
designed to ensure efficacy to a program which has
a strong risk reduction component. However, the
pesticide program still differs significantly from
most of EPA's other programs.
First, the Congressional/legislative tie is to the
Agriculture Committees, not the Environmental
Committees. Second, the program applies to a
single class of substances across all the media in
which they may occur. For example, pesticide use
has major implications for EPA's wetland program,
non-point source program, groundwater program, and
indoor air program. Yet until recently,
integration mechanisms were not strong. Third,
regulations under the program are to be based on
comparison of risks and benefits, unlike
technology-based or risk-based programs like EPA's
major air, water, and waste programs. Fourth,
while the pesticide program has the legal framework
101
-------
to control use through manufacturing sale and
transport, it has no current authority to control
pesticide manufacture, like its chemical
counterpart, the Toxic Substance* Control Act
(TSCA). In fact, the agency having the most
influence on the pesticide-using community is USD A,
not EPA. Information received by users in the past
through USDA extension agents, research and data
collection effortshas typically focused on
increasing crop production and quality, which may
have conflicted with environmental protection.
Finally, the enforcement mechanisms crafted in
FIFRA are noticeably weaker than in all other EPA
statutes. This combines with a state
implementation framework that provides for very
little Federal guidance or oversight or state
reporting.
A.13.3 Possible Strategy Potions
The first possible strategy option is for EPA
actively to encourage the reduced use of pesticides
(NRC, 1989). The volume of pesticide usage in our
country continues to grow (EPA, 1989). While safer
pesticides are clearly a highly desirable goal,
less pesticide use will most directly help achieve
reduced exposure and environmental burden as well
as pollution prevention (EPA, 1983). To encourage
farmers in this area, higher prices could be
developed for prganically grown products and more
acreage allotment could be given them. This can be
achieved by:
1. Providing incentives for increased farmer use
of integrated pest management (IPM) or low input
sustainable agriculture (LISA) as means for
reducing the general use of pesticides. This
includes encouraging the use of biologically-based
pesticides (such as microbials and biochemical*)
that are compatible with both approaches and may be
preferred alternative* to conventional chemical
pesticides (NRC, 1989).
2. Better educating farmers about how little
pesticide they really need to us*.
A strategy to encourage farmer* to use IPM and LISA
should also include a plan to encourage the
development and Federal registration of preferred
safer alternatives.
a. Encourage use of integrated peat management.
There are a broad spectrum of market incentive*
which can be used to encourage IPM. Various type*
of fee* or grant* with payment structure* to reward
specific behavior are one approach. EPA could
consider using such approaches only within
particular sensitive geographical areas. An
alternative to fee* or grant* is targeted
demonstration or pilot program*. Once data begin*
to emerge, EPA could take an active role in helping
USDA disseminate the data. EPA should re-examine
the positive role it can play in providing
oversight and input* into Land Grant College
activities. One benefit to EPA of participating
more extensively in IPM research is that EPA could
then more actively use that data in it* re-
registration process. IPM can be considered in the
alternatives analysis that EPA does as part of its
risk/benefit balancing. EPA can also consider
aggressively encouraging the use of pesticides sue.
as microorganisms and biochemical* that are
compatible with IPM.
b. Change use patterns of pesticide*. Another
strategy option is to work more actively to
prohibit unnecessary use of pesticides. The
cosmetic use of pesticides is one example. In some
cases, this will require changes in statutes or
regulations of other agencies, such as with USDA
standards for food grading. Inter-agency
coordination and public education would be
important if cosmetic uses of pesticides were to be
discouraged. Another area of potential attention
is efficacy data. EPA could require pesticide
manufacturers or very large volume users to produce
efficacy data to justify continued use. Efficacy
data requirements could be targeted to sensitive
environmental areas or particular pesticide
ingredients where data is insufficient or safer
substitutes exist. EPA might require comparison of
product performance data to show yield and quality
changes with a variety of crop production
techniques (alternative chemicals, IPM, and
organic). Registration* could sunset unless
efficacy data were produced.
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by
providing incentives for farm use of integrated
pest management (IPM), and by prohibiting
unnecessary use*. PP, SAT, AP, MI, INFO, REGS
c. Create right-to-know program*. The second
strategy option addresses the need for more public
knowledge and involvement in pesticide usage. A
knowledgeable community can have a significant
affect on practices that affect the local
environment in undesirable ways. Experience has
also shown that peer pressure can result in people
or companies behaving in a more publicly acceptable
manner than they might if their action* were kept
private. The SARA Title III chemical reporting
program and the response* of companies and
communities is a good example of this process.
We suggest that EPA develop a right-to-know program
regarding pesticide use modeled after the SARA 313
program. If such reporting cannot be required
under SARA or FIFRA, new legislation might be
required. The program could have several
components. Major users could be required to
report annually on the pesticide quantities used
and purpose* served. The reports should be
publicly available. EPA could develop a phased
reporting program, beginning with high volume users
for specific pesticide* of concern or specific
use*. EPA could also require these major users to
develop and make publically available their plans
to reduce future use of pesticide*.
S.13.2 Create a right-to-know program regarding
pesticide use by large agricultural firms.
Encourage industrial audit* of these facilities.
PP, INFO, AP
102
-------
d. Peveioo safer home use of pesticides. A third
strategy option is for EPA to regulate directly the
practices of large pesticide users. The pesticide
program has been and uill continue to be
implemented by the states. However, there are very
few Federal attempts to set minimum requirements to
protect health and the environment that all states
must adopt. Since state boundaries are not
effective in stopping environmental pollution in
fish, groundwater, or food products, some Federal
requirements for users may be appropriate. These
more conventional command and control requirements
could aim to create incentives for reduced
pesticide use and early identification of any
environmental problems. Some specific ideas to
implement this strategy include:
1. Require large volume users of pesticides to
carry environmental impairment liability insurance
to cover third party claims and clean-up costs.
2. Require extra licensing/certification
procedures for use of pesticides in sensitive
environments, through a prescription approach, for
example.
3. Require large volume users of pesticides in
certain sensitive environments to do grounduater or
surface water monitoring or to get stormwater
discharge permits.
4. Require large volume users of pesticides to
contract for independent pesticide use audits with
a goal of minimizing pesticide use.
These approaches would require extensive
discussions with states and other agencies. It
would be useful to pilot them in an interested
state. Despite the difficulty of imposing
additional use controls, these controls are likely
to be most effective in directly reducing pesticide
usage in sensitive areas. As such, they directly
tie in with the types of strategies which will
address problems in wetlands, non-point source*,
habitat alteration, and estuaries/coastal waters.
S.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide
users, particularly in sensitive environments.
REGS, ENF. AP
A final strategy for EPA involve* home users of
pesticides. It appears that home use both indoors
and outdoors often grossly exceed* necessary
levels. Knowledge of home use patterns and
resulting risks is quite limited; an appropriate
first step for EPA might be to conduct surveys to
understand consumer practices. Once the most
dangerous practices are identified, effort might
shift to designing outreach strategies that would
effectively communicate to purchasers the risks to
the homeowner* themselves and to broader
environment--of household pesticide use. A
strategy involving product labeling, advertising
and other informational display* at the point of
purchase, and perhaps product reformulation should
be developed to elicit safer behavior by home
users.
S.13.4 Learn more about home use of pesticides,
and develop ways to encourage safer practices.
SAT, INFO
Reference*
EPA, Economic Aspects of Current Pesticide
Regulatory Programs and Outlook for the Future, Dr.
Arnold Aspelin, Chief, Economic Analysis Branch,
Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, presented in
Houston, Texas, February 3, 1983.
EPA, Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base, 1988a,
Interim Report, December, 1988.
EPA, Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage, 1899
Market Estimates, Economic Analysis Branch, Office
of Pesticides Programs, December 1989.
NRC, National Research Council, Regulating
Pesticides in Food, The Delaney Paradox, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
NRC, National Research Council, Alternative
Agriculture, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
103
-------
AA.l STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Criteria Air Pollutants
S.I.I Use marketable permits to lower costs and spur innovation
in reducing acid rain. MI, EP
S.I.2 Reduce VOC emissions through deposit-refund programs,
taxes or marketable permits. PP, MI
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.I.5 Establish more remote monitors for ozone. S&T
S.I.6 Further investigate the relative roles of VOCs and NOx in
ozone formation, S&T
Toxic Air Pollutants
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land use planning, car pooling, and mass
transit alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
5.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.2.3 Require process audits of manufacturers to find fugitive
sources of pollution, leaks in piping, and other preventable
releases. PP, ENF
S.2.4 Reduce use of solvents in consumer products. PP, INFO,
REGS
Radon
S.3.l Ensure that homeowners understand radon risks by requiring
testing before properties can change hands. INFO, MI, TH
S.3.2 Improve techniques of communicating radon risks so public
can make informed decisions. S&T, INFO
s.3.3 Require radon inspections for schools and certain other
buildings. REGS, TH
S.3.4 Establish airflow and radon protection standards for new
buildings. REGS, TH
S.3.5 Increase knowledge base for radon, including exposure
patterns, epidemiology, and mitigation techniques. S&T
104
-------
Indoor Air Pollution
S.4.1 Provide state and local governments with technical
information to help them address indoor air pollution. S&T, INFO
S.4.2 Work with other agencies to regulate products that cause
indoor air problems. PP, INFO, REGS
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new and existing
homes. REGS, EP, TH
S.4.4 Develop better instruments to diagnose sick buildings.
S&T
Ozone Depleting Substances
S.5.1 Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to virtually eliminate
use of CFCs and halons. PP, FOR
S.5.2 Help other countries develop ozone-safe technologies, PP,
FOR
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
COs 2 and Global Warming
S.6.1 Understand better the potential for global warming and its
impacts. S&T
S.6.2 Increase research on ways of preventing and adapting to
global warming. S&T
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy technologies.
PP, S&T, EP
S.6.5 Reduce CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.6.6 Pursue an international agreement on greenhouse gases.
FOR
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
Nonooint Source Pollution
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
105
-------
S.7.2 Focus EPA and State water programs more on enhancing water
quality and less on permitting point sources. REGS, NR, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
Wetlands
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.8.2 Develop new funding sources for federal acquisition and
management of wetlands. NR
S.8.3 Reform conventional wetlands regulation. REGS, ENF, TH
S.8.4 Consider direct and indirect impacts in Environmental
Impact Statements for Federal flood control and drainage
projects. INFO, NR
Estuaries and Coastal Waters »
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems; avoid focusing
only on water quality. S&T, AP, TH, NR
S.9.2 Protect estuaries from accumulation of pollutants
transported long distances through general waste reduction and
pollution prevention efforts. PP
S.9.3 Develop ecologically protective and cost-effective
technologies to manage contaminated sediments in estuaries. S&T
Habitat Alteration
S.10.1 Develop a nationwide inventory and preservation plan for
important habitats. NR
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.10.3 Dramatically increase Federal acquisition of important
ecological areas and open space. NR
S.10.4 Identify important habitats now in Federal ownership and
manage them to preserve ecological communities. NR
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
106
-------
Hazardous Waste
S.ll.l Use EPA's authorities broadly and creatively to reduce
the generation of hazardous wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
S.11.2 Help states achieve adequate treatment and disposal
capacity by ensuring that waste reduction goals are met, and
by adding new facilities if necessary. PP, INFO, REGS
S.ll.3 Support the "product stewardship" idea a manufacturer
has a responsibility to contribute to appropriate use, reuse,
recycle, and disposal of his products. PP, INFO, MI, NR
S.11.4 Simplify RCRA regulations and provide a more flexible
array of hazardous waste management standards. REGS
S.11.5 Identify contaminated waste sites posing immediate
threats and quickly bring them under control. REGS, ENF
S.11.6 Address future risks from contaminated waste sites by
developing and applying permanent cleanup techniques, S&T, REGS,
ENF
S.11.7 Encourage site cleanup by third parties through
enforcement and use of reasonable settlement procedures. REGS,
ENF
Municipal Solid Waste
S.12,1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF, NR
S.12.2 Eliminate federal standards, subsidies and procurement
specifications that discourage waste reduction and recycling.
PP, MI
S.12.3 Tax wastes and virgin materials to promote waste
reduction and recycling. MI, TAX, NR
S.12.4 Create deposit/refund systems for tires, batteries, car
hulks, used oil and packaging containers. MI
S.12.5 Encourage better state and local planning for solid waste
management capacity. INFO, REGS, TH
Pesticides
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, INFO, REGS, AP
S.13.2 Create a right-to-know program regarding pesticide use by
large agricultural firms. Encourge industrial audits of these
facilities. PP, INFO, AP
107
-------
S.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide users,
particularly in sensitive environments. REGS, ENF, AP
S.13.4 Learn more about home use of pesticides, and develop ways
to encourage safer practices. S&T, INFO
108
-------
AA 2 STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED ACCORDING TO TOOLS
POLLUTION PREVENTION - PP
S.I.2 Reduce VOC emissions through deposit-refund programs,
taxes or marketable permits. PP, MI
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land use planning, car pooling, and mass
transit alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
S.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.2.3 Require process audits of manufacturers to find fugitive
sources of pollution, leaks in piping, and other preventable
releases. PP, ENF
S.2.4 Reduce us of solvents in consumer products. PP, INFO,
REGS
S.4.2 Work with other agencies to regulate products that cause
indoor air problems. PP, INFO, REGS
S.5.1 Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to virtually eliminate
use of CFCs and halons. PP, FOR
S.5.2 Help other countries develop ozone-safe technologies, PP,
FOR
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
S.6.3 slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy technologies.
PP, S&T, EP
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
109
-------
S.9.2 Protect estuaries from accumulation of pollutants
transported long distances through general waste reduction and
pollution prevention efforts. PP
S.ll.l Use EPA's authorities broadly and creatively to reduce
the generation of hazardous wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
S.11.2 Help state achieve adequate treatment and disposal
capacity by ensuring that waste reduction goals are met, and
by adding new facilities if necessary. PP, INFO, REGS
S.11.3 Support the "product stewardship" idea a manufacturer
has a responsibility to contribute to appropriate use, reuse,
recycle, and disposal of his products. PP, INFO, MI
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF
S.12.2 Eliminate federal standards, subsidies and procurement
specifications that discourage waste reduction and recycling.
PP, MI
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, INFO, REGS
S.13.2 Create a right-to-know program regarding pesticide use by
large agricultural firms. Encourage industrial audits of these
facilities. PP, INFO, AP
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MEASURES - S&T
S.I.5 Establish more remote monitors for ozone. S&T
S.I.6 Further investigate the relative roles of VOCs and NOx in
ozone formation. S&T
S.3.2 Improve techniques of communicating radon risks so public
can make informed decisions. S&T, INFO
S.3.5 Increase knowledge base for radon, including exposure
patterns, epidemiology, and mitigation techniques. S&T
S.4.1 Provide state and local governments with technical
information to help them address indoor air pollution. S&T, INFO
S.4.4 Develop better instruments to diagnose sick buildings.
S&T
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
S.6.1 Understand better the potential for global warming and its
impacts. S&T
110
-------
S.6.2 Increase research on ways of preventing and adapting to
global warming. S&T
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy technologies.
PP, S&T, EP
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems; avoid focusing
only on water quality. S&T, AP, TH, NR
S.9.3 Develop ecologically protective and cost-effective
technologies to manage contaminated sediments in estuaries. S&T
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
S.11.6 Address future risks from contaminated waste sites by
developing and applying permanent cleanup techniques. S&T, REGS,
ENF
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, INFO, REGS
S.13.4 Learn more about home use of pesticides, and develop ways
to encourage safer practices. S&T, INFO
PROVISION OF INFORMATION - INFO
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land planning, car pooling, and mass transit
alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
S.2.4 Reduce us of solvents in consumer products. PP, INFO,
REGS
S.3.1 Ensure that homeowners understand radon risks by requiring
testing before properties can change hands. INFO, MI, TH
S.3.2 Improve techniques of communicating radon risks so public
can make informed decisions. S&T, INFO
S.4.1 Provide state and local governments with technical
information to help them address indoor air pollution. S&T, INFO
111
-------
S.4.2 Woiek with other agencies to regulate products that cause
indoor air problems. PP, INFO, REGS
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
S.8.4 Consider direct and indirect impacts in Environmental
Impact Statements for Federal flood control and drainage
projects. INFO, NR
S.ll.l Use EPA's authorities broadly and creatively to reduce
the generation of hazardous wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
S.11.2 Help state achieve adequate treatment and disposal
capacity by ensuring that waste reduction goals are met, and
by adding new facilities if necessary. PP, INFO, REGS
S.11.3 Support the "product stewardship" idea a manufacturer
has a responsibility to contribute to appropriate use, reuse,
recycle, and disposal of his products. PP, INFO, MI
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF
S.12.5 Encourage better state and local planning for solid waste
management capacity. INFO, REGS, TH
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary- uses. PP, s&T, AP, INFO, REGS
S.13.2 Create a right-to-know program regarding pesticide use by
large agricultural firms. Encourage industrial audits of these
facilities. PP, INFO, AP
S.13.4 Learn more about home use of pesticides, and develop ways
to encourage safer practices. S&T, INFO
MARKET INCENTIVES - MI
S.I.I Use marketable permits to lower costs and spur innovation
in reducing acid rain. MI, EP
112
-------
S.I.2 Reduce VOC emissions through deposit-refund programs,
taxes or aarketable permits. PP, MI
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.3.1 Ensure that homeowners understand radon risks by requiring
testing before properties can change hands. INFO, MI, TH
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.6.5 Reduce CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.10.2 Restrict' Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
S.11.3 Support the "product stewardship" idea a manufacturer
has a responsibility to contribute to appropriate use, reuse,
recycle, and disposal of his products. PP, INFO, MI
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF
S.12.2 Eliminate federal standards, subsidies and procurement
specifications that discourage waste reduction and recycling.
PP, MI
S.12.3 Tax wastes and virgin materials to promote waste
reduction and recycling. MI, TAX
113
-------
S.12.4 Create deposit/refund systems for tires, batteries, car
hulks, used oil and packaging containers. MI
CONVENTIONAL REGULATION - REGS
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.2.4 Reduce us of solvents in consumer products. PP, INFO,
REGS
S.3.3 Require radon inspections for schools and certain other
buildings. REGS, TH
S.3.4 Establish airflow and radon protection standards for new
buildings. REGS, TH
S.4.2 Work with other agencies to regulate products that cause
indoor air problems. PP, INFO, REGS
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new and existing
homes. REGS, EP, TH
S.7.2 Focus EPA and State water programs more on enhancing water
quality and less on permitting point sources. REGS, NR, AP
S.8.3 Reform conventional wetlands regulation. REGS, ENF, TH
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
s.li.i Use EPA's authorities broadly and creatively to reduce
the generation of hazardous wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
S.11.2 Help state achieve adequate treatment and disposal
capacity by ensuring that waste reduction goals are met, and
by adding new facilities if necessary. PP, INFO, REGS
S.ll.4 Simplify RCRA regulations and provide a more flexible
array of hazardous waste management standards. REGS
S.ll.5 Identify contaminated waste sites posing immediate
threats and quickly bring them under control. REGS, ENF
S.ll.6 Address future risks from contaminated waste sites by
developing and applying permanent cleanup techniques. S&T, REGS,
ENF
114
-------
S.11.7 Encourage site cleanup by third parties through
enforcement and use of reasonable settlement procedures. REGS,
ENF
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF
S.12.5 Encourage better state and local planning for solid waste
management capacity. INFO, REGS, TH
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, INFO, REGS
S.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide users,
particularly in sensitive environments. REGS, ENF, AP
ENFORCEMENT - ENF
S.2.3 Require process audits of manufacturers to find fugitive
sources of pollution, leaks in piping, and other preventable
releases. PP, ENF
S.8.3 Reform conventional wetlands regulation. REGS, ENF, TH
S.ll.l Use EPA's authorities broadly and creatively to reduce
the generation of hazardous wastes. PP, INFO, REGS, ENF
S.ll.5 Identify contaminated waste sites posing immediate
threats and quickly bring then under control. REGS, ENF
S.11.6 Address future risks from contaminated waste sites by
developing and applying permanent cleanup techniques. S&T, REGS,
ENF
S.11.7 Encourage site cleanup by third parties through
enforcement and use of reasonable settlement procedures. REGS,
ENF
S.12.1 Reduce toxic materials in consumer products and expand
markets for recovered materials. PP, INFO, MI, REGS, ENF
S.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide users,
particularly in sensitive environments. REGS, ENF, AP
115
-------
AA.3 STRATEGY OPTIONS SORTED ACCORDING TO POLICIES
ENERGY POLICY - EP
S.I.I Use marketable permits to lower costs and spur innovation
in reducing acid rain. MI, EP
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land planning, car pooling, and mass transit
alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
S.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new and existing
homes. REGS, EP, TH
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.6.4 Promote non-fossil and non-carbon energy technologies.
PP, S&T, EP
AGRICULTURAL POLICY -AP
S.7.1 Modify national agricultural policy to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, AP
s.7.2 Focus EPA and state water programs more on enhancing water
quality and less on permitting point sources. REGS, NR, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems; avoid focusing
only on water quality. S&T, AP, TH, NR
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.13.1 Encourage reduced use of pesticides by providing
incentives for farm use of integrated pest management (IPM), and
by prohibiting unnecessary uses. PP, S&T, AP, INFO, REGS
116
-------
S.13.2 Ci?eate a right-to-know program regarding pesticide use
by large agricultural firms. Encourage industrial audits of
these facilities. PP, INFO, AP
S.13.3 Regulate the practices of large pesticide users,
particularly in sensitive environments. REGS, ENF, AP
TRANSPORTATION. URBAN. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY
- TH
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CAFE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.2.1 Reduce auto emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled
through better land planning, car pooling, and mass transit
alternatives. PP, INFO, EP, TH
S.2.2 Promote the use of clean and alternative fuels in cars and
trucks. PP, REGS, EP, TH
S.3.1 Ensure that homeowners understand radon risks by requiring
testing before properties can change hands. INFO, MI, TH
S.3.3 Require radon inspections for schools and certain other
buildings. REGS, TH
S.3.4 Establish airflow and radon protection standards for new
buildings. REGS, TH
S.4.3 Establish ventilation requirements for new and existing
homes. REGS, EP, TH
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.8.3 Reform conventional wetlands regulation. REGS, ENF, TH
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems; avoid focusing
only on water quality. S6T, AP, TH, NR
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
S.12.5 Encourage better state and local planning for solid waste
management capacity. INFO, REGS, TH
117
-------
TAX POLICY - TAX
S.I.3 Alter state utility rate structures to persuade utilities
to sell conservation rather than BTUs. PP, MI, EP, TAX
S.I.4 Reduce energy use in transportation through a gasoline tax
and tighter CARE standards. PP, MI, REGS, EP, TH, TAX
S.5.3 Support recycling and reuse of CFCs and development of
safe alternatives. PP, S&T, INFO, MI, TAX
S.6.3 Slow global warming through energy conservation. PP, MI,
EP, TAX
S.6.5 Reduce C02 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY - NR
S.6.5 Reduce CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.7.2 Focus EPA and State water programs more on enhancing water
quality and less on permitting point sources. REGS, NR, AP
S.7.3 Support state and local efforts to control land uses that
generate nonpoint source pollution. PP, S&T, INFO, AP, NR
S.8.1 Remove economic incentives for development in wetlands.
MI, AP, TH, TAX, NR
S.8.2 Develop new funding sources for federal acquisition and
management of wetlands. NR
S.8.4 Consider direct and indirect impacts in Environmental
Impact Statements for Federal flood control and drainage
proj ects. INFO, NR
118
-------
S.9.1 Manage estuaries as integrated systems; avoid focusing
only on water quality. S&T, AP, TH, NR
S.10.1 Develop a nationwide inventory and preservation plan for
important habitats. NR
S.10.2 Restrict Federal activities that contribute to
development of ecologically important areas. MI, REGS, AP, TH,
TAX, NR
S.10.3 Dramatically increase Federal acquisition of important
ecological areas and open space. NR
S.10.4 Identify important habitats now in Federal ownership and
manage them to preserve ecological communities. NR
S.10.5 Support state, local, and private efforts to preserve
important habitat areas through tax breaks and technical
assistance. S&T, MI, TH, TAX, NR
FOREIGN POLICY - FOR
S.5.1 Strengthen the Montreal Protocol to virtually eliminate
use of CFCs and halons. PP, FOR
S.5.2 Help other countries develop ozone-safe technologies, PP,
FOR
S.6.5 Reduce CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere by creating
incentives to preserve and enhance the world's forests. MI, TAX,
NR, FOR
S.6.6 Pursue an international agreement on greenhouse gases.
FOR
S.6.7 Reduce use of CFCs and halons (S.5 strategies). PP, S&T,
INFO, MI, TAX, FOR
119
-------
B. PERSPECTIVES ON REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
In the course of generating and evaluating risk reduction
options, the Subcommittee developed several concepts that seem
particularly helpful in thinking systematically about risk
reduction. Within the limited time available, the Subcommittee
was not able to pursue these concepts to the extent it would have
liked. With more time and resources to devote to the issue of
evaluating risk reduction options, EPA can develop and apply them
fully. In this appendix, these ideas are loosely organized as a
series of observations.
B.l Alternative Points of Intervention to Reduce Risks
Most environmental risks or hazards result through a common
chain of events (See Figure B-l) . The chain is illustrated in this
case for a hypothetical nuclear power plant accident releasing
radioactive iodine and resulting in thyroid cancer. Similar
examples could be developed for other environmental problems, such
as those involving emissions from industrial processes, purchase
of polluting consumer products, use of pesticides, etc. The events
giving rise to the risks and the possible points for control
interventions are the same for other cases.
For most environmental problems, EPA thinks about reducing
risks first by intervening between initiating events and the
release of pollutants. Control technologies are researched and
regulations mandating their installation are implemented and
enforced. Very little effort is devoted to determining whether
interventions at other points might be more effective and/or cost-
effective. For instance, in many cases, the initial choice of a
more environmentally benign technology may prevent risk most cost-
effectively. Pollution prevention activities such as toxics use
reduction measures or process audits to reduce the likelihood of
initiating events may also be particularly worthwhile.
Alternatively, reducing exposure to pollutants already in the
ambient environment is another approach that should be considered.
In the Superfund program, for example, exposure reduction measures
(provision of alternative water supplies, site access restrictions,
etc.) typically provide quicker and more cost effective risk
reduction results than permanent, engineered site remedies. The
extent of site cleanup can then be addressed separately.
Although pollution prevention approaches are often superior,
one should not always favor one approach or intervention point over
another. The point is simply that one should investigate the full
range of ways by which risks posed by a given problem might be
reduced.
120
-------
LJ
o
IU
o
UJ
W
<
O
I
<
i
i
M
c s
£ :
N
I f
i!
J
IS
l^_
^
i
J **
1 I
f *"
» i
SNOI1N3AU31NI
10U1N03
NounioAa
OHVZVH
o
TJ
"o
u
(0
**
c
CO
"5.
i_
(0
J)
o
c
75
_o
S3
O
4-«
O
a
(0
o
+»
o
.2
"a
a
re
(A
(0
"o
T3
O
C
ro
(
N
(0
o
I-
T
cd
o
O)
121
-------
B.2 Pollution Prevention Aa 9. Key Theme in Risk Reduction
During the last few years inside and outside EPA there has
been greatly increased discussion of pollution prevention as a
preferred approach to environmental risk reduction. Pollution
prevention has emerged as a new theme largely in counterpoint to
the perceived limitations of the pollution control efforts of the
last two decades. Where pollution control focuses on attempting
to control or mitigate pollution once produced, pollution
prevention emphasizes avoiding its creation in the first place.
The pollution control approach has come under attack for many
reasons, including:
a) limited effectiveness - despite the investment of billions of
dollars in pollution control technologies, our country continues
to be faced with severe pollution problems. There is no better
example of this than urban air pollution, where despite twenty
years of effort many of our major cities remain out of compliance
with federal clean air standards. A major contributor to such
noncompliance is the automobile. Application of pollution control
technology has made automobiles less polluting than twenty years
ago. During that same time period, however, the number of vehicle
miles travelled in urban areas has increased, thus offsetting
pollution control gains achieved by this technology.
b) expense - the pollution control system is costly; dollars spent
on pollution control are not available for expenditure on producing
valuable goods.
c) cross-media transfers - application of pollution control
technologies can have the effect of shifting pollutants
inadvertently from one medium to another. Alternatively, pollution
control requirements may induce generators to move pollutants
intentionally from a heavily regulated medium to one which is less
regulated. For example, a major problem that sewage treatment
plants have faced is the handling of sewage sludge; it is often so
contaminated with pollutants removed from water that it has to be
burned, buried, or otherwise disposed of.
d) operation and maintenance shortfalls - because pollution
control equipment is costly to operate and does not normally
contribute to primary production processes, there is little
incentive other than regulatory enforcement and the operator's
conscience to keep equipment functioning properly. This situation
has contributed to widespread noncompliance with environmental laws
such as the Clean Water Act.
e) limits in knowledge about necessary levels of control -
scientific understanding of the fate and effects of various
pollutants is limited, severely in many cases. Preventing
pollution altogether is far safer than settling on an acceptable
level of pollution and running the risk of underestimating the
122
-------
subsequent adverse effects of the pollution that has been allowed.
Also, there often are long and protracted debates over appropriate
levels of control for various pollutants, leading to long delays
in action. A prime example has been the debate over the
appropriate level of control for benzene, a single chemical, which
has dragged on in the regulatory agencies and the courts for years.
As observers in government, industry, and the public interest
community have become increasingly aware of these problems,
interest in alternatives to control approaches has increased. More
attention has been placed on finding ways not to create pollutants
in the first place, therefore reducing the need to control
pollutants. Initially, such prevention concepts were most heavily
debated and refined in the area of hazardous waste, beginning with
concepts of hazardous waste/source reduction, and later were
extended to concepts of multimedia waste reduction. In the last
few years, many have suggested a turn to pollution prevention
approaches to help solve a full spectrum of environmental problems,
as we do here.
Despite much discussion of pollution prevention, however, the
concept remains somewhat vague and undefined, and our review
reveals that no consistent definition of the concept has been
offered to date. This has contributed to a lack of progress in
implementing pollution prevention approaches. For the purposes of
this report, we have adopted the following general definition of
the concept:
"Pollution Prevention" means changes in the configuration of,
use of, or demand for raw materials, products or technologies of
production so as to reduce the use of hazardous materials and/or
the creation of hazardous products, byproducts, or pollutants or
destructive results. Such changes are not considered to be
"pollution prevention" if they result in one hazardous material,
product, byproduct or pollutant or destructive result being
substituted for another so as to create substantial new risks of
concern. Pollution prevention can also include changing activities
and the location of those activities so as not to harm human health
or sensitive ecosystems; avoiding development near wetlands is an
example.
A key phrase which may not be clear in this definition is
"technologies of production." The term refers to the fundamental
technologies used by humans to accomplish productive activities
such as mining, manufacturing, farming, and transportation.
Changes in such technologies refer to alterations in the
configuration of the technologies themselves, as contrasted with
the addition of supplementary technologies. The purpose of such
changes is to reduce the use of hazardous inputs or the creation
or formation of hazardous products, byproducts or pollutants or
destructive results by those production technologies.
For example, one production technology used to accomplish the
productive activity of human transportation is the automobile.
123
-------
Replacing automobiles in an urban area suffering from air pollution
with mass transportation, bicycles, or non-polluting vehicles would
be a form of pollution prevention, as long as the alternatives did
not create substantial new risks. An alteration in the engine of
the automobile to make it burn gasoline more cleanly and produce
less carbon monoxide also would be a pollution prevention change.
In contrast, adding a catalytic converter to the engine is simply
the addition of a supplementary technology to control engine
emissions.
Similarly, changes in raw materials or in products can
constitute pollution prevention. For example, substitution of a
water-based paint product for an oil-based paint product can
eliminate hazardous solvents in the paint and associated emissions
and wastes.
Finally, reductions in the demand for some product can prevent
pollution. For example, reduced demand for electricity can lead
to reduced production of greenhouse gases by electrical generating
facilities burning fossil fuels. In contrast, a pollution control
approach targeted at greenhouse gases might be to plant more trees
to attempt to offset the carbon dioxide production of the
generating facilities.
There is a fundamental difference, then, between pollution
prevention approaches as we have defined them and pollution control
approaches. The latter involves the use of supplementary
technologies to control pollutants or destructive results once they
already have been created.
Experience with the pollution prevention approach as applied
in several settings shows that pollution prevention strategies
applied in place of or combined with pollution control can help to
overcome many of the problems associated with pollution control
noted above. With regard to effectiveness, pollution prevention
approaches, such as eliminating the use of DDT or of lead in
gasoline, have brought us some of our greatest success stories in
reduction of environmental pollution. With respect to costliness,
some firms have reported notable cost savings from the use of
pollution prevention approaches, mostly in the form of avoided
pollution control costs, but also through the increased productive
efficiency of their operations. As for the problem of crossmedia
shifting, reduced use of solvents can reduce the need for air
pollution control equipment which produces hazardous wastes which
must be disposed of. Pollution prevention can avoid problems of
operation and maintenance shortfalls because changes in production
processes for purposes of pollution prevention bring the incentives
to maximize production of product into alignment with the incentive
to produce the least amount of pollution. And finally, with
respect to the problem of limits of knowledge, a technique which
eliminates the use of a toxic chemical also eliminates the need to
debate necessary levels of control.
124
-------
It is important to note that some pollution prevention
approaches"- are more fundamental and comprehensive than others.
This is true because some technologies of production and associated
raw materials and products contribute to multiple environmental
problems. For example, the manufacturing and use of paints
containing toxic solvents can contribute to any or all of the
following problems: criteria air pollutants; toxic air pollutants;
indoor air pollution; nonpoint source pollution; pollution of
estuaries and coastal waters; hazardous waste; and municipal solid
waste. From a pollution prevention perspective, one can approach
these problems one at a time or, preferably, simultaneously. For
example, a paint manufacturer could practice waste reduction by
rescheduling production so as to reduce the number of tank
cleanings needed each day. This is desirable, but a far more
desirable pollution prevention approach, which would reduce all of
the problems noted above, would be to reformulate the paint so it
contained less or no toxic solvent.
It makes sense, then, to establish pollution prevention
programs not around specific problems, but around specific types
of technologies of production, raw materials, and products. This
type of program can then be focused simultaneously on all of the
problems associated with a particular set of production
technologies or products, and preference can be given to pollution
prevention approaches which can impact multiple problems, not just
one or two.
The need for such multifaceted prevention programs already
has been recognized in several states moving forward aggressively
on pollution prevention. For example, the States of Massachusetts,
Oregon, and Illinois last year established toxics use reduction
laws which encourage manufacturers to recognize explicitly how
hazardous substances used in their production technologies and
products affect workers, consumers, and different parts of the
environment.
Pollution prevention can be implemented through careful use
of any of a number of policy tools, if applied appropriately.
Market incentives can be used, such as the imposition of a gasoline
tax to promote the purchase of more fuel efficient cars, thereby
reducing the production of CO2 and air toxics.
Information-provision tools can be very helpful, such as
requirements for large farmers to report publicly their use of,
and their plans to reduce use of, pesticides. Conventional
regulations are applicable, such as the use of the authorities
under the Toxic Substances Control Act to restrict toxic substance
content of consumer products which must be disposed of as municipal
solid waste.
Many of the strategies we have identified for promoting
prevention focus primarily on "soft" approaches, such as
requirements for auditing and planning or further research and
development. One reason that the implementation of strong
regulatory requirements is not a more frequent recommendation is
125
-------
that pollution prevention is still a relatively new way of thinking
for many. - Thus, approaches which emphasize education, training,
and information gathering and dissemination are logical at this
time. As our knowledge base on and experience with prevention
approaches builds, more far-reaching measures may become more
appropriate.
B.3
Many of the risk reduction options we find most promising
address multiple problems. An agricultural policy that reduces
the incentives for overuse of agricultural chemicals will
contribute to solving nonpoint source, pesticide, and estuary
problems. Increased energy efficiency and conservation will reduce
risks associated with criteria air pollutants, global warming, acid
rain, air toxics, and other problems such as those associated with
coal and oil extraction, oil spills, leaking underground storage
tanks and sludge and flyash disposal; the balance of payments and
national security would also benefit. Strategies that address
multiple problems are much more desirable than they appear when
viewed from a perspective concerned with only a single problem.
Evaluating the risk reduction benefits of broad strategies
that address multiple problems may be particularly difficult. When
a strategy reduces risks by numerous, disparate and often indirect
means, it becomes difficult to measure and aggregate the benefits
from the strategy. Giving a cross-cutting strategy with benefits
for multiple problems sufficient credit becomes particularly
difficult in EPA's programmatic organizational structure, in which
each individual program office typically focuses on a narrow range
of problems.
Two of the Subcommittee's major recommendations (see Chapter
4) involve EPA encouraging pollution prevention generally and
supporting improved environmental education and training. The risk
reduction benefits of such approaches are virtually impossible to
document or measure, but they are nevertheless very significant
across all of the environmental problem areas we studied.
B.4 Additional Comparisons of Environmental Problems; EPA and
Social Spending On Them* and Public opinion About Them
In this project, EPA charged the SAB with evaluating the risk
rankings produced under the Unfinished Business project, and going
beyond these rankings to develop promising options for addressing
the risks. Another issue briefly considered in the earlier project
was how the risk rankings for the problems correlate with public
perception of them and social attention to them. We have several
thoughts about how EPA might review and update the earlier work on
this topic.
Unfinished Business observed that the relative amount of
attention EPA devoted to problems did not correlate well with the
126
-------
relative risks posed by the problems. Several problems were cited
that appeared to pose relatively high risks, yet received minimal
attention from EPA. Conversely, very high levels of funding were
directed at several of the lower risk problem areas. The disparity
was explained by the fact that EPA's funding priorities are
determined largely by Congress, reflecting public opinion about the
severity of different environmental problems.
While we would probably agree that these observations from
Unfinished Business were and are still true, we suggest that EPA
undertake the following investigations:
1. Estimate the relative amounts of EPA spending (dollars and
personnel) on the different environmental problem areas. This
could be done as follows. Each element of EPA's budget could be
assessed and then apportioned to the problem or problems it
addresses. By summing across budget elements, one could then
determine how EPA's total budget is allocated among the problems.
Some of EPA's budget is for management overhead (e.g., the Office
of Administration and Resource Management) or for multi-media
purposes (e.g., non-programmatic health effects research) and could
not be allocated to specific problem areas. The list of problem
areas for which the analysis should be performed would probably be
somewhere between 13 and 31. The 31 problems considered by
Unfinished Business include several for which identifying
appropriate budget amounts would be extremely difficult (e.g.
consumer exposure to toxic chemicals). The 13 problems considered
by the Subcommittee exclude several areas of significant EPA
spending (e.g. drinking water, point source discharges to surface
water).
2. Estimate the relative amounts of spending by the entire nation
(government, industry, consumers, etc.) on the different
environmental problem areas. The EPA's new Cost of a Clean
Environment report could provide a basis for this analysis. In
discussing the funds devoted to different environmental problems,
the Unfinished Business study considered only EPA spending and did
not also investigate total national spending. Both priorities for
social spending and priorities for EPA spending are important, and
should be analyzed. The sets of priorities need not be identical.
For some problem areas, EPA has taken on the costly role of
financing the capital costs of control or cleanup technologies
(e.g., Superfund, construction grants). These areas may receive
a large fraction of EPA's budgetary attention, but they also
receive a much smaller fraction of total national environmental
spending. For other problem areas, a relatively modest EPA
budget devoted to issuing regulations may drive much greater levels
of national spending (e.g. industrial point sources). Such problem
areas show an opposite pattern, receiving a larger share of the
national pie than the EPA pie.
3. Evaluate public perception of the relative seriousness of major
environmental problems. The authors of Unfinished Business did
this, but more recent public opinion data from the Roper
127
-------
organization is now available (see Figure B-2). The recent polling
is also based on definitions of environmental problems much closer
to those used for Unfinished Business and this project. It must
be recognized that this polling data, while it covers a wide range
of environmental problems, is still somewhat superficial. A more
complete measurement and characterization of public perception
would include not only poll results, but also more in-depth
psychological and sociological surveys.
4. Compare how environmental problems rank in terms of risk, EPA
spending, national spending, and public opinion. We expect that
a very simple graphical analysis in which problem areas are
assigned to quadrants based upon their risk and another factor
would be very revealing, even though the data on public perception
are not as robust as would be ideal. Figure B-3 shows two samples.
Problems located in the low/low or high/high quadrants present
few policy dilemmas, but the high/low combinations can pose
significant issues of leadership, values, and ethics for policy
makers in a democratic society. Should a problem posing high
residual risks, yet receiving a low EPA budget, get more attention?
Should a low risk/high budget problem get less attention? What
should be done about a problem posing high residual risks (as
evaluated by EPA staff or SAB committees) that the public perceives
as not very serious? Or vice versa? such problems present
challenges in risk communication. It is not clear if the "experts"
know things about these problems that the public does not and
public opinion about them would change if the public were better
educated. Alternatively, the public may be reacting rationally to
a qualitative aspect of the risk posed by the problem that the
"experts" have failed to take into account in their analysis.
B.5 Geographic Diversity and the Need for Local Flexibility in
Risk Reduction Strategies
The Subcommittee generally concerned itself with federal
government measures for dealing with national environmental
problems. This is partially a function of our charter to advise
the Administrator of EPA rather than officials at other levels of
government, and partially due to time limitations that led us to
concentrate on developing a few broad recommendations rather than
many specific ones. This broad, nationwide focus of our
recommendations seems to us to obscure an increasingly important
point about environmental protection in the U.S. that
environmental problems vary widely on a geographic basis and
federal environmental policies should respect the resulting
geographic diversity of needs and possibilities for different,
cost-effective solutions. It is important that Federal policies
to reduce risk recognize this regional diversity.
For several decades federal pollution control programs have
concentrated on setting and enforcing uniform national standards.
This approach has been motivated by two premises: that each citizen
128
-------
Figure B.2
Public Ranking
of Environmental
Problems
Source: Roper Reports,
The Roper Organization
New York, 1990, Volume 90-2
VERY SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Actively used Hazardous waste sites
ADandoned nazaraous waste s.ies
Water pollution from industrial waste
Worker exposure to toxic cnermcais
Accidental oil son's
Destruction o* tne ozone layer
Radiation trom nuciear
Dower plant acc'dent
inoXstna' accidents
eieasing po'iutants
Radiation from radioactive wastes
Outdoor air pollution from
'actones etc
Unaerground storage tanks .easing
gasoune etc
Contamination o< ocea^s-coasta
waters from soyces oes'des o sp
-------
Figure B.3
Comparing Risks to Other Factors
Risk vs. EPA Budget
Risk High
Low
Low
High
EPA
Budget
Risk vs. Perceived Seriousness
Risk High
Low
Low
High
Public
Concern
130
-------
is entitled to the same minimum level of environmental protection,
and that industry in one locale should not gain a competitive
advantage over industry elsewhere by being subject to less
stringent pollution control requirements. The resulting nationwide
programs have achieved great progress; the obvious, pervasive
problems of the past have been greatly reduced.
Many of the problems remaining now are neither conspicuous
nor ubiquitous. Instead, they are site-specific, varying from area
to area and requiring tailored controls at the regional, state, or
local level for cost-effective mitigation. Uniform nationwide
requirements on sources of pollution can be an inefficient response
to such problems they will provide under-control in some areas
and over-control in others. Unique local conditions in terms of
source mixes, exposure patterns, meteorology, hydrogeology,
personal preferences, and numerous other factors often demand
unique local solutions. We are not suggesting abandoning existing
nationwide ambient standards; it is important to maintain the
minimum level of protection they provide. We are suggesting local
flexibility in how these standards are attained.
Today, pollution problems often also require control measures
that are outside the federal realm of authority. Effective
response to nonpoint source water pollution problems may depend on
land use controls. Carbon monoxide and ozone air pollution
problems often require vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
Indoor air pollution may be addressed most effectively through
building codes and testing and mitigation required at the time of
property transfers. To the extent that pollution problems shift
more toward being caused by individuals and their lifestyles rather
than by polluting industries, controls over land use,
transportation, zoning, building codes, and water rights become
important. Authority over such areas typically lies with state and
local governments. One might argue further that newer pollution
control requirements will intrude more into formerly private
decisions, such as how we use our property, what we eat and drink,
and what we do in our homes; therefore, decisions about these
requirements should be made at less distant levels of government-
-in states and localities.
These points argue for a growing importance for states,
localities, and individuals in environmental protection. Their
role should include implementing programs that are designed and
established at the federal level and, more fundamentally,
determining what the structure of those programs should be; they
can also play an important role as experimenters in policymaking.
Some environmental decisions, where cross-regional or even cross-
national impacts are at issue (e.g. long-range transport of air
pollutants or global climate change) and where products are sold
in nationwide markets, should be made at the national or
international level. Research is another area in which Federal
involvement is most efficient. But state and local governments
and individuals will, in the future, frequently be making basic
decisions about which environmental problems deserve governmental
131
-------
attention and what the nature of that attention should be. Federal
environmental policies should provide flexibility for state and
local governments and individuals to seek cost- effective
solutions, while still ensuring a basic level of protection.
B.6 The Role of Uncertainty in Implementing Risk Reduction
Strategies
Uncertainty analysis plays an important role in assessing
health and ecological effects and in attempting to rank
environmental problems. One may rank a problem as high priority
for further consideration and possible risk reduction work either
because it is thought with a great deal of certainty to cause high
risks or because it might cause high risks but there is a great
deal of uncertainty about this.
In this latter case, when the uncertainty about potential
effects is large, it may be appropriate to conduct further research
to narrow the uncertainty, or it may be appropriate to implement
risk reduction strategies immediately. If the most likely health
and ecological damages during the time needed to do research are
not high and the cost of research is low compared to the cost of
risk reduction measures, research is the most appropriate step.
However, if the cost of the risk reduction strategies is low
compared to the costs of research and the expected damages that
would occur during this period of research, it may be very
appropriate to implement them immediately, rather than spend time
and money obtaining better data.
In addition, it may be appropriate to consider certain low
cost risk reduction strategies concurrently with additional
research. Information-based strategies and certain market
incentive strategies are likely to be good candidates to achieve
low cost risk reduction. Two examples of where risk reduction is
appropriate even with high uncertainty are information
dissemination to individuals about how to mitigate indoor air
pollution and information collection/dissemination on industrial
solid waste disposal amounts/locations.
B.7 Programmatic Disconnects. Particularly in the Industrial
Sector
The work of the Subcommittee has shown that many times a
single strategy can be an excellent option for addressing multiple
problem areas. One example of this is mandatory waste minimization
audits as a strategy for reducing chemical releases to all media
from the industrial sector.
In contrast, the current Agency approach to selecting
strategies on a program-by-program basis may optimize risk
reduction for each EPA program, but not for an industrial sector
as a whole. In fact, the current approach may lead to shifts in
pollution between media, overlapping regulations which address the
same problem in different ways, overlapping reporting and
132
-------
recordkeeping requirements, and inefficient pollution control
expenditures for the affected sector and for EPA's enforcement
program.
For example, a growing problem for the industrial sector is
the overlap/disconnect between the water office regulations and
the waste office regulations. Through recent and upcoming changes
in the NPDES regulations, sludge regulations, and the land disposal
regulations, the Agency is giving conflicting direction to
hazardous waste treatment (and all industrial sector companies who
perform it) without formal consideration of the impacts that these
uncoordinated actions have on the affected industrial sector or the
waste management infrastructure. On the one hand, the land
disposal restrictions rule is driving wastes into the NPDES/POTW
system. On the other hand, the proposed sewage sludge and NPDES
regulations are driving wastes toward the RCRA regulatory system.
Failure to integrate these rules will result in additional
unproductive media-shifting of pollutants and severe strain on the
orderly development of safe treatment capacity. Moreover, to the
degree pollution prevention is the highest priority goal, this type
of regulatory approach is a very inefficient way to get there.
B.8 Regulatory complexity May Be Counter-productive
EPA's regulations are getting more and more complex. The best
examples are probably the hazardous waste regulations under RCRA.
Such complexity results from Agency attempts to carefully specify
every aspect of the rule's coverage and implementation. While the
goal is laudable, the results tend to be problematic. Neither the
regulated universe nor the state and regional EPA staff can fully
understand the .regulations in the period directly after rule
promulgation. Significant non-compliance occurs by companies who
are trying to comply but can't understand or misunderstand the
rules due to their complexity. Also, regulatory agency training
and enforcement resources must increase significantly as a result
of the complexity.
The goal of any regulatory program should be environmental
compliance. Given that, EPA should consider a trade-off between
a perfect rule (one that solves 100% of the environmental problem)
which results in lots of inadvertent non-compliance due to
complexity, and a rule which only solves perhaps 80% of the
underlying problem, but which is crafted so as to result in very
high compliance rates.
133
-------
C. categories and Evaluation of strategy options
C.I Description of the Strategy Categories
I. Scientific and Technical:
R & D and monitoring to understand the problem Includes
systemic studies undertaken to establish facts, insights, and
principles and to make technological advances; applications range
from improved assessment of a problem to innovative solutions.
It includes work in the natural sciences, engineering and social
sciences. The applicability of research and development to reduce
a particular risk depends upon the extent of knowledge about the
risk, e.g., research and development is of lesser utility for
risks for which the cause and effects are well known and the
solution lacks only funds to implement. More details can be found
in the 1988 Future Risk report of the Science Advisory Board.
Innovation Includes the process of transforming scientific
discoveries to uses beneficial to society. Technological
innovation for environmental purposes encompasses both less
polluting production processes and better end-of-the-pipe
treatment technologies. Social/institutional innovation can
include incentives for risk reduction behavior. Strategies
potentially useful in enhancing innovation are: 1) EPA's
innovation program authorized by each media law, 2) flexible
permitting systems, 3) handling liability concerns, 4) federal
assistance, and 5) regulatory changes that eliminate
disincentives. The extent to which innovation applies to a given
environmental risk depends upon 1) whether the source of the risk
is a direct emission versus a reservoir of material or a product
application, and 2) whether science is available upon which to
base the required solution. Detail can be found in issue papers
prepared by the Technological Innovation and Economics Committee
of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology
Transfer.
II. Information:
Consumer information Includes information provided directly to
individuals who are most likely to be affected by pollution.
Includes information that helps consumers reduce their risk (e.g.,
information about radon), helps them reduce damage to society
(information on disposal of toxic agents) or informs them about
potential community threats (Title III of SARA). Information can
affect business decisions, as well as decisions by individual
consumers.
134
-------
Technical assistance and technology transfer Includes measures
to inforw-more people about effective mitigation techniques for
the problem and help them implement the techniques. The technical
assistance may be directed at groups causing the problem (e.g.,
to industry on pollution prevention; to farmers on best management
practices for controlling agricultural runoff) or at groups
working to ameliorate the problem (e.g., training for publicly
owned treatment works operators or technical assistance to state
environmental programs).
Auditing Includes visits by expert personnel to a site where
pollution is generated (e.g. an industrial plant, government or
commercial facility, institution or farm or resource extraction
operation) to observe operations at the site and suggest ways of
preventing or controlling the pollution. EPA may encourage more
auditing in various ways. For some problems we suggest that EPA
might require audits at certain plants by regulation in these
cases we list auditing in the "Regulations, other" section.
III. Market Incentives:
Marketable permits Includes systems where the total amount of
a polluting activity is established by regulation and then the
right to conduct the activity is allotted among firms in the form
of permits. Firms that reduce pollution below their allotted
amount of permits may sell or trade surplus permits to other
firms. Those sources that have the lowest cost of abating
pollution have an incentive to control more and to sell excess
permits, whereas those firms with high pollution control costs
have an incentive to buy permits, rather than to control
pollution. In theory, the result is that the desired level of
pollution reduction is achieved at lowest total cost. Congress
currently is considering using marketable permits to control acid
rain.
Deposit/refund systems Includes schemes in which a surcharge
is levied on an item (e.g., beverage containers) when it is
purchased and before it is used, with the surcharge being refunded
if the item is returned after use. The deposit provides an
economic incentive to return the item (often for reuse or
recycling) rather than to dispose of it. The approach has been
used to encourage recycling of beverage containers and could also
be used for products such as tires and batteries.
Fees and taxes Includes systems in which fees or taxes are
assessed on emissions or on materials or products that cause
pollution. This increases the cost of pollution and creates an
incentive for polluters to reduce the amount of pollution.
Polluters generally would be free to decide how much they want to
continue to pollute. In theory, they will reduce pollution up to
the point where the marginal cost of control equals the fee or
tax. The amount of pollution control that is likely to result
from a given fee usually can only be roughly estimated in advance
135
-------
of imposing the fee. An example might be a tax on emissions of
sulfur compounds by power plants. Fees or taxes may also be used
in conjunction with other regulatory controls. Fee receipts often
can be allocated directly to cleaning up remaining pollution,
whereas tax receipts usually get added to general revenues and
bear no further relationship to the environmental problem they
are intended to solve. Environmental fees and taxes are rarely
used in the U.S.
Subsidies & tax credits Includes measures that reduce the cost
of controlling pollution, rather than raising costs as do fees and
taxes. Subsidies and tax credits could be keyed to levels of
emissions or pollution, but they have typically been used to
defray part of the expense of pollution control systems. Examples
are federal matching grants for construction of municipal sewage
treatment plants and pollution control bonds. This category also
includes strategies to eliminate government subsidies that
inadvertently create incentives that have adverse environmental
consequences. For example, "below cost" timber sales could lead
to increased timber cutting and to substantial losses in habitat
and damage to watersheds.
Other Includes other measures that rely on market incentives
or that remove barriers to market activity that could have
environmentally beneficial effects. Examples include: using
federal procurement to commercialize an emerging, environmentally
beneficial technology; changing the standards under which
polluters are legally liable for damages they cause; and removing
constraints on trading scarce western water rights.
IV. Conventional Regulations:
End-of-pipe controls Includes regulatory measures that
prescribe allowable levels of pollution or emissions, or that
require the use of specific or equivalent control technology.
Use restrictions Includes restrictions on the ways in which
potentially harmful materials may be used. Examples include: bans
on the use of chlorofluorocarbons as aerosol propellants and
restrictions on crops to which specific pesticides may be applied.
Product specifications Includes standards specifying content
or performance of products. Examples include: limits on sulfur
content of diesel fuel; and tolerance levels for pesticide
residues on foods.
Monitoring and public disclosure Includes measures that require
polluters to monitor their emissions so as to enable federal or
state agencies to enforce regulatory requirements. Public
disclosure of such information may enhance governmental
enforcement through activities of public interest groups and
citizen suits.
136
-------
Other Includes other regulatory measures not included in the
previous categories. Examples include: requirements that states
implement specified environmental control programs; requirements
that environmental testing laboratories be certified; and audits
of environmental control activities.
V. Enforcement
Includes measures to enhance existing enforcement and to obtain
greater compliance with existing regulatory requirements. In
addition to traditional enforcement by the government it includes
innovative measures such as citizen suits.
VI. Cooperation
With other agencies Includes efforts by EPA to cooperate with
other federal, state, or local agencies in using the Agencies'
different statutory authorities, expertise, delivery mechanisms,
etc. in a concerted approach to environmental problems. There
are many such opportunities in the areas of energy policy,
agricultural policy, etc.
With other countries Includes efforts to cooperate with other
countries to mitigate an environmental problem. In several cases,
such as stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming, such
cooperation is essential.
VII. Indirect Measures
There is another category of measure on which the Subcommittee
did not focus very intensively because they are not direct
government actions, but which are generally acknowledged to play
a very important part in the reduction of environmental risk.
These are broad social trends which EPA has some ability to affect.
It may be possible to compare the amount of risk reduction
resulting from an indirect measure with that resulting from one of
the more direct strategies.
Public relations The increasing concern of corporations with
their public image and the damage done to this image by being
branded as a polluter.
Liability and insurance The increasing degree to which
polluters are legally liable for the damages they cause; the
decreasing degree to which the risks entailed by this liability
can be transferred to insurers; and the increasing cost of
premiums for such insurance.
Disposal costs The increasing cost of disposal of solid and
hazardous wastes and the strong resulting pressure to reduce their
generation.
137
-------
Capital turnover The extent to which an environmental problem
will be mitigated as a result of the natural turnover of the
nation's capital stock. New capital equipment tends to use less
energy and is often less polluting.
VIII. Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention could be stimulated by any of the
foregoing options. For example, market incentives could be adopted
to discourage use of harmful products or to conserve energy.
Regulations could ban use of certain products. Information could
assist consumers to buy environmentally benign products. While not
a measure per se. we have listed it here to show its relationship
to the broad range of measures.
138
-------
C.2 Description of Rating Criteria for Strategy Options
Cost to EPA The annual cost to EPA of implementing the
strategy.
Cost to society The annual cost to the public and private
sectors of the U.S. (excluding EPA) of implementing and complying
with the strategy. Transfer payments should not be counted as
costs.
Dependability The degree of assurance that the strategy will
obtain the desired risk reduction.
Speed The rapidity with which risk reduction is likely to occur
following initiation of the strategy.
Implementability/enforceability The ease with which the
strategy can be implemented, and the ease with which compliance
with requirements under the strategy can be enforced against those
who are objects of the requirements.
Intermedia transfers and other environmental benefits Indicates
whether the strategy reduces (or increases) pollution in other
media or ameliorates (or exacerbates) other environmental
problems.
Risk reduction The fraction of the risk posed by the
environmental problem that will be reduced by the strategy.
Cost-effectiveness Provides an assessment of the cost of the
strategy relative to the absolute amount of expected environmental
improvements. Cost-effective strategies have a low cost per unit
of risk reduced or pollutant or activity affected. Cost-effective
strategies may be difficult to develop for environmental problem
areas with low absolute risks areas that either inherently
involve only low risks, or areas where residual risks are low
because of substantial progress already in risk reduction.
Short-^erm and long-term scores Provides overall assessments
of the desirability of the strategy as a risk reduction measure
in the short term (up to 10 years) and the long term (beyond 10
years).
139
-------
C.3 Evaluation Matrix
3^
LU
CQ
JMENTAL PRC
4.
0
DC
Z
LU
:
,o
UJ
I .
O'tc
01 X
en
UJ.
O,
M01
« UJ
c cr:
I
< UJ
i°
u z;
t; <
i oc,
H
IMPLENT/
ENFORCE
0
UJ
0.
6 >
7. >-
u .j
&. M
0<
H
UJ
flIO
0.
UJ
0
II
w
u
u.
<3
UJ
0.
a>
TYPE OF
TECHNIQUE
GENERAL
APPROACH
R ft D ft MONITORING
(to understand problem)
INNOVATION IN
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENTIFIC *
TECHNICAL
CONSUMER INFORMATION
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/
TRANSFER
AUOITINO
INFORMA TION
±
MARKETABLE PERMITS
DEPOSIT/REFUNDS
FEES ft TAXES
SUBSIDIES ft TAX CREDITS
OTHER
J
5
CO
2 I
O I-
rf < UJ
K « o
WITH OTHER AGENCIES
WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
COOPERA TION
s
PUBLIC RELATIONS
LIABILITY ft INSURANCE
DISPOSAL COSTS
CAPITAL TURNOVER
INDIRECT
MEASURES
5
140
------- |