OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CDW\tiff\20013KML.tif): Unspecified error

-------
Environmental Goals
for America With
Milestones for 2005
A Proposal from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
December 20, 1996
Draft for Government Review

-------
                         Contents
   Introduction	   1

   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies	   9

              1. Clean Air	   11

              2. Clean Waters	  23

              3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems	  41

              4. Safe Drinking Water	  55

              5. Safe Food	  67

       ff\   6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces	  77

              7. Toxic-Free Communities	  95

              8. Preventing Accidental Releases	 107

              9. Safe Waste Management	 115

             10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites	 125

             11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks	 141

             12. Empowering People with Information and Education
                and Expanding Their Right to Know	 165

   Appendices
     A. Goals, Milestones, and Data Sources
     B. Goals of Major Laws Administered by EPA
     C. Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development
     D. Some Federal Agency Comments from a Preliminary Review
     E. Acronyms and Abbreviations

   Contributors
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                      Introduction
       Twenty-six years ago, America embarked on a bold and unprecedented
       effort to become a more responsible steward of the air, water, and land.
       Although environmental protection had been under way in fragmented
fashion for many years, in the early 1970s Americans committed themselves and
their government to reclaiming and protecting the environment as never before,
in growing realization that sustained economic growth and quality of life are
dependent on a healthy environment.
   Americans remain committed to a vision of a nation where healthy, economi-
cally secure people sustain—and are sustained by—a healthy environment. And
Americans are a "can-do" people.
   The United States has  made tremendous progress over the past quarter
century. People now fish and swim in once-polluted waters. The skies are cleaner.
U.S. environmental expertise and technology are in demand throughout the
world.
   But the job is not done. One-half of the American people live in an area
where, in 1995, the air was too polluted to meet health standards.1 Thirty-five to
forty percent of America's surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries are too polluted to
fully support uses such as fishing or swimming.2 One in four Americans lives
within  4 miles of a Superfund site.3
   To meet the challenges of the future, Americans are calling for a new genera-
tion of environmental protection—one that is based on common sense and
partnership. They are challenging their leaders to adopt tough but reasonable
goals for the environment and to offer people and institutions the flexibility to
find cost-effective ways to achieve those goals.
   Environmental Goals for America is part of the Clinton Administration's
effort to build that new generation of environmental protection through regula-
tory reinvention. By stimulating a discussion of the real environmental results
that our nation should achieve, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
hopes to clear the way for solutions that are cleaner for the environment, cheaper
for taxpayers and industry, and smarter for the future of this country.
   Clear, measurable environmental goals should help  the nation answer such
important questions as:
   •  What tangible results should our national environmental programs aim to
     deliver?
   •  What investments should be made by federal, state, tribal, and local
     governments, industry, and others to achieve our environmental goals?
   •  How can we encourage regulatory reinvention, flexibility, and  innovation
     in working toward our goals?
   •  What environmental progress are we really making?
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
    Introduction
        Using the Goals

   EPA intends that these goals should
stimulate improvements in three areas:
1.   Communication. National environ-
    mental goals should help to change the
    public discussion on environmental
    protection to focus more  on intended
    results.  This  should enable more
    enlightened debate on the means of
    achieving these results, which is where
    most of the discussion has occurred in
    the past.  Public discussion of outcomes
    is a way to reach greater consensus on
    environmental policy.
2.   Planning and Budget. National goals
    should stimulate joint planning by public
    and private environmental partners.
    They form the basis for EPA's strategic
    planning  goals, objectives,  and
    performance measures that are required
    by the 1993 Government Performance
    and Results Act. National environmental
    goals will be used to guide joint EPA/
    state/tribal and local planning under the
    new National Environmental Perform-
    ance Partnership System. With national
    agreement on intended  results, the
    public and  private sectors will be freer
    to seek more innovative, flexible, cost-
    effective ways to achieve them. For
    example,  the  goals  provide an
    environmental results context for such
    high-priority EPA reinvention programs
    as the Common Sense Initiative and
    Project XL (excellence and Leadership).
3.   Accountability and Evaluation.
    National environmental goals will
    provide a basis for the United States to
    measure its environmental progress and
    to gauge how effective its policies and
    programs  have been. Well-crafted
    milestones also should stimulate better
    environmental quality reporting and
    more efficient use of resources devoted
    to environmental monitoring.
Environmental Goals for America

   Environmental Goals for America proposes long-range
goals and measures of progress—or "milestones for
2005"—that will improve our personal health, our national
economy, and our quality of life. They are ambitious but
realistic targets for the air we breathe, the water we drink,
the food we eat, and the land where we live and work.
EPA believes they are achievable with a level of environ-
mental protection that is consistent with current laws and
policies. A summary list of the goals and milestones is
provided in Appendix A.
   In a few cases, U.S. laws and international agreements
articulate clear environmental goals and specify target
dates. These are incorporated into this report. Often,
however, the laws and agreements do  not specify  measur-
able results to be achieved, focusing instead on the means
of control  (see Appendix B). These proposed goals and
milestones seek to fill that gap.
   Although EPA is proposing them, the goals and
milestones are for the nation as a whole,  not just for EPA.
They fulfill a commitment in EPA's 1994 5-year strategy,
The New Generation of Environmental Protection, to
develop national goals. They will also help satisfy a
requirement of the Government Performance and  Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA) for federal agencies to prepare goal-
driven strategic plans.
   The goals and milestones are not new requirements.
Rather, they are proposed targets that EPA believes the
nation can and should achieve by one means or another—
regulatory and voluntary, public and private. The  mile-
stones reflect EPA's best judgment about measurable
progress the nation can reasonably make over the next
decade.
   For each of 12 goals, the report:
•  Summarizes what already has been done to improve
   public health and the environment and what remains to
   be done (The Challenge).
•  Describes the parties with current and future responsi-
   bility for meeting this challenge (Responsibilities).
•  Proposes environmental progress indicators with target
   levels for 2005 and data that will be used to track
   results (Environmental Milestones for 2005).
•  Describes EPA's current approach for working toward
   the  goal (Strategy).
   Various issues raised by federal agencies during a
preliminary review of the report are listed in Appendix D.
                                                       GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
   The goals cover nearly all the major environmental issues with which (by
law) EPA is concerned. In particular, they cover the major risks to human health
and ecosystems described in EPA's Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strate-
gies for Environmental Protection (1990) and Unfinished
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental               The goals and milestones are
n   ii    ,i«o-,x                                                   intended to stimulate public
Problems (1987).                                                discussion of what Americans
   Many important public health and environmental issues lie          are seeking to accomplish in
outside EPA's major areas of responsibility and are not              environmental protection. They
directly covered in this report. These include responsibilities      are not new requirements. Rather,
such as management of public lands, farmlands, fisheries,           „£*? a.re Proposed targets that
.,         ,&        .r        •    A i          i              EPA believes the nation can and
forests, and energy and transportation. Also, some milestones      shou|d acnieve by one means or
in this report cover only EPA's limited role in issues for                    another—regulatory and
which other agencies have lead responsibilities, such as food           voluntary, public and private.
safety and occupational safety and health. Other federal
agencies  will establish national goals in these areas, as required by the Govern-
ment Performance and Results Act. EPA will work with other agencies, just as
they are working with  EPA to develop these goals, so that federal goals and plans
support one another  as fully as possible.
   Because the goals and most of the milestones described here are cast in
environmental terms, they do not directly measure the results of all the essential
work carried out at EPA. For example, they do not include separate measures of
progress for environmental research, information resources management, or
enforcement and compliance efforts. As broad national goals, they also do not
directly address important efforts affecting many  special places, populations, and
industries. But all these activities are essential, and they contribute significantly
to the achievement of national environmental goals.
   How the goals are achieved is as important to many people as the goals
themselves. In March 1995, President Clinton announced a new approach for
environmental protection. His report, Reinventing Environmental Regulation,
describes 25 measures that EPA is taking to institute performance and market-
based regulations; set science-based priorities; build state and local partnerships;
cut red tape; improve accountability, compliance, and enforcement; and harness
the power of information to make better decisions. EPA also is  experimenting
with new strategies that offer industries, communities, and government agencies
more flexibility to innovate—to find cheaper, cleaner, smarter ways to protect the
environment—while also requiring accountability for environmental results.
   One example is Project XL,  in which a limited number of companies and
government agencies are being given the opportunity to demonstrate excellence
and Leadership in environmental protection. EPA is offering them flexibility to
develop alternative strategies that replace current regulatory requirements, while
producing even greater environmental benefits. The XL approach complements
the Common Sense Initiative, in which EPA is negotiating comprehensive
environmental strategies with six industries (automobile manufacturing, comput-
ers and electronics, iron and steel, metal plating and finishing, oil refining, and
printing).
   Environmental goals are at the heart of this new approach. As the President
noted in Reinventing Environmental Regulation, "environmental protection must
be driven by clear and  measurable national goals.... Performance will be mea-


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
      Introduction
As new research and monitoring
information becomes available,
the measures of progress and
target levels might change.
       Vision Statement of the
       President's Council on
      Sustainable Development
     Our vision is of a life-sustaining Earth.
  We are committed to the achievement of
  a dignified, peaceful, and equitable
  existence. A sustainable  United States
  will have  a  growing economy that
  provides equitable opportunities  for
  satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy,
  high quality of life for current and future
  generations. Our nation will protect its
  environment, its  natural resource base,
  and the functions and viability of natural
  systems on which all life depends.
             — The President's Council on
                 Sustainable Development
sured by achieving real results in the real world, not simply by adhering to
procedures."
   EPA is beginning to draft an Agency strategic plan to help achieve the na-
tional environmental goals. The plan will include targets for national environ-
mental improvement consistent with this report.

How the Goals Were  Developed
   These proposals were developed over several years by an Agency-wide task
force through a process of data collection and analysis, consultation, and profes-
sional judgment. In reaching judgments, EPA staff examined trends affecting
health and ecological risks, the effectiveness of current and foreseeable environ-
mental technologies and programs, and available information on costs and
               benefits (see below). Scientific analysis underlies virtually all
               the decisions leading to the environmental targets—from setting
               health standards to assessing the likelihood of meeting them.
               EPA is inviting further scientific review  of these proposals. The
               availability of information has been an important consideration
in choosing the milestones. As new research  and monitoring information be-
comes available, the measures of progress and target levels might change.
   EPA also consulted with people in federal, state, tribal, and local governments
and with industry and citizen organizations. Agency staff had one-on-one discus-
sions with these groups and participated in a series of nine regional roundtable
meetings on goals conducted in 1994. In 1995 EPA circulated a draft summary of
the goals and milestones and received many useful comments.
   In the course of this effort, EPA examined health and environmental goals
already set by federal agencies, states, and other countries. As a member of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), the EPA Administrator
took part in developing the national goals for sustainable development (Sustain-
able America—A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy
Environment for the Future). The PCSD's goals for sustainable development and
these proposed goals for the environment complement each other (see Appendix C).
                     EPA also worked closely with the U.S. Department of
                  Health and Human Services, which is responsible for the
                  national public health goals established in Healthy People
                  2000. In this process, both agencies made changes to their
                  progress targets, although some differences remain.
                     In drafting these proposals, EPA assumed that existing and
                  currently planned environmental programs would continue.
                  Achieving some of the milestones might cost more than is
                  being spent in those areas now, but efficiencies will likely be
                  realized in other areas. Deep cuts in the federal budget would
                  probably delay the attainment of many milestones.
                     This report does not attempt to rank the goals or mile-
                  stones in order of importance. EPA hopes that public discus-
                  sion of national goals will include a discussion of priorities
                  for environmental risk reduction. Policymakers might choose
                  to set more ambitious targets for certain higher-priority
                  problems and reduce the targets for lower-priority  ones.
                                                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
Considering Costs and Benefits
   An informed discussion on setting goals should be based on the best available
science and economic policy analysis. Indeed, all public policy decisions require
consideration of several types of information and are made on the basis of
multiple criteria. Economic efficiency, equity, and institutional and legal feasibil-
ity represent some of the criteria that may be incorporated
into policy discussions. Benefit-cost analysis is designed to               With national agreement on
inform decision makers about the efficiency effects of               . '"tended results, the public and
 ,     .      .     „„       ,   _ ,       ,  ,    ,.._    .         private sectors will be freer to seek
alternative actions. When conducted properly, benefit-cost         K   more innovatjve> flexible, cost-
analysis can also help organize information and clarify the             effective ways to achieve them.
potential effects of different decisions.  The discussion of
goals and milestones in this report has been informed not only by economic
information but also by these other types of information.
   When designing and evaluating specific Agency regulatory options, EPA
devotes considerable attention to the study of economic costs and benefits.  The
current attempt to describe goals and milestones for environmental improvements
at a national level, however, could not be based on a formal benefit-cost analysis
for two reasons. First, very little of the existing information on costs and benefits
of individual EPA regulations matches with the goals and milestones under
consideration. Second, many of the costs and benefits associated with these goals
are very difficult to quantify or cannot be represented in monetary terms. Rather
than wait until the economic information is developed, EPA is proposing these
goals now to signal a path toward a healthy environment and a healthy popula-
tion. EPA hopes that publication of this report will initiate a national dialogue
about needed environmental improvements. During this dialogue, as specific
actions are proposed, benefit and cost information will be developed to aid  in the
final decision about creating new initiatives or changes in existing programs.
   The goals and  milestones were not, however, conceived in an information
vacuum. Managers and analysts, throughout the process of debating and choosing
them, looked at available information on the expected economic consequences of
reaching the milestones. In most cases, the milestones are expected to be
achieved with the continuation of existing programs, or implementa-      National environmental goals
tion of recently passed legislation.                                     WJH provide the basis for the
   EPA is committed to the development of more complete cost and       United States to measure its
benefit information. For example, a major study will be completed in          environmental progress.
early  1997 providing estimates of the costs and benefits stemming
from implementation of the Clean Air Act. In the future, EPA expects to expand
the analysis of costs and benefits to all EPA programs.
   In 1990, EPA estimated total pollution control expenditures in the United
States through the year 2000. The results were published in Environmental
Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. Although that report did not
directly estimate the costs to meet the specific milestones proposed here, the
overall cost estimates provide a general indication of the magnitude of pollution
control expenditures in the United States in the late 1980s and forecasted through
the 1990s. The report estimated that expenditures by industry, government,  and
households in the late 1980s was on the order of $100 billion to $120 billion in
1990 dollars. This estimate was based on several premises, including the full
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
Introduction
                implementation of environmental regulations and programs in place at the end of
                the 1980s, as well as continuity in the regulatory agenda in place at the end of the
                1980s.
                   The analysis forecasted that total expenditures for pollution control will rise
                from 1.9 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1987 to between
                2.6 and 2.8 percent of the GDP by the year 2000. By way of comparison, total
                expenditures in 1987 for clothing and shoes were 4.2 percent of the GDP and for
                national defense, 6.9 percent. The report included projected pollution control
                expenditures for air and radiation, water, solid waste, hazardous waste, leaking
                underground storage tanks, Superfund sites, and pesticides and toxic substances.
                The projected expenditures covered only costs directly related to pollution
                controls; they did not cover expenditures for managing wildlife, fisheries, and
                public lands. Also not covered were expenditures for climate change risk reduc-
                tion that do not directly relate to other environmental protection objectives. EPA
                expects to issue newer assessments of the nation's investment in environmental
                pollution control with the next few years, including an expanded discussion of
                the benefits.

                   Estimating costs. It is  difficult to identify and quantify the full array of costs
                that result from preventing and controlling pollution. In concept, these costs  can
                be defined as the benefits foregone as a result of devoting scarce resources
                toward these objectives. For example, to estimate the cost of reducing direct
                environmental risks resulting from a ban on a particular chemical, one must
                consider the value of products that are not developed because of the ban, plus the
                costs and delays in getting regulatory agency approval for testing and production
                of substitutes. Substitution risks and generalized reductions in public welfare also
                may be significant indirect costs. Where regulatory intervention causes firms or
                individuals to comply by substituting riskier processes or products, additional
                costs arise in the form of reduced health, safety, or environmental protection. For
                example, increasing stringency in the regulation of hazardous waste disposal
                intensifies the financial advantages of illegal dumping. Finally, a proper cost
                analysis must account for  the value individuals place on foregoing these com-
                modities in order to obtain the environmental benefits achieved through regula-
                tion rather than just the out-of-pocket costs of regulatory compliance.
                   The analysis of both benefits and costs should cover the entire spectrum,  from
                those which can be assigned a dollar value to those which can be described only
                qualitatively, and from those which are direct and immediate to those which  are
                remote in distance or time.

                   Estimating benefits. Similarly, it is difficult to articulate the full array of
                economic benefits that result from preventing and controlling pollution. In
                concept, the benefits of less pollution can be defined as improvements in human
                health and the environment, including reductions in damage to plants, animals,
                materials, and other quality-of-life attributes. For example, to evaluate the
                benefits of reaching a milestone for decreased pollutant releases, one must
                document a complex sequence of analytic steps to arrive at an assessment of the
                impacts. Important prerequisites to estimating benefits include a clear scientific
                understanding of the linkage between an activity or condition and its effects  on
                human health and the environment; scientifically based estimates of incremental

                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
effects of these linkages, such as dose-response relationships, expressed in forms
compatible with economic analysis; and assessments of the value of the decrease
in pollutant releases. The assessment of risks from pollutants released to the
environment, the measurement of the consequences to persons and natural life
exposed to these pollutants, and the quantification of the values associated with
these changes are but some of the challenges facing EPA and larger society in an
attempt to quantify the benefits of taking action.
   Many regulatory programs produce benefits that affect market transactions.
These can be expressed  in monetary terms. Illustrations of such cases include
increased productivity in commercial fishing, improved crop yields, avoidance of
costly adverse health effects, avoidance of materials damage such as corrosion,
protection of valuable drinking water supplies and the associated saving of
treatment costs, prevention of flooding and erosion that would damage physical
structures, and many others. Even in cases where benefits do not affect market
transactions, techniques  are sometimes available to estimate their monetary
value. For example, improved water quality and improved air quality increase the
value of recreational experiences and the value of residential property.
   An alternative to monetary valuation is to represent the size and frequency of
benefits in physical terms. For example, control of certain air pollutants has the
primary effect of reducing adverse health effects in exposed populations. Part of
the "value" of these reductions can be captured by measuring the dollar value of
expenditures on medical treatment and lost work productivity that would be
avoided if air quality were improved. But this "cost of illness" approach does not
consider the nonmonetary effects of pain and suffering and reduced quality of
life. In this case, analysts might report the number of cases avoided by type of
illness, such as chronic bronchitis or sinus irritation. Sometimes these damages
are quantified as "reduced activity days," signifying the number of total person-
days that victims suffer due to pollution-related effects.
   Reduction in damages to ecosystems is a major component of the total
benefits of environmental protection. Yet because of the complexity of ecosystem
function and the long time periods involved in the response to environmental
insults, even nonmonetary quantification of benefits is very difficult or impos-
sible. Nutrient cycling, energy capture through photosynthesis, waste assimila-
tion, carbon sequestration, weather control, habitat provision, soil fertilization,
and many other "ecosystem services" are essential functions of all life and
economic activity. But our understanding of the function of these systems  is  so
limited that we are often forced to rely on qualitative descriptions of the effects
on them that we achieve through environmental policies.

   Concluding thoughts. An appropriate comparison of costs and benefits
requires that the environmental improvements (e.g., reductions in concentrations
of an airborne pollutant)  used in calculation of the benefits are the same improve-
ments for which cost estimates are developed. For many of the milestones in this
report, EPA does not have quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of the
incremental improvements necessary to achieve them. EPA will continue to
develop benefit and cost information for the actions necessary to achieve the new
goals and milestones, consistent with Executive Order 12866, in order to support
the best  informed decision making possible. If such analysis does not demon-


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
Introduction
                strate that actions necessary to achieve a milestone can be justified, taking into
                account both cost-benefit information and other relevant factors, it will become
                necessary to reconsider that milestone prior to the establishment of programs and
                regulations. The bringing together of disparate types and forms of information is
                among the most useful features of cost-benefit analyses. By releasing this report,
                EPA hopes to add impetus to the continuing process of information collection
                and analysis that will serve as the basis for refinement of the goals and mile-
                stones. The particular milestones will evolve as better information is developed,
                allowing a more complete assessment of the benefits and costs.
                Next Steps
                   This report is a proposal to EPA's government partners. EPA would like to
                know if it fairly describes ambitious but realistic progress targets that federal,
                state, tribal, and local government agencies would like to see. During 1997 EPA
                will revise and improve the goals and milestones, taking into consideration all
                comments that it receives, and then will distribute the report as a proposal for
                public review.
                   The report has been given a limited federal review during the past several
                months. As a result of that review, EPA corrected inaccuracies and made other
                revisions. Because EPA did not want to delay the opportunity to get further
                comments from its government partners, it has moved ahead with the present
                draft without taking the time to respond fully to all the earlier federal comments.
                Appendix D is a summary of issues raised by federal reviewers that EPA is
                currently working to resolve. Similar comments have been combined in the
                interest of brevity. EPA agrees with some of these comments and does not agree
                with others. EPA offers these comments in order to stimulate a full discussion
                with reviewers.
                References

                Text Notes
                  1.      USEPA. 1996. National Air Quality Emissions and Trends Report,
                             1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection-Agency,
                             Office of Air and Radiation. Forthcoming.
                  2.      USEPA. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to
                             Congress.  EPA-841-R-95-005.  Washington, DC: U.S. Environ-
                             mental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
                  3.      EPA analysis of 1990 census data (unpublished).
                                                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                        Environmental  Goals,
                        Milestones,  and
                        Strategies
      The following chapters describe EPA's proposed 12 national environmen-
      tal goals and related milestones. The goals cover aspects of the environ-
      ment for which EPA shares substantial responsibility with states and their
municipalities, tribes, and other federal agencies. They are long-range goals; it
will take decades, perhaps centuries, to achieve them all. Most of the milestones
are 9-year targets (for 2005) by which EPA will document progress toward the
goals.

1.   Clean Air: Every American city and community will be free of air pollut-
    ants at levels that cause significant risk of cancer or respiratory and other
    health problems. The air will be clearer in many areas, and life in damaged
    forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain, ozone, and hazardous
    air pollutants are reduced.

2.   Clean Waters: All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will
    support healthy communities of fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and uses
    such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for
    people. Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to             |t wj|| tgke decades perhaps
    provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water              centuries to achieve all
    quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and                   the long-range goals.
    other beneficial uses.                                       EPA will measure progress
,„,.._,    . . , „    .     .    .    ...  -     ,            toward the goals with the
3.   Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems: America will safeguard                  ..  .a    .  __„
                         ,,,,,,.._                     milestones for 2005.
    its ecosystems to promote the health and diversity or
    natural and human communities and to sustain America's
    environmental, social, and economic potential.

4.   Safe Drinking Water: Every American public water system will provide
    water that is consistently safe to drink.

5.   Safe Food: The foods Americans consume will continue to be safe for all
    people to eat.

6.   Safe Homes, Schools,  and Workplaces: All Americans will live, learn, and
    work in safe and healthy environments.

7.   Toxic-Free Communities: By relying on pollution prevention, reuse, and
    recycling in the way we produce and consume materials, all Americans will
    live in communities free of toxic impacts.

GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                               9

-------
                       8.   Preventing Accidental Releases: Accidental releases of substances that
                            endanger our communities and the natural environment will be reduced to
                            as near zero as possible. Those which do occur will cause only negligible
                            harm to people, animals, and plants.

                       9.   Safe Waste Management: Wastes produced by every person, business,
                            and unit of government in America will be stored, treated, and disposed of
                            in ways that prevent harm to people and other living things.

                      10.   Restoration of Contaminated Sites: Places in America currently con-
                            taminated by hazardous or radioactive materials will not endanger public
                            health or the natural environment and will be restored to uses desired by
                            surrounding communities.

                      11.   Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks: The
                            United States and other nations will eliminate significant risks to  human
                            health and ecosystems arising from climate change, stratospheric ozone
                            depletion, and other environmental problems of concern at the
                            transboundary and global level.

                      12.   Empowering People with Information and Education and  Expanding
                            Their Right to Know: Americans will be empowered to make informed
                            environmental decisions and participate in setting local and national
                            priorities.

                         Each of the goal chapters contains:
                          •  A challenge section that summarizes the importance of the goal, what
                             has been done in the past, and what remains to be done to reach the goal.
                          •  A responsibilities section that outlines the respective roles of all parties
                             in meeting the challenge.
                          •  Milestone statements and descriptions of how the targets were selected
                             and the data to be used to track progress.
                          •  A strategy section that describes EPA's approach with its partners to
                             attain the set of milestones.
                         Each milestone appears on a separate page with graphics designated M.I,
                      M.2, and so forth to show past conditions (if reliable data are available), current
                      conditions, and the 2005 target. Figures (e.g., Fig.  1, Fig. 2) that are  not directly
                      associated with the milestones sometimes appear to illustrate or clarify informa-
                      tion provided in the text. Several milestones are not yet supported by a baseline;
                      data on current conditions for these milestones are not yet available.  Their
                      appearance in this document represents a commitment by EPA to develop a
                      means to track progress toward them. Appendix A contains  a listing  of all 66
                      milestones and further information about the data sources.
10                                                      GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                       1.   Clean  Air
                              Long-Range Goal
                              Every American city and community will be free of air
                              pollutants at levels that cause significant risk of cancer
                              or respiratory and other health problems. The air will be
                              clearer in many areas, and life in damaged  forests and
                              polluted waters will rebound as acid rain, ozone, and
                              hazardous air pollutants are reduced.
The Challenge

   Despite concerted efforts to achieve cleaner, healthier air, air pollution continues to be
a widespread public health and environmental problem in the United States, contributing
to illnesses such as cancer, respiratory and reproductive problems, and mental impair-
ment. In many cases, air pollutants end up on the land or in rivers, lakes, and streams,
harming the life in them. Air pollution also makes soil and waterways more acidic,
reduces visibility, and corrodes buildings.
   EPA is responding to air pollution because the problem is national — even interna-
tional—in scope. The majority of the population lives in expanding urban  areas, where air
pollution crosses local and state lines and, in some cases, even crosses our borders with
Canada and Mexico. Federal assistance and leadership are essential for developing
cooperative state, local, regional, and international programs to prevent and control air
pollution, and for ensuring that national standards are met.
   EPA develops health-protective standards that set safe limits for concentrations of the
six most widespread pollutants, which are linked to several serious health  and environ-
mental problems:
   •  Ground-level ozone (smog). Causes and contributes to respiratory illness and
      lung damage, crop and forest damage, building and material damage, and visibil-
      ity problems.
   •  Carbon monoxide. Causes reduced oxygenation of circulated blood and heart
      damage.
   •  Sulfur dioxide. Causes increased respiratory illness, especially in asthmatics, and
      is a major contributor to atmospheric particulates, acid rain, reduced visibility, and
      vegetation damage.
   •  Nitrogen  dioxide. Causes lung tissue damage and increases respiratory illness,
      and also contributes to formation of ground-level ozone, acid rain,  atmospheric
      particulates, and visibility problems.
   •  Lead. Causes infant mortality, reduced birth weight, and childhood IQ loss, as
      well as hypertension and heart attacks in adults.
   •  Particulate matter (very fine dust and soot). Linked to premature death and can
      cause increased lung disease.
   Over the past 25 years, most of these pollutants have been reduced in U.S. cities.
Most areas of the nation now meet the standards for lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and particulate matter. A major accomplishment in protecting public health from
air pollution was the elimination of lead in gasoline and in paint, an action that protected
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
11

-------
      1. Clean Air
                        millions of American children from developing serious and permanent learning disabili-
                        ties due to lead contamination. Today, lead has been almost completely removed from our
                        air, and blood levels of lead in children have dropped dramatically.
                            However, 130 million Americans in 170 major cities still breathe unhealthy air.1 Two
                        of the six most widespread pollutants are extremely difficult to control—smog-forming
                        ozone and carbon monoxide. Both result from polluting emissions from cars and other
                        vehicles, as well as industrial plants and other, smaller sources. Reducing both of these
                        harmful air pollutants is essential to meeting the goal of protecting public health.
                            In some cases, we might need to go beyond the current air quality standards for these
                        top six air pollutants to protect public health. For example, ozone, sulfur dioxide,
                        nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter can all have residual harmful effects to health and
                        the environment even when they occur in amounts that are within the standards. Sulfur
                        dioxide and nitrogen dioxide can cause damage over the long term as they mix with
                        moisture and fall as acid rain. Existing standards might also need to be revised to address
                        health problems identified by new scientific information. For example, recent studies
                        suggest that fine particulate matter is even more harmful to health than previously
                        thought.
                            In addition to the six most widespread air pollutants, hundreds of toxic chemicals are
                        released into the air. Over 1 million tons of air toxics are released annually to the atmo-
                        sphere from industrial facilities, automobiles, and other sources. Since air toxics are
                        harder to measure than the six pollutants discussed above, and since there is typically no
                        minimum  level we can call safe, EPA's policy is to use the best available pollution control
                        strategies and technology to minimize these emissions to the extent possible.
                            The national challenge, then, is to continue efforts to reduce the remaining air
                        pollutants  that have major impacts on human health and the environment in ways that
                        make both economic and environmental sense.
                                       Responding to the Challenge: Emission Trading
                              Emission trading is a way of reducing air pollutant emissions by applying pollution
                           reduction measures at places where  reductions are  most cost-effective. EPA's Acid
                           Rain Program is a dramatic departure from traditional command and control regulatory
                           methods that establish specific emission limitations with which all affected sources
                           must comply. Instead, a trading system harnesses the incentives of the free market to
                           reduce pollution.
                              In many eastern and midwestern states, sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning
                           electric utility plants cause acid rain. These power plants are issued emission allowances
                           that are either banked  or traded  privately or publicly. Power plants select their own
                           compliance strategies to meet emission limits. Sources may install scrubber equipment,
                           switch to cleaner-burning fuel, or adopt conservation measures. Each power plant must
                           continuously measure and record its emissions of sulfur dioxide. If emissions exceed
                           the allowances held, the power plant must pay a penalty.
                              Because of the success of this  innovative program, EPA is supporting other emission
                           trading programs to provide flexible, market-based approaches to solving the smog
                           problem in America's cities. EPA has already issued  regulations and guidance to
                           encourage the development of  economic incentive programs, helped develop an
                           emission trading market in southern California, and sponsored demonstration projects
                           in the Northeast. EPA is issuing an  "open market"  trading  rule  for ozone-creating
                           pollutants (volatile organic compounds and  nitrogen oxides) that will provide far more
                           flexibility for companies and other private and  public  organizations to trade emission
                           credits without prior state or federal approval. Any state that adopts an identical rule
                           will receive automatic EPA approval.  Once in the state plan, companies  may freely
                           engage in trades without prior regulatory agency approval as long as emission tracking
                           and accountability protocols are followed.
12
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Responsibilities

   EPA's efforts to protect public health by limiting air pollution are authorized by the
Clean Air Act, which was updated in 1990 to give EPA expanded authority to control
smog, air toxics, acid rain, and other health threats. Two other federal laws—the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and the Clean Water Act—authorize EPA to reduce air pollution
caused by burning certain wastes, such as toxic chemicals and sewage sludge. Many
states set their own standards (for example, odor controls) to address local air pollution
problems that are not adequately covered by the federal statutes.
   EPA is charged with setting air standards to protect public health and welfare, and
guiding state agencies in developing plans and programs to attain them. EPA also helps
the states by developing federal regulations to control pollution from vehicles and some
industrial plants, especially in the areas of air toxics and smog. With the help of this
guidance and assistance, the states develop and carry out plans to achieve the needed
pollution reductions, largely from industrial sources and vehicles. Other federal agencies,
such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy, contribute to air
quality goals by making sure that their own activities conform to state air quality plans.
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   The 1990 amended Clean Air Act sets out a detailed schedule for attaining clean air
goals, as well as interim targets to be met on the way to reaching those goals.2 The
milestones in this chapter reflect those mandates, which were developed over a 2-year
period involving extensive congressional consultation with EPA, environmental groups,
industry groups, and the public. The milestones reflect Congress's determination,
informed by a wide array of expert opinion, about how much air quality improvement is
realistically possible within the next 10 to 15 years.
   The six Clean Air milestones set several targets, including meeting air quality
standards for the six most common pollutants; reducing vehicle emissions, which will be
the single largest contributor to meeting the ozone standard; reducing the environmental
impact of the increase in motor vehicle use; reducing toxic air pollutant emissions;
reducing acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions; and improving visibility. Many of
these milestones are interrelated; meeting some of them will  contribute to (or result from)
meeting others.
   \ir quality standards are reviewed periodically to ensure  that they are based on the
best scientific evidence. If future reviews result in changes to the standards to make them
more stringent, designated air quality problem areas might increase and the milestones
might have to be revised.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                           13

-------
      1. Clean Air
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••Hill
 MILESTONE
                                 1
By 2005,
                         the number of cities where air quality
                         does not meet national standards will
                         be reduced more than 96 percent
                         from 1995 levels, thereby making the
                         air safer to breathe for an additional
                         85 million Americans in 164 metro-
                         politan areas.
    RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
    Dept. of Health and Human Services
          Healthy People 2000
     [By 2000,] reduce human exposure
  to criteria air pollutants as measured by
  an increase to at least 85 percent in the
  proportion of people who live in counties
  that have  not exceeded any EPA
  standard for air quality in the previous 12
  months. (Baseline: 49.7 percent in 1988.)
M.1—Number of metropolitan areas
not meeting air quality standards.
             199
     200-,
      150-
     100-
 d    50-
            1990     1995     2005

Between now and 2005, air quality will be
improved in all areas that do not currently meet
federal standards. The six most polluted
metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, Southeast
Desert (south ofLA.), Chicago,  Houston,
Milwaukee, New York City) will  show progress so
that they will achieve the standards by 2010.
                In 1995, some 170 metropolitan areas in the United States had
             air that violated health standards, affecting the health of 130 million
             Americans. If EPA's proposed tighter standards for ozone and fine
             particulates are adopted to adequately protect public health, those
             numbers will rise after 1998.

             Past Trends and 2005 Target
                Since the early 1970s, the concentrations of the most wide-
             spread pollutants have been substantially reduced in most U.S.
             cities. However, carbon monoxide, fine particulates, and ozone
             continue to be serious problems in many areas. EPA's target, as
             required by law (see below), is to reduce the number of cities with
             unhealthy air to 6 by  2005, which would reduce the number of
             Americans breathing polluted air to 45 million. The air in the six
             remaining areas will also improve greatly by 2005 and should meet
             the standards by 2010.
                This milestone follows the timetables set by Congress in the
             1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for achieving health standards for
             the six criteria pollutants (ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
             carbon monoxide, paniculate matter, and lead). However, if the
             recently proposed standards for ozone and fine particulates are
             adopted to protect public health, this milestone target will be
             changed.

             Tracking Results
                Progress in attaining national air quality improvements is
             measured by reductions in the number of areas that still do not meet
             those standards, as tracked by EPA's Findings and Required
             Elements Data System (FREDS).
14
                              GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies

•••••inn By 2005, I
MILESTONE


emissions of unhealthy smog-
causing volatile organic compounds
will fall 68 percent per mile per car,
compared to 1990 levels.
^Jf Federal
&£l\ Reviewers:
Bffi
* 1 Please provide
other related
agency targets



   Smog, or ground-level ozone, causes and contributes to respiratory illness and lung
damage, crop and forest damage, building and material damage, and visibility problems.
Emissions from motor vehicles contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which help
to form smog. To reduce the health and environmental problems caused by smog, the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments set standards for controlling smog-causing emissions
from automobiles.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   From 1990 to 1995, the average car's emissions of smog-causing compounds were cut
nearly in half: from 3.2 grams per mile in 1990 to 1.7 grams per mile today. The 1990
Clean Air Act standards call for the milestone emission level of 1.0 gram per mile, which
Congress judged to be achievable at reasonable cost given expected advances in technol-
ogy.

Tracking Results
   Achievement of these standards is measured in terms of grams per mile — the
number of grams of smog-causing VOCs allowed to be released per mile traveled by the
average car. Automobile emission improvements are tracked in
terms of the average emissions of a typical vehicle,  as measured in    __^^_^_^__^^____^__^^_____
EPA tests. Data are reported to EPA's Mobile 5 Model database.      M.2—Average VOC emissions from a
                                                             typical motor vehicle.
                                                               85
                                                               I!
                                                               O)
                                                               Q
                                                               
-------
      1. Clean Air
          Federal
        Reviewers:
       Please provide
        other related
       agency targets
i ••••inn
 MILESTONE
                                3
By 2005,
                        increases in miles driven by U.S.
                        vehicles will not interfere with
                        attainment or maintenance of air or
                        water quality standards,  nor will
                        increases in driving interfere with
                        fulfillment of the U.S. commitment to
                        reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
                        This milestone is necessary to achieve Clean Air milestone 1, as well as some Clean
                      Waters and Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks milestones.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                        Although vehicle emissions will be cleaner by 2005, total emissions might increase if
                      the number of miles driven continues to grow. Measures to slow the growth in miles
                      driven—including economic incentives, public education, and incentives for smart land
                      use—will help to ensure that increased driving does not offset the emission reductions
                      from cleaner vehicles. Cleaner air and greater efficiency also can be promoted by
                      eliminating perverse incentives for solo driving, such as the federal tax subsidy for
                      employer-paid parking. The necessary target for such efforts will depend on how much
                      cleaner the vehicle fleet becomes. Because driving contributes to polluted runoff and road
                      construction can lead to wetland loss, moderating an increase in the amount of driving
                      can also help meet our water quality goals. Finally, because each gallon of standard
                      formulation gasoline burned produces the same amount of the greenhouse gas carbon
                      dioxide, an increase in driving threatens the nation's ability  to meet its greenhouse gas
                      commitment.

                      Tracking Results
                        The Federal Highway Administration collects data on vehicle miles traveled from
                      each state highway administration and reports this information to the Bureau of Transpor-
                      tation Statistics. State air quality agencies track emission rates and establish targets for
                      vehicle miles traveled in order to meet air quality standards. The Department of Energy
                      reports greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions from motor vehicles.
16
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••mm
      MILESTONE
           4
By 2005,
all 174 categories of major industrial
facilities will meet toxic air emission
standards.
   The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments set timetables for achieving technology-based
standards for controlling toxic releases to the air, which will also reduce the deposition of
airborne toxic substances into the nation's waters. "Technology-based" means require-
ments for the use of maximum achievable control technologies on all major industrial
toxic emission sources. This milestone is a surrogate measure for documenting progress
in actual emission reductions, for which sufficient data are not available.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In the 25 years since the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted, only 12 industrial catego-
ries (similar to the Department of Commerce's Standard Industrial Categories [SIC]) of
toxic emitters have been controlled. The 1990 Clean Air Act requires all major facilities
to at least match the achievements of existing facilities that have effective controls
already in place.

Tracking Results
   Progress in air toxics control is measured by the number of categories of major
emitters complying with controls. These categories are listed in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 61 and 63.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
                                                          M.4—Major industrial categories that
                                                          meet toxic air emission standards.
                                                               200-i
                                                                150-
                                                                1OO-
                                                                                          174
                                                           .£
                                                           •5
                                                                50-
                                                                    1985 1990  1995  2000  2005
                                                          All major industrial facilities will have adequate
                                                          controls on toxic air emissions in 2005.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                               17

-------
      1. Clean Air
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
      I ••••!!! II
      MILESTONE
                                 5
                      By 2005,
                               sulfur dioxide emissions, a primary
                               cause of acid rain, will be reduced by
                               nearly 10 million tons from 1980
                               levels.
                         Acid deposition occurs when sulfur dioxide (mostly from power plants and other
                      industrial sources) or nitrogen oxides (mostly from power plants and motor vehicles)
                      react with moisture and with other chemicals in the atmosphere and fall to the earth,
                      causing surface water acidification, forest damage, and premature mortality and chronic
                      bronchitis in people. Acid rain also accelerates the decay of building materials and paints.
                         The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require that nationwide sulfur dioxide emis-
                      sions be reduced by  10 million tons per year from their 1980 level.  This objective was
                      incorporated into the United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement  of 1991, which
                      contains precise commitments for both countries. In the United States the first phase of
                      this reduction occurred in 1995. The remainder will be achieved by 2010, and most of it
                      by 2005. The reductions will be achieved through a cap on total emissions and the use of
                      an innovative, market-based emission trading system that allows companies to reduce
                      emissions in the most efficient way.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         In 1980, nationwide emissions of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide were about 26
                      million tons annually. As recently as 1994, sulfur dioxide was still being released at an
                      annual rate of 21 million tons. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments called for a reduc-
                      tion of these emissions to approximately  16 million tons annually. This level of reduction
                      was judged by Congress to be sufficient to redress the worst of the known ecological
                      damage caused by acid rain; it was also judged to be achievable at a reasonable cost,
                      given the expected state of technological development.

                      Tracking Results
                         Progress in acid rain control is measured in terms of reductions  in annual tonnage of
                      emitted pollutants, as reported with data in EPA's Acid Rain Emissions Tracking System.
M.5—Sulfur dioxide emissions.
 1
 ID

 I
            1980
1994
2005
18
                                    GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I [••••Hill
      MILESTONE
           6
By 2005,
annual average visibility in the
eastern United States will improve 10
to 30 percent from 1995 levels.
  Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will have the effect of improving the clarity of
the air and thus increasing visibility. This improvement will occur primarily in the eastern
United States because it will come from reducing emissions at midwestern power plants,
which primarily affect air quality in the East.

Pasf Trends and 2005 Target
   This visibility milestone is measured in terms of average visual range. Trends have
been relatively constant over the past 10 years. As noted above, EPA expects the target to
be achieved by pollution reductions that the Clean Air Act Amendments require.

Tracking Results
   Visual range is measured through a cooperative federal effort involving the National
Park Service, EPA, and others. The data are stored in the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) database.
                                                          M.6—Visibility in central Appalachia.
                                                                      1985
                                                  1995
     2005
                                                          Improvement will be centered In the East because
                                                          it will come from reducing emissions at
                                                          midwestern power plants, which primarily affect
                                                          air quality in the eastern United States.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                               19

-------
      1. Clean Air
                 Costs
      In a  1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated that the
  annual public and private costs of
  meeting air quality standards were
  approximately $27 billion in 1990 and
  would rise to $44 billion by 2000 to fully
  meet standards expected to be in place
  by then (constant  1986 dollars).
  Achievement of the proposed milestones
  might require implementation of some
  programs not anticipated when these
  estimates were prepared, which would
  add to the costs. The costs and benefits
  associated with clean air programs are
  now being more fully assessed.  EPA
  recently proposed changes to the ozone
  and particulate  matter standards; the
  benefits  and costs of these proposed
  changes will be assessed as part of the
  development of final rules.
 Strategy

    Federal and state government agencies, industry, and individuals must work together
 to achieve these milestones toward the goal of healthy, clean air. Success is far from
 guaranteed. Much remains to be done if the health and environmental improvement
 targets stated in the Clean Air Act are to be achieved. Meeting the goal depends on a
 strong partnership between the states and EPA. The strategy calls for the states to play a
 pivotal role by providing information for and actually helping to write the standards.
    To reduce the number of metropolitan areas with unhealthy air (milestone 1), EPA
 will continue to provide guidance and technical assistance as states develop and carry out
 plans  to  attain these health-based standards. This guidance will encourage the states to
 make  use of innovative, market-based approaches wherever possible. EPA will also
	   continue to develop complementary federal programs that will help
                    achieve the needed emission reductions. States will apply the
                    federal guidance and programs to their own situations, working
                    with local industries to achieve the pollution reductions necessary to
                    meet standards. Many industries are already well along in their
                    programs to reduce pollution to meet these new requirements.
                        Among the most important federal emission-reduction programs
                    are those aimed at reducing automobile emissions. Reductions of
                    emissions from each vehicle (milestone 2) will be the largest
                    contributors to achieving milestone 1.  To reduce emissions from
                    motor vehicles, EPA is working with its state partners to establish
                    reformulated and oxygenated gasoline (cleaner-burning fuel)
                    programs in the most polluted areas; to make flexible inspection
                    and maintenance programs more effective; to develop low-emission
                    and zero-emission vehicles; and to achieve lower pollutant emis-
                    sions  from cars, buses, and trucks.
                        To achieve milestone 3, EPA promotes and supports the compre-
                    hensive state and local transportation planning required in the
                    Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. With the help of
                    EPA and other agencies, citizens and local governments develop more
                    flexible, efficient transportation systems. These systems integrate all
                    forms of transportation, serve communities, and give people choices:
                    How much do I want to spend for transportation? Do I prefer to walk
                    or drive or telecommute? EPA continues to support reforming the
 federal tax subsidy for employer-provided parking into a powerful cash reward for urban
 commuters who voluntarily ride transit, carpool, or find other ways to get to work, at no cost
 to their employer. In addition, the Agency is developing tools for states to cost-effectively
 achieve the goal of cleaner vehicles and to have transportation systems pay for themselves,
 using  such mechanisms as variable registration fees based  on emissions and mileage.
    To achieve milestone 4, EPA will continue to develop and issue emission standards
 for industrial facilities that emit toxic air pollutants. These standards, called Maximum
 Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, require that all plants in a given
 industry install pollution controls at least as stringent as  those already in place at the
 better-controlled plants in that industry. Milestone 5 will be achieved through the
 innovative, market-based emission trading system employed by EPA's Acid Rain Pro-
 gram. The sulfur dioxide emission reductions from this program are also the primary
 means for achieving milestone 6 because sulfur dioxide emissions are a major cause of
 reduced visibility. (See also Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks.)
 EPA's Regional  Haze Program will address the need for  further reductions in sulfur
 dioxide and other pollutants to improve visibility.
20
                                      GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
   To make sure emission standards are met, EPA will help companies ensure their own
compliance with these standards. Enforcement actions will be targeted toward those
sources of air pollution which present the highest risk to human health and the environ-
ment. EPA also will assist states and tribes in crafting effective, efficient compliance
programs with the flexibility to use economic incentives in ways that reduce costs while
ensuring that environmental goals are met. This combination of targeted enforcement,
flexible approaches to compliance, and federal support of state and tribal enforcement
and compliance  assurance programs is critical to meeting our national Clean Air goal.
References

Text Notes
   1.     USEPA. 1996. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995.
              Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
              and Radiation. Forthcoming.
   2.     Clean Air Act Amendments. 1990.

Milestone Data Sources
   M. 1   USEPA. 1995. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1994.
              Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
              and Radiation.
   M.2   USEPA. 1995. Projections using Mobile 5 Database. Washington, DC: U.S.
              Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
   M.3   Ibid.
   M.4   USEPA. 1995. Schedule for Regulation of Toxic Source Categories, 40 CFR
              Parts 61 and 63. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
              Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
   M.5   USEPA. 1995. Projections. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
              Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
   M.6   Acid Rain Emissions Tracking System. Interagency Monitoring of Protected
              Visual Environments, National Park Service.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         21

-------
    1. Clean Air
22
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                         2.    Clean  Waters
                                Long-Range Goal
                                All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters
                                will support healthy communities of fish, plants,
                                and other aquatic life and uses such as fishing,
                                swimming, and drinking water supply for people.
                                Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to
                                provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve
                                water quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for
                                drinking and other beneficial uses.
The Challenge

   Meeting the long-range goal hinges on our ability to maintain high water quality in
our lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, and ground water aquifers. We need clean water
for drinking, recreation, irrigation, industrial processing, and other uses. Our economy, as
well as our quality of life, depends on reliable sources of clean water. The basic challenge
is to keep pollution out of the water so that beneficial uses can be maintained.
   Fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms also require clean water to thrive, and
they need a food supply and appropriate natural habitat. Thus, the challenge for Clean
Waters must also include efforts to ensure that the entire aquatic ecosystem remains
healthy. These efforts will also require close and ongoing cooperation between EPA and a
host of key partners, including other federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) will make water quality a top goal for its Farm Bill conservation
program. Over time, these and other efforts are expected to have a major impact on water
quality improvement nationwide.
   Discussed below are specific challenges associated with the three basic types of water
resources: surface water (e.g., lakes and rivers), wetlands, and ground water.

Surface Water Challenge
   According to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress, about
40 percent of surveyed U.S. rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries are too polluted for
fishing, swimming, or other uses designated for them by the states (see Responsibilities
below). Such uses may include swimming, fishing, boating, irrigation, drinking water
supply, support of aquatic life, or others. But pollution from sewage and industrial waste
has dropped dramatically since the early 1960s, largely as a result of the 1972 Clean
Water Act. Much of this success is attributed to controls placed on municipal and
industrial outfalls, the point sources of pollution. Improvements have come from massive
investments in both municipal and industrial wastewater treatment infrastructure. Many
older pollution-control facilities, however, will still need renewed investment in the next
10 years merely to maintain the gains of the past. More action to control point sources
will be necessary, with special emphasis on urban "wet-weather" sources like combined
sewer overflows, storm water systems, and sanitary sewer overflows.
   Large amounts of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic pollutants also are entering
our waters from sources not directly linked to specific outfalls. These pollutants originate
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
23

-------
      2. Clean Waters
        National Water Quality
      Inventory "305(b)" Process

      The primary sources of surface water
  quality data are the state and tribal
  assessments conducted in accordance
  with section 305(b) of the Clean Water
  Act. The goal of these assessments is to
  measure the degree to which the nation's
  surface waters are able to support certain
  designated uses established by states
  and tribes (such as swimming, fishing,
  and support of aquatic life). Since 1975,
  EPA has published the results of these
  assessments in the biennial  National
  Water Quality Inventory Report to
  Congress.   The   report  currently
  aggregates the state descriptions into a
  national  picture for rivers, estuaries,
  lakes, ground water, and wetlands.
      Ideally, these state and tribal water
  quality assessments would cover all of
  the waters in each state. However, due
  to time and resource constraints, states
  and tribes have historically been able to
  report on only a portion of their waters in
  each 2-year cycle. This makes national
  data difficult to use to portray trends or
  to characterize the health of all of the
  nation's waters, not just those surveyed.
      To address these concerns, EPA is
  lengthening the "305(b)" reporting cycle
  from 2 to 5 years. In conjunction  with
  improved monitoring and assessment
  techniques  and  annual electronic
  reporting of key information for waters
  assessed, this cycle should enable states
  and tribes to comprehensively assess the
  surface waters in the United States using
  techniques that vary according to the
  condition of and goals for the waters.
  Consequently, although current and past
  data reflect the condition of only a portion
  of the nation's waters—those which have
  been surveyed—the 2005 targets
  outlined in this chapter are for all rivers,
  lakes, and estuaries in the United States.
on the land—particularly agricultural fields and urban areas—and
are washed into bodies of water by rainfall and snowmelt runoff.
This nonpoint source pollution is the largest remaining threat to
water quality and healthy aquatic ecosystems.
   Another major threat is physical alteration of waters by dams,
channelization, bank destabilization, animal grazing, and other
activities that alter flow, circulation, water level, and temperature.
Yet another challenge is finding out more about the condition of our
waters to better measure progress. New monitoring techniques and
partnerships are needed to assess more waters and to do it in ways
that provide better information.
   Continued efforts by EPA and its government partners are
essential if we are to meet the Clean Waters milestones. These
efforts are especially critical in the areas of standards setting,
monitoring of surface waters to better assess their conditions and
trends, and control actions like permitting to actually reduce the
amount  of pollution discharged to surface waters. Providing
necessary technical assistance for states and tribes is a critical
component of this challenge.

Ground Water Challenge
   Ground water is the source of drinking water for over 50
percent  of Americans. Farmers depend on it for irrigation; approxi-
mately two-thirds of ground water withdrawals nationwide are for
agricultural uses.' Many industrial, mining, and other commercial
facilities also rely on ground water. In addition, ground water
contributes 40 percent of the annual flow in streams. Ground water
can be polluted by farming, leaking underground  storage tanks,
septic tanks, municipal landfills, hazardous waste sites, road-
salting,  and many other activities on the land. (See Toxic-Free
Communities, Safe Waste Management, and Restoration of Con-
taminated Sites.)
   Our  knowledge of the extent of ground water  contamination is
incomplete. Most wells are not monitored for water quality. With
the exception of drinking water suppliers regulated by EPA, few
well owners keep detailed monitoring records. Part of the ground
water challenge is to establish effective monitoring programs to
track the condition  of the nation's ground waters and design studies
that will aid in understanding the factors that affect ground water
quality.  To help protect ground water from pollution, continued
federal actions are necessary to help educate people on ways in
which this valuable resource becomes polluted, to expand monitor-
ing, and to support voluntary control strategies.
                                            Wetlands Challenge
                            Wetlands are an aquatic resource that requires special attention. They provide
                        essential habitat for many types offish, wildlife, and plants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                        Service estimates that up to 43  percent of threatened and endangered species depend on
                        wetlands.2 About 71 percent of commercially valuable fish and shellfish depend on
                        wetlands. Wetlands provide natural flood control by absorbing water in times of flood
                        and releasing water in times of drought. Wetlands recharge aquifers and filter out
                        sediments and other pollutants.
24
                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                     Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
    Maintaining and improving the quality of our remaining wetlands is an important
challenge. Wetlands typically receive sediment, nutrients, and pollutants from agriculture
and urban development in their watersheds. In excessive amounts, these pollutants can
impair many wetland functions, including their ability to filter contaminants and provide
fish and wildlife habitat.
    Historically, wetlands have not been valued as important natural resources. Many
have been drained and filled to create dry land for agricultural use or development.
Although the rate of loss has slowed, the sum total of wetlands lost to date is staggering.
Therefore, other major challenges include preventing the further loss of our remaining
wetlands and increasing total wetland acreage through the expansion of natural wetlands
and creation of artificial wetlands.
    Federal support for reducing the continued loss of wetlands is crucial,  especially in
such areas as monitoring to determine both the quality and quantity of remaining wet-
lands, permitting to address actions that can eliminate or damage wetlands, and continu-
ing support to increase the capability of states to develop effective wetland protection and
restoration programs.
Responsibilities

   EPA works closely with key partners in all levels of government, with industry, with
environmental and conservation organizations, and with the general public to meet the
1972 Clean Water Act goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters.
   States and tribes, with input from all sectors, set goals for their waters by adopting
water quality standards that describe the uses to be protected and the conditions necessary
to protect the uses. To maintain and attain the water quality standards, EPA assists states
and tribes in developing regulatory controls. A central element of these controls is the
issuance of permits to regulate the discharge of pollutants from sewage plants, industrial
facilities, and municipal storm water systems.  EPA or states issue permits with discharge
limits that meet state water quality standards and national effluent regulations.
   Nonpoint source and other wet-weather runoff control and prevention programs,
ecological restoration projects, and water quality assessments are carried out mostly at
the state and local levels. EPA works with other federal agencies and the private sector to
develop guidance and tools for reducing the impacts of most pollution sources. Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 requires states to
establish coastal nonpoint source programs approved by EPA and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. The central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the
links between federal and state coastal zone management and water quality programs in
order to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal
waters and coastal habitats.3
   To protect ground water, EPA and the states administer programs aimed at wellhead
protection, underground storage tanks, hazardous waste facilities and municipal landfills,
agricultural runoff, septic systems, injection wells, and other sources of contamination.
   EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the states protect wetlands through a
permit program established under section 404  of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are also
protected through preservation measures established by the 1985, 1990, and 1996 federal
Farm Bills.
   Additional water protection programs are derived from water quality, wetland
protection, and erosion control responsibilities assigned to states and other federal
agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service are assigned responsibilities for managing living aquatic resources. The
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                            25

-------
      2. Clean Waters
                        U.S. Geological Survey has major responsibility for monitoring the quality and quantity
                        of water resources. The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National
                        Park Service manage water protection programs as part of their stewardship of federal
                        public lands. The Corps of Engineers has key regulatory responsibility for protecting
                        surface waters and wetlands from the impacts of the discharge of dredged or fill material
                        and other physical modifications. The U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for preventing
                        spills on water of oil and hazardous materials, overseeing (jointly with EPA) response to
                        spills, managing pollution liability programs, and enforcing laws protecting marine
                        resources.
                        Environmental Milestones for 2005

                           EPA proposes seven clean water milestones for 2005. Ground water and wetlands are
                        each covered by a single milestone; surface water milestones make up the rest. Mile-
                        stones 1 through 5 are targets for expected improvements in either the amount (in the case
                        of wetlands) or condition of the nation's waters. "Condition" is usually measured by
                        determining whether water quality is good enough for swimming, fishing, or other uses
                        designated by the state or tribe that has jurisdiction over it. Milestones 6 and 7 are targets
                        for reducing the amount of pollutants entering waters from major nonpoint and point
                        sources.
                           Milestone 3 in the Safe Drinking Water chapter provides a target for improving the
                        use of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs for drinking water supplies.
                           For all these milestones, progress will be measured with existing data collection and
                        reporting mechanisms. All data systems supporting these measures are undergoing or are
                        slated for enhancement, and new measures are now under development  (see Strategy).
                        As the measures improve and as the picture of conditions and trends becomes more
                        complete, the milestone targets might change.
26                                                          GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
MILESTONE
1
By 2005, $
there will be an annual net increase of
of- IAOO+ "i {\f\ f\f\f\ A^PAO rvt i*r A+ Ion/Jo
^T Federal
flfl Reviewers:
y^B a
^1 Please provide
other related
agency targets

                               thereby supporting valuable aquatic life,
                               improving water quality, and
                               moderating the effects of health- and
                               property-damaging floods and drought.
M.1—Annual net losses and gains of
wetlands from mid-1950s to 2005.
^- 3
O O

       200 n
       100-
       -100-
       -200-
       -300-
       -400-
       -500 -  -458
            Mid 1950s- Mid 1970s- Mid 1980s-
            mid 1970s mid 1980s early 1990s
* nonfederal lands only
    Wetlands are areas where the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or near the
 soil surface drives the natural system—the kinds of soils that form, the plants that grow,
 and the fish and wildlife that use the habitat. Freshwater and coastal wetlands are
 important to both natural and human communities. In addition to functioning as fish and
 wildlife habitat, they help maintain freshwater flow and quality. Abundant, healthy
 wetlands moderate the effects of both floods and droughts, and they filter sediments and
 nutrients.
    In August 1993, the Clinton Administration issued a wetland plan supporting the goal
 of no overall net loss of the nation's remaining freshwater and coastal wetlands and the
 long-term goal  of increasing the  quality and quantity of wetlands. The plan includes more
 than 40 actions to make federal wetland programs more flexible, fair, and effective. This
 milestone supports and is  consistent with the long-term federal goal.

 Past Trends and 2005 Target
    Our historical record of wetland protection has not been good, generally because the
 value of wetlands has not  been understood. An estimated 53 percent of wetlands in the
 continental United States have been lost since colonial times. Seven states (California,
 Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio) have lost more than 80 percent of
 their original wetlands.4 Fortunately, the annual rate of wetland loss has been decreasing
 since the mid-1970s.5 In the early 1990s, a net loss of approximately 70,000 to 90,000
 acres occurred on nonfederal lands. (Nonfederal lands represent about 75 percent of the
 U.S. land mass.)
^^___^^___     This milestone sets a target of an annual net increase of wetlands
                   by 100,000 acres, beginning no later than 2005 and continuing in the
                   following years, through wetland protection and restoration efforts.
                   Restoration  programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the
                   Conservation Reserve Program, and the Partners for Wildlife
                   Program, as well as state, local, and private efforts, will continue to
                   be integral to achieving this milestone. The target is based on the
                   assumption that effective regulatory and nonregulatory programs
                   will be maintained. In the future, this milestone might be expanded
                   to include measures of wetland health and function as better infor-
                   mation becomes available.

                   Tracking  Results
                      Progress will be measured using information compiled by the
                   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Department of
                   Agriculture  (USDA). The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory is
                   updated every 10 years. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
                   Service maintains the National Resource Inventory, a database that
                   provides wetland loss information on nonfederal lands every 5 years.
                                   100
                                  2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                             27

-------
      2. Clean Waters
           Federal
          Reviewers:
         Please provide
          other related
         agency targets
     (••••inn
      MILESTONE
                                   2
By  2005,
                               80 percent of the nation's surface
                               waters will support healthy aquatic
                               communities.
   RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
       National Research Council
           Recommendations
     "A net gain over the next 20 years
     [2012] of 2 million acres of restored
     lakes, out of the current 4.3 million
     acres of degraded lakes, is an achiev-
     able goal. By the year 2000,  it is rec-
     ommended that a minimum of 1 mil-
     lion acres of lakes be restored."
     "[The National Research Council] rec-
     ommends that a national river and
     stream restoration target of 400,000
     miles of river-riparian ecosystems be
     restored within the next 20 years."6
                     Fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms require good water
                  quality and habitat conditions. This milestone supports the Clean
                  Water Act objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
                  physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters and provid-
                  ing water quality that supports the protection and propagation of
                  fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
                     States and tribes frequently adopt aquatic life goals, such as
                  support for a bass or trout fishery, in their water quality standards.
                  The standards describe appropriate  chemical, physical, and biologi-
                  cal conditions needed to support aquatic life objectives, and they are
                  the basis for management programs to attain the uses.  Waters are
                  monitored to measure conditions, including biological conditions
                  such as the type, abundance, diversity, and function of the resident
                  plants and animals, and the status of threatened or endangered
                  species or species at risk.

                  Past Trends and 2005 Target
                     Statistically valid national-level trend data on past conditions for
                  aquatic life do not exist. The baseline data in this milestone are
derived from three sources (see graph). Data from the 1994 National Water Quality
Inventory show river miles, lake acres, and estuarine square miles assessed by states and
tribes that support their aquatic life objectives. Many states also report biological commu-
nity assessment information, which is depicted as the percent of rivers with healthy
aquatic communities. For estuaries, biological assessment data are provided by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), conducted in conjunction
with other federal and state agencies.7
   It is difficult to set a target for improvement at a national level without past trend data
and an adequate baseline. EPA, however, estimates that with improvements in point and
nonpoint source pollution controls, and with increased emphasis on pollution prevention
and restoration of aquatic habitats, the nation's deteriorated waters will improve. There-
fore, based on observed improvements at the local and state levels, a target has been
established to restore roughly one-third of waters that currently do not support healthy
aquatic communities.

Tracking Results
   Over time, EPA, working with states and tribes, will merge the key measures of this
milestone to have one common measure of healthy aquatic communities. Progress will be
determined with information submitted to EPA by states  and tribes for the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress, which will be issued by EPA and the states every
5 years,  beginning in 2001. (See box on the National Water Quality Inventory on page
24.) Additional data for the biological health of estuaries will come from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Environmental
Monitoring  and Research Network (NEMRN). EPA will also work with these partners on
28
                                    GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                     Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
strategies for collecting data and achieving results. As EPA develops improved biological
health assessment techniques, and as states and tribes expand their biological monitoring
programs, more information will be available. EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and The Nature Conservancy are considering including data on threatened and endan-
gered species or other species at risk as a component of this milestone.
         M.2—Percent of rivers, lakes, and estuaries
         supporting healthy aquatic communities.
         !
          0)
          £2
          CD
         O.
                           Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
                100-,
80-

60-

40-
20-
n'_








89
I
z

=
E



5



8


0



0














59
—
~
-.
=
=
8






0
7




J_

0




=
74
r
/
/
/
>
r
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
8






0






                                                         ^    «a*
          §  Water resources assessed by the states as reported in 1994 for
               aquatic life use support: 17 percent of the nation's total river/stream
               miles (48 percent of the perennial stream miles), 42 percent of the
               lake acres (excluding the Great Lakes), and 78 percent of the
               estuarine square miles.

          I   I  River and stream miles assessed by states using biological survey
               methods: 9 percent of the nation's total perennial river/stream miles.

          r/1  Estuaries assessed by EMAP: 55 percent of the nation's total
               estuarine acres.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                              29

-------
      2. Clean Waters
           Federal
          Reviewers:
         Please provide
          other related
         agency targets
                      I •!•• 11111111
                       MILESTONE
                                   3
    RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS

   U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services
           Healthy People 2000
      [By 2000,] reduce potential risks to
   human health from surface water, as
   measured by  an increase  in the
   proportion of assessed rivers, lakes, and
   estuaries that support beneficial uses.
   For consumable fishing use these
   percentages would change as follows:
                    1992    2000
        Rivers       89%     94%
        Lakes       64%     82%
        Estuaries     94%     97%
M.3—Percent of rivers, lakes, and
estuaries with uncontaminated fish
and shellfish harvest areas as
defined in state water quality
standards.
            Rivers   Lakes
                  Estuaries Estuaries
                    (fish)  (shellfish)
  
-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I  ••••Illli
       MILESTONE
            4
By  2005,
95 percent of the nation's surface
waters will be safe for recreation.
       Federal
     Reviewers:
    Please provide
     other related
    agency targets
   Fifteen to twenty percent of America's rivers, lakes, and
estuarine waters are too polluted for swimming or boating. The
Clean Water Act established a goal for recreational use of our
nation's waters; this milestone supports that goal and sets a target
for safe recreation. States and tribes designate bodies of water that
should support safe recreation by setting water quality standards for
that use. Use of water for recreation is divided  into two categories:
(1) primary contact recreation, which means that people can swim
without risk of adverse health effects, and (2) secondary contact
recreation, which means that people can perform activities like
canoeing without risk of adverse effects from occasional contact
with the water. Both types of recreation are covered by this mile-
stone.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Over the past 20 years, many polluted waters have been cleaned
up and are now open for recreation. With implementation of better
controls on storm water and combined sewer overflow systems,
EPA estimates that 95 percent of U.S. waters designated for
recreation will be safe for use by 2005. The milestone is equivalent
to restoring two-thirds of the waters currently impaired for recre-
ation, a reasonable target given the water quality programs currently
in place and under development.

Tracking Results
   Progress will be measured with information submitted to EPA
by states and tribes for the National Water Quality Inventory Report
to Congress. EPA and its public and private partners are working
together to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the
nation's waters. (See box on the National Water Quality Inventory
on page 24.)
                                   RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
                                  U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services
                                         Healthy People 2000
                                    [By 2000,] reduce potential risks to
                                  human health from surface water, as
                                  measured  by  an increase in the
                                  proportion of assessed rivers, lakes, and
                                  estuaries that support beneficial  uses.
                                  For recreational uses these percentages
                                  would change as follows.
                                                   1992     2000
                                       Rivers       71%     85%
                                       Lakes       77%     88%
                                       Estuaries     83%     91%
                               M.4—Percent of river, lake, and
                               estuary waters safe for recreation as
                               defined in state water quality
                               standards.
                                           Rivers
Lakes


i2
Q)
I
"o
1
Q.

100 -,
80-

60-

40-

20-
                                              95
         Estuaries
                                                                  95
                                           82
                                                              Percent of water resources assessed by the states
                                                              as reported in 1994: 17 percent of the nation's
                                                              total river/stream miles (48 percent of the
                                                              perennial stream miles), 42 percent of the lake
                                                              acres (excluding the Great Lakes), and 78 percent
                                                              of the estuarine square miles.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                   31

-------
      2. Clean Waters
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
      i •§ •••mm
       MILESTONE
                                  5
By  2005,
                               the number of Americans served by
                               community and rural water wells
                               containing high concentrations of
                               nitrate in ground water will be
                               reduced.
M.5—Population exposed to high
concentrations of nitrate in ground
water.

           1990
A community water system provides drinking
water to at least 15 service connections or a
population of at least 25 permanent residents.
Rural domestic wells are private water wells that
supply homes in rural areas.
    Ground water is a source of drinking water for over 100 million Americans. By
 ensuring good-quality ground water, we protect ourselves from illnesses associated with
 drinking water contaminants and we maintain other uses of ground water such as live-
 stock watering, farmland irrigation, and industrial processing.
    Nitrate contamination is the most widespread ground water pollution problem in the
 United States. High levels of nitrate in well water typically indicate that pollution is
 seeping in from septic tanks, animal wastes, fertilizers, municipal landfills, or other
 nonpoint sources. Recently, elevated levels of nitrate in well water have been linked to
 fertilizer applications on agricultural lands.8
    High concentrations of nitrate in drinking water can pose a risk to human health.
 Specifically, "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal disease in infants, can be caused
 by elevated levels of nitrate in drinking water.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates establishment of federal safety
 standards that limit the levels of contaminants in drinking water. For nitrate, this level is
 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). To prevent contamination, both the Clean Water Act and
 SDWA, along with other federal laws, establish requirements for states and tribes to
 protect their ground water.

 Past Trends and 2005 Target
    Various surveys have detected nitrate in approximately 50 percent of wells sampled.
________   The 1990 National Pesticides Survey indicated that about 4.5
                   million people were potentially exposed to nitrate concentrations
                   from wells that exceeded the current national health standard for
                   nitrate. There is considerable difficulty in interpreting the results of
                   past ground water studies to determine the degree of contamination
                   on a national level. As a result, EPA does not at this time propose a
                   specific target for the number of people served by wells containing
                   high levels of nitrate.

                    Tracking Results
                      A national data set on the overall condition of the nation's
                   ground water does not exist. EPA, therefore, proposes using the
                   next best source of data that is aggregated nationally and updated
                   annually, the Safe Drinking Water Information  System (SDWIS).
                   SDWIS provides data on whether public drinking water systems are
                   meeting safety standards and includes information on nitrate levels
                   in well water. The modernization of SDWIS and water quality
                   monitoring data from EPA's Storage  and Retrieval (STORET)
                   system will provide additional data to track sources of ground water
                   contamination.  U.S. Geological Survey data and studies, which
                   have proven to be invaluable, will also be used.
                       2005
32
                                    GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
       • •••Hill
       MILESTONE
            6
        By  2005,
        the annual rate of soil erosion from
        croplands will be reduced 20 percent
        from 1992 levels to a total of 948
        million tons per year.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
M.6—Annual rate of soil erosion from
cropland.
     2000 -i 1926
                 1726
   Soil erosion (sheet and rill erosion) from cropland is an indirect indicator of sediment
delivery to waters since not all eroded soil is deposited into water bodies. Soil erosion is
detrimental to farmers because it depletes valuable topsoil. People lose clean, clear water
in which to swim and fish; aquatic plants and animals lose natural bottom habitat.
   Characterizing the magnitude of nonpoint source pollution requires an in-depth
examination of its many causes. One cause, soil erosion, is useful as an indicator of the
success of soil conservation efforts and an indirect indicator of the amount of soil and
related nonpoint source pollutants entering our nation's waters. Control of cropland
erosion is achieved by landowners and managers, often with technical assistance from
government experts. USDA has  led the federal effort for many years.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In the National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress and in many
previous reports, states identified agricultural activities as the largest polluter of U.S.
rivers. Of all the pollution-impaired stream miles reported, 60 percent were impacted by
farming.
   Improved soil conservation techniques have reduced the rate of soil erosion from
agricultural croplands over the past few decades. USDA personnel estimated that 1,185
million tons of soil were eroded  from croplands in 1992. With the 1996 Farm Bill's
strengthened nonpoint source programs,  EPA projects a 20 percent decrease in the annual
erosion rate by 2005. Compared to the past, however, achievement of this milestone is
increasingly in the hands of landowners and managers since the 1996 Farm Bill provides
farmers with much greater flexibility in making planting decisions.

                   Tracking Results
                     Progress will be measured using information compiled by
                  USDA through its National Resource Inventory. This multi-
                  resource inventory is conducted every 5 years and includes infor-
                  mation on  soils and other resources collected at random sampling
                  sites nationwide (except Alaska). More than 800,000 sites were
                  included in the 1992 inventory.
=    1500-
                      1505
                            1185
8
d>
"6
0)
2
     1000-
      500-
                                  948
           1977  1982  1987  1992  2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                          33

-------
      2. Clean Waters
    Federal
  Reviewers:
 Please provide
  other related
 agency targets
••••linn
MILESTONE
                                  7
               By  2005,
                        total annual pollutant discharges
                        from key point sources that threaten
                        public health and aquatic ecosys-
                        tems will be reduced by 3 billion
                        pounds.
                          Discharges from point sources, especially from "wet-weather" sources like combined
                       sewer overflows (CSOs), storm water, and sanitary sewer overflows, remain a problem in
                       many parts of the United States. According to the Notional Water Quality Inventory 1994
                       Report to Congress, urban runoff, storm sewers, and municipal and industrial point
                       sources continue to be leading sources of impairment of our nation's waters. Many toxic
                       pollutants from these sources find their way into sediments and organisms, where they
                       can accumulate through the food chain and become harmful to people and wildlife. These
                       toxic pollutants are especially difficult to assess and hard to clean up.
                          This milestone tracks the effectiveness of technologies in reducing the rate of dis-
                       charge and amount of pollutant loadings to surface water and sediment. Three significant
                       point sources of pollution are targeted. Industrial facilities, the first source, discharge
                       either directly to surface water or to sewage treatment plants. The second source targeted
                       is sewage treatment plants. Implicit in this target is a commitment to increase the number
                       of plants that meet national treatment standards. Combined sewer systems, the third
                       source, are designed to carry storm water runoff and sanitary sewage to a sewage treat-
                       ment plant. During rainfall or snowmelt, the wastewater flow can exceed the capacity of
                       the combined sewer system or treatment plant, causing the system to overflow into the
                       water body.
                          Meeting milestone 7 will have a direct impact on our ability to achieve the first five
                       _„___^_————llll-.^—-_   milestones of the Clean Waters goal, as well as
                                                        several Safe Drinking Water milestones.
Fig. 1—Trends in pollutants discharged and
population served by sewage treatment plants.9
 ~    7-,
      6-
      5-
      4-
      3-
      2-
      1-
                   •   BO05 duchwgid

                 ---e--- U.S. population Mnwt
ii
       200

             •o
             |

       150   |
                                             100
                                              50
BOD, (Biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5-day period)
refers to biodegradable organic pollutants that reduce oxygen levels
in water.
                           Past Trends and 2005 Target
                              The 1972 Clean Water Act established
                           national water pollution control requirements that
                           set discharge limits for industrial facilities and
                           municipal sewage treatment plants. The require-
                           ments have been implemented through the State
                           Revolving Fund, construction grants, and the
                           National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                           (NPDES) programs. These programs have all
                           been very successful in reducing sewage dis-
                           charges, keeping pace with increasing population
                           pressures on municipal treatment plants (See
                           Fig. 1), and reducing and preventing industrial
                           contamination of our waterways.
                              Toxic pollutants (M.7a) include priority
                           pollutants (e.g., PCBs, lead, mercury) defined by
                           the Clean Water Act and certain "nonconven-
                           tional" pollutants (e.g., chlorine). EPA estimates
                           that approximately 23 percent of the toxic
                           pollutants released to water can accumulate in
34
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
sediment. The conventional pollutants (M.7b) include oil and grease, total suspended
solids, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
   The industrial pollutant discharge reduction targets (M.7a, b) were determined by an
analysis of the reduction in discharges from industrial categories that will employ the
required pollution controls by 2005. For sewage treatment plants, the 2005 target (M.7c)
assumes approximately 19,000 sewage treatment facilities will meet all of their treatment
needs, with all but 68 of the existing facilities meeting secondary treatment requirements.
The indicator pollutant is biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the degradable organics
typically controlled by discharge permits.
   The combined sewer overflow target (M.7d) was determined assuming implementa-
tion of EPA's CSO Control Policy. The policy establishes a national framework for
control of these sources through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits and enforcement actions. The analysis assumes control on CSOs will
be implemented uniformly by 2025.
   The milestone target (reduction of 3 billion pounds) is the aggregate reduction in
pollutants discharged from these sources.

Tracking Results
   Progress will be measured primarily by analyzing discharge data from EPA's Permit
Compliance System (PCS) along with modeling where necessary. EPA and other federal
agencies will work to improve PCS  to give much greater assurance that the quality of
data is sound. Data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) will be  used to estimate the
amount of industrial toxic pollution  that settles in sediment.
M.7—Annual amount of pollution discharged by point source dischargers
a. Toxic industrial                                b. Conventional industrial*1
      'o
         150n
         100-
      1

      1
      I   50
50% reduction

   72.5
                              E1
                              CO
                              •s
                              v>
                              T3

                              f
                              I
                              I
28% reduction

    3020
                 1995
                             2005
                                                                     1995
                                                                                 2005
c. Sewage treatment plants1-
                          d. Combined sewer overflows13
                             3% reduction

                                3232
                                                               6000-i
                                                               5000-
                                                               4000-
                                                               3000-
                                                      33% reduction

                                                          3560
                    1992
                                2005
                                                                        1992
                                                                                    2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                         35

-------
      2. Clean Waters
                 Costs
      In a 1990 report,  Environmental
  Investments: The Cost of a Clean
  Environment,  EPA estimated that the
  annual public and private  costs of
  meeting clean water standards were
  approximately  $42 billion in 1990 and
  would rise to $57.5 billion by 2000 to fully
  meet standards expected to be in place
  by then  (constant  1986 dollars).
  Achievement of the proposed milestones
  might require  implementation of  some
  programs not anticipated when  these
  estimates were prepared, which  would
  add to the costs. Over the next few years,
  the costs and benefits associated with
  clean water programs will be more fully
  assessed.
Strategy

   To address the problems facing America's waters, multiple and varied actions need to
be taken by EPA and its partners in all levels of government and the private sector. The
Clean Waters strategy emphasizes four themes: reducing pollution, managing watersheds
and ecosystems, protecting aquatic biological integrity, and improving water information.
   A major theme throughout this strategy is to apply common sense in all we do.
Common sense solutions require clarity of purpose, realistic expectations, cost-effective
remedies, and stakeholder involvement.

Reducing Pollution
   Over the next 10 years, EPA and its partners will put more emphasis on "wet-
weather" or rainfall-associated sources of pollution—sewer overflows, runoff from
agricultural lands, and city and suburban storm water drainage. Environmental agencies
will also continue to work with states, tribes, and municipalities to reduce pollution
(especially toxic contaminants) to surface waters from factories and sewage treatment
plants.
                      Just as important as what EPA and others  will do is how it will
                   be done. To achieve its goals, EPA will use collaborative ap-
                   proaches that help to identify efficient, common sense solutions that
                   all key stakeholders can support and help to implement.
                      A pollution prevention approach is especially important to avoid
                   the costly and time-consuming process of cleaning up ground water.
                   EPA will focus on protecting underground water supplies by
                   offering support to community and rural drinking water systems.
                   Special attention will be given  to nitrate contamination, with an
                   emphasis on education to change agricultural practices and en-
                   hancement of wellhead and aquifer protection programs. EPA
                   activities that will help reduce pollution of surface and ground
                   waters include:
                   •    Ensuring that by 2005, secondary treatment is in place at 65
                        percent of sewage treatment plants that currently do not have
                        this level of treatment.
                   •    Developing technology guidelines for industrial effluents and
                        issuing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                        permits.
      Joining other federal agencies, states, tribes, and communities to provide guidance
      for reducing agricultural runoff, including adoption of erosion and sediment
      control practices.
      Working with NOAA, communities, and states to protect the Great Lakes from the
      most important remaining source of pollution—runoff of toxics from city streets
      and toxic pesticides and nutrients from  fields.
      Issuing storm water permits and working with municipalities and industries to
      implement storm water management plans.
      Ensuring that states and municipalities have long-term combined sewer overflow
      control plans and developing cost-effective ways of controlling sanitary sewer
      overflows.
      Establishing wellhead protection areas to protect ground waters that supply
      community drinking water systems (see Safe Drinking Water). Providing support
      to programs that encourage people to voluntarily take actions to prevent ground
      water pollution.
36
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
   •  Preventing further sediment contamination by carrying out
      the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (see
      Restoration of Contaminated Sites, milestone 7).
   •  Working with the Superfund program to help clean up toxic
      waste sites that threaten the health of our waters.

Managing Watersheds and Ecosystems

   EPA and its government partners are employing the Watershed
Protection Approach (WPA) to support EPA's overall policy of
Community-Based Environmental Protection. The WPA is a
systematic, comprehensive approach for protecting aquatic re-
sources. It integrates the programs and activities of federal, state,
tribal, and local entities and incorporates ecological and societal
values into decision making. It is a management approach tailored
to conditions within a specific geographic area. Managers can cost-
effectively prioritize problems in a watershed and make more
effective use of resources to address them. Stakeholder involvement
aids in the development of better, more practical solutions. Follow-
ing are some ways EPA will implement this "community-based"
approach:
   •  EPA will integrate grants planning, standard setting, permit
      issuance, assessment, and reporting on a watershed-by-
      watershed basis (see box).
   •  Permits will be issued by EPA and the states more efficiently
      and logically, considering the needs of individual water-
      sheds.
   •  Working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration (NOAA), EPA will assist coastal states  in
      implementing nonpoint source programs pursuant to  the
      Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
   •  EPA will continue to support the National Estuary Program
      and work with states to bring new estuaries into the program.
   •  EPA will implement the recommendations from the Great
      Waters Program to address airborne pollutants affecting the
      Great Lakes and coastal waters.
   •  EPA, NOAA, and the National Park Service will continue
      developing domestic and international coastal zone and
      watershed management strategies and guidelines for
      protecting coral reef communities (see Reducing Global and
      Transboundary Environmental Risks).
   •  EPA will continue to support the Gulf of Mexico Program,
      which is facilitating new forms of collaboration and partner-
      ships to protect, restore, and enhance the coastal and  marine
      waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Protecting Aquatic Biological Integrity

   Protecting healthy biological communities in the aquatic
environment is a pivotal component of EPA's water quality manage-
ment program. EPA's biological criteria and biological assessment
programs,  together with its wetlands, riparian, and  other habitat restoration efforts, are
key tools used to protect and restore conditions suitable for aquatic life. EPA is develop-
ing a framework for assessing ecological risk that will link these activities more closely.
   Massachusetts Synchronizes
    NPDES Permits Under the
 Watershed Protection Approach

   The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) is
implementing a comprehensive, state-
wide Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA). In 1993, DEP initiated this effort
by synchronizing water quality monitoring
and assessment, water withdrawal
permitting, nonpoint  source pollution
control, and wastewater permitting under
the National  Pollutant  Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) under a
watershed approach.
   EPA Region 1 supported  DEP's
action by realigning schedules for issuing
NPDES permits. The Region  issues
administrative continuances or issues
permits for  a  shorter duration  to
coordinate permitting in each  of
Massachusetts' 27 major watersheds.
   Organizing NPDES permitting so that
all permits within a watershed expire and
are reissued at the same time is  an
advantage  because it offers the state
more options for reducing pollution. For
example,   the  state  may consider
controlling nonpoint sources as opposed
to placing more stringent limits  on
NPDES dischargers.  In addition, per-
mitting authorities have the option of
placing increased controls on those
discharges  with  the greatest impact on
surface waters rather than placing such
controls on  all facilities.
   Massachusetts' WPA brings  the
activities under the NPDES program
together into one organizational unit,
providing a mechanism for integrating the
relationships between water quality and
water  quantity and point and nonpoint
source pollution while involving local,
state, and  federal agencies and  the
general public in the decision-making
process.14

See box on page 64  on the New York
City Watershed Agreement to  protect
drinking water.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                   37

-------
      2. Clean Waters
                           Habitat destruction caused by such factors as flow and streambank changes has had a
                        significant impact on biological health and integrity. EPA does not have direct jurisdic-
                        tion to reduce habitat modification, but it will work closely with its federal, state, tribal,
                        and local partners to:
                           •  Issue guidance for assessing the health of biological communities, including
                              habitat in estuaries and wetlands.
                           •  Work with the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
                              (ITFM) to improve methodologies for assessment and restoration.
                           •  Use biological criteria to more precisely define the aquatic life uses that states and
                              tribes designate as part of their water quality standards setting process in order to
                              set more cost-effective controls.
                           •  Use funds to encourage state nonpoint source programs to target local restoration
                              projects for riparian, wetland, stream, and shoreline habitats.
                           •  Support the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program to reduce soil erosion on
                              highly credible land, its Wetlands Reserve Program to restore wetlands, and its
                              other incentive-based programs  to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agricul-
                              ture and forest lands.
                           •  Participate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy
                              in identifying ways  to eliminate or reduce the effects of pollution on threatened
                              and endangered species and other species at risk.
                           •  Apply methodologies for assessing contaminated sediments, clean up contami-
                              nated sediment when practical, and ensure that sediment dredging and disposal are
                              handled in an ecologically sound manner.

                        Improving Water Information for Decision Making
                           Perhaps most critical to EPA's efforts to measure progress toward all of the water
                        quality milestones is the ability to monitor, share, and report water quality information.
                        EPA and its partners have been working actively to improve water monitoring. Through
                        the joint federal-state Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, these
                        partners have adopted a nationwide monitoring strategy that member agencies  are now
                        implementing. EPA is adopting a series of vigorous steps to carry out essential activities,
                        including technical assistance to states  and tribes to portray a clearer and more accurate
                        picture of the condition of our nation's  water resources. Better assessments in the  future
                        might change the targets proposed for these milestones, and ultimately the overall
                        objectives. To improve monitoring, assessment, and reporting, EPA is:
                            •  Adopting environmental indicators for measuring progress and implementing the
                              nationwide monitoring strategy  that supports these indicators. The indicators are
                              presented in  Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States.15
                            •  Conducting (with states and tribes) an updated National Water Quality Inventory.
                              The report will be issued every 5 years instead of every 2 years, and there will be
                              annual reporting of key indicators. This new process will allow EPA to  assess
                              waters comprehensively, using a variety of monitoring techniques, and  to depict
                              national trends over time.
                            •  Adapting water indicators to the watershed level through the National Watershed
                              Assessment Project (NWAP). Using data from 15 of the national water indicators,
                              EPA will issue a report in April  1997 providing an overall assessment of the health
                              of all of the nation's watersheds.
                            •  Encouraging states  to build comprehensive ground water monitoring programs
                               through the integration of existing programs and new monitoring initiatives and to
                              collect quality ground water data on an aquifer basis.
                            •  Providing additional tools, guidance, policies, training, and other support neces-
                               sary  to effectively assess the physical, chemical, and biological health of aquatic
                               resources.
38                                                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
       Developing comparable methods to assess the biological integrity of different
       types of waters in different ecological regions that are compatible with those of
       other agencies.
       Assisting states and tribes in improving their monitoring capabilities for pollution
       source identification and evaluation of enforcement actions and compliance
       promotion programs.
       Modernizing EPA data systems and using the Internet and geographic  information
       systems to provide easy access to information.
       Encouraging, through incentives, more ambient monitoring by permitted facilities
       to gain a better understanding of the overall health of water bodies.
References
Text Notes
   1.      J.R. Hartmore and J.H. Goldstein. 1994. The Impact of Federal Programs on
              Wetlands, Volume II, A Report to Congress by the Secretary of the
              Interior. Washington, DC.
   2.      USGS.  1992. Open-File Report 92-63. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological
              Survey.
   3.      USEPA and NOAA. 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
              Program Development and Approval Guidance. Washington, DC: U.S.
              Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmo-
              spheric Administration.
   4.      T.E. Dahl. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. Wash-
              ington, DC.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
   5.      T.E. Dahl and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
              Conterminous United States, Mid-1970s to Mid-1980s. Washington, DC:
              U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
   6.      NRC. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. Washington, DC: National
              Research Council.
   7.      USEPA. 1994. EMAP Estuaries—A Report on the Condition of the Estuaries
              of the United States in 1990-1993: A Program in Progress. Draft.
              Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
              Research and Development.
   8.      USGS. 1995. Nutrients in Ground Water and Surface Water of the United
              States: An Analysis of Data Through 1992. Water Resources Investiga-
              tions Report 95-4031. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, National
              Water Quality Assessment Program.
   9.      USEPA. 1993. 7992 Needs Survey Report to Congress. EPA 832-R-93-002.
              Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
              Water.
          USEPA. 1993. The National Environmental Benefits of Secondary Treatment.
              Technical Report. Washington,  DC:  U.S. Environmental Protection
              Agency, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
   10.     Toxic industrial pollutants include priority pollutants (under CWA section
              307(a)) and some nonconventional pollutants. Loading estimates are
              based on EPA Support Documents for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
              Pretreatment Standards. Sediment loadings are based on an estimate of
              Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) pollutants that settle in the sediment.
              Baseline data were revised in 1995.d
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         39

-------
      2. Clean Waters
                          11.     Conventional industrial pollutants include oil and grease, total suspended
                                      solids, and BOD. Loading estimates are based on EPA Support Docu-
                                      ments for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards.
                                      Baseline data were revised in 1995.
                          12.     Estimates of load reduction are based on data from the 7992 Needs Survey
                                      Report to Congress, population growth rates, and planned treatment plant
                                      constructions.
                          13.     Combined sewer overflow pollutants include total suspended solids, BOD,
                                      total nitrogen, orthophosphate, metals, and toxic volatile organics.
                                      Estimates of load reductions were developed for the President Clinton's
                                      Clean Water Initiative. The analysis assumed controls on CSOs will be
                                      implemented uniformly in 30 years starting in 1995.
                          14.     USEPA. 1996. Watershed Events.  Winter 1996. EPA 840-N-96-001. Washing-
                                      ton, DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
                          15.     USEPA. 1996. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States.
                                      EPA 341-R-96-002. Washington, DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                      Agency,  Office of Water.

                        Milestone Data Sources
                          M.I    I.E. Dahl.  1990. Wetland Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Wash-
                                      ington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                 USDA. 1992.  Summary Report National Resources Inventory. Washington,
                                      DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
                          M.2    USEPA. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress.
                                      EPA-841-R-95-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                      Agency,  Office of Water.
                                 W.S. Davis, B.D. Snyder, J.B. Stribling, and C. Stoughton. 1996. Summary of
                                      State Biological Assessment  Programs for Stream and Wadeable Rivers.
                                      EPA 230-R-96-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                      Agency,  Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
                                 USEPA. 1994. A Report on the Condition of the Estuaries of the United States
                                      in 1990-1993: A Program in Progress. Draft. Washington, DC: U.S.
                                      Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
                          M.3    USEPA. 1994. Data from National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories
                                      database.
                                 USEPA. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress.
                                      EPA-841-R-95-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                      Agency,  Office of Water.
                          M.4    Ibid.
                          M.5    USEPA. 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, Phase I
                                      Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
                                      of Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide Programs.
                          M.6    USDA. 1992.  Summary Report National Resource Inventory. Washington, DC:
                                      U.S. Department of Agriculture.
                          M.7a   Office of Water analyses based on EPA Support Documents for Effluent
                                      Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards and Toxic Release
                                      Inventory data.
                          M.7b   Office of Water analyses based on EPA Support Documents for Effluent
                                    Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards.
                          M.7c   USEPA. 1993. 7992 Needs Survey Report to Congress. EPA 832-R-93-002.
                                    Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
                          M.7d   Analysis for President's Clean Water Initiative, March 1994.
40                                                          GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                      3.   Healthy  Terrestrial
                             Ecosystems
                             Long-Range Goal

                             America will safeguard its ecosystems to promote the
                             health and diversity of natural and human communities
                             and to sustain America's environmental, social, and
                             economic potential.
The Challenge

   Healthy terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity, or
biodiversity, are directly linked to the long-term health of the
nation's economy.1 We depend on ecosystems for agricultural,
industrial, and consumer products; for recreation; and for ecologi-
cal services, such as air and water purification and flood control.
Terrestrial ecosystems also provide habitat for many biologically
and economically valuable plant and animal species. Degradation
of these ecosystems can result in species becoming threatened,
endangered, or extinct, as demonstrated by the decline of grizzly
bear and wolf populations, salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and
songbird populations in many areas of the country.
   The causes of ecosystem loss include both natural and human-
induced stresses. Natural stresses, such as seasonal drought, pest
species, fire, flooding, and storm damage, impact terrestrial
ecosystems. Ecosystems will recover from these natural stresses
through processes of natural succession. In contrast, human-
induced stresses like habitat fragmentation, toxic chemicals,
acidification, desertification, urban development, highway con-
struction, air pollution, mining, introduction of exotic species, and
certain pesticide uses might disrupt ecosystems beyond their ability
to recover.
   The optimal balance between the integrity of natural systems
and human activities is indicated by the ability of our environment
to support diverse and stable wildlife and plant communities, to
maintain economic uses that are sustainable in a time frame  of
decades to centuries, and to contribute generally to human health
and quality of life. Inasmuch as some ecosystems, some plant and
animal species, and some past ways of using natural resources are
in jeopardy, we have not achieved this balance.
   Effective planning is needed at many levels to balance conser-
vation and development and to avoid significant degradation of the
nation's terrestrial ecosystems. Interagency collaboration and joint
planning and decision making among federal agencies, as well as
           Definitions

   The term ecosystem denotes  a
community of all the species populations
that occupy a given area and its nonliving
environment.2 Terrestrial ecosystems are
communities associated with living on or
in the land, as distinguished from marine
or other aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic
ecosystem improvements are covered in
the Clean  Waters chapter.
   Ecosystem  management  is  a
collaborative approach to restore and
sustain the  health, productivity,  and
biological  diversity of ecosystems and
the overall  quality of life that fully
integrates social and economic goals.
   Biological diversity, or biodiversity,
can be thought of as the variety of all life
on earth. It includes species of aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems  and the
ecological complex of which those
ecosystems are a part. Biological
diversity, then, refers to diversity within
species, between species, and among
ecosystems.
   People benefit from ecosystems and
biodiversity because they sustain our
lives by providing many ecological goods
and services, including food; industrial,
medical, and other products; oxygen
production; and water and air purification.
Biodiversity and ecosystems also
provide recreational opportunities and
aesthetic values that contribute to our
quality of life and identity.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                41

-------
      3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
                        improved partnerships with nonfederal stakeholders, are essential. This type of collabora-
                        tion has been recommended by the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. In
                        addition, sound management practices, when applied in conjunction with conservation
                        efforts, are necessary to ensure the sustainable use of our land resources and to maintain
                        populations of native animals and plants. The challenge is to manage our lands and their
                        biological diversity to meet today's needs, while at the same time considering the needs
                        of future generations.
          Community-Based
       Environmental Protection
     Community-based environmental
  protection is EPA's new approach to
  identify environmental problems, set
  priorities, and forge solutions. Environ-
  mental protection issues are resolved in
  partnership with the people who live in
  local communities or are affected by
  proposed activities. Community-based
  environmental protection integrates
  environmental management with human
  needs, considers long-term ecosystem
  health, and highlights  the  positive
  correlation between economic prosperity
  and  environmental well-being.
Responsibilities

   At the national level, a patchwork of federal approaches are employed to address
ecosystem health and productivity. These approaches include land preservation through
the national park and national wilderness preservation systems, multiple-use management
of national forests and other federal lands, and technical and financial assistance to
private landowners to encourage soil conservation and forest management. In addition,
Congress has at times explicitly recognized the importance of protecting the environment
at an ecosystem level and has broadly framed several statutes in terms of protecting
ecosystems. Such statutes include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the North American
Waterfowl Management Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, and the Clean Water Act. These and many other federal laws affect
federal, state, tribal, local, and private lands and their biological components.
   No agency has exclusive "authority" or responsibility to protect ecosystems. Ecosys-
tem protection involves a comprehensive approach to resolving environmental issues.
EPA's and other agencies' programs affect ecosystem protection. Although EPA is not
directly responsible for land management practices used by public or private landowners,
land management clearly relates to the environmental protection mandate of the Agency.
To illustrate, EPA is responsible for (1) NEPA reviews of other agencies' actions that
cause significant environmental effects; (2) Clean Water Act protection of water quality
and wetlands from land-based impacts; and (3) pesticide registration and review and
other programs addressing chemical use and pollution prevention.
                      Beyond EPA's regulatory programs, the Agency carries out a
                   wide variety of nonregulatory programs and activities that provide
                   the science, tools, data, information, and technical assistance
                   needed to support the efforts of others in developing and imple-
                   menting ecosystem protection programs. EPA's community-based
                   environmental protection efforts can help to forge  alliances between
                   EPA, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and
                   private partners for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and
                   wildlife habitats (see box).
                      EPA supports the efforts of federal, state, tribal, and local
                   agencies to better manage land resources. The U.S. Fish and
                   Wildlife Service administers federal wildlife protection laws, and
                   land management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management,
                   National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service manage federal
                   lands  in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. Federal
                   water management agencies promote land management practices
                   that protect water resources. EPA works with land management
                   agencies to ensure their programs comply  with federal environmen-
                   tal regulations and policies. The National Biological Service
42
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
provides biological sciences and information and technology services to all Department
of the Interior bureaus.
    Other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service, work with private landowners and state and local govern-
ments to assist in protecting our nation's air, land, and water. Private landowners must
follow laws pertaining to land use at the local, state, tribal, or national level. State and
local governments enact and administer laws that regulate land use and actions that can
affect ecosystems and wildlife. They purchase parks, acquire easements, and offer
economic incentives. Tribal governments regulate many activities and influence state and
federal agency policies.
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   EPA proposes three milestones for this goal. They do not cover all aspects of terres-
trial ecosystem health, but they are indicators for which national-level data are currently
available or expected to be available. The first milestone is to halt the loss of rare
ecosystems that are currently in decline. The second milestone is to stabilize or increase
populations of native plant and animal species that are threatened with extinction. The
third establishes an objective to restore and manage ecosystems to support human
communities and native flora and fauna. All three milestones are interrelated; an im-
provement in one will contribute to (or result from) achievement of the others. An
important action that will promote healthy terrestrial ecosystems—increased use of
integrated pest management—is described in the "Strategy" section of the Safe Food
chapter.
   These milestones cannot be achieved through the work of any single government
agency or private group. They will require joint efforts by DOI, USDA, EPA, state and
tribal agencies, local governments, private landowners and managers, and others whose
activities affect the condition of the land.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                           43

-------
      3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••Illllll
 MILESTONE
                                  1
By  2005,
                           the loss of ecosystem types
                           considered critically endangered,
                           endangered, or threatened will be
                           eliminated.
                          Protection of ecosystems rarely means locking up large amounts of land against all
                       human intrusion; usually it is accomplished through voluntary agreements (e.g., conser-
                       vation easements, voluntary stewardship programs) that limit destructive activities. There
                       is considerable flexibility in selecting approaches to ecosystem protection. Landowners,
                       private conservation organizations, government agencies, and businesses all make
                       substantial, although often very different, contributions to the protection of ecologically
                       significant lands.
                          Protecting ecosystems also requires difficult choices among many competing values
                       and places. These decisions are justified by the many important attributes and benefits
                       that ecosystem protection provides, such as the conservation of biodiversity and the
                       provision of ecological services on which human communities depend. This milestone
                       emphasizes that protection efforts should first be focused on those ecosystems which are
                       in danger of extinction. Such ecosystems are distributed all over the nation and can be
                       categorized as critically endangered, endangered, or threatened (Fig. 1). The three
                       categories are aggregated for presentation in M. 1. Although they represent a small
                       fraction of the American landscape, they are a valuable and irreplaceable resource.

                       Past Trends and 2005 Target
                          Losses of all ecosystem types have been most pronounced in the South, Northeast,
                       and Midwest. Two diverse ecosystems that once dominated the landscape—tall grass
                       Fig. 1—Distribution of critically endangered, endangered, and threatened
                       ecosystem types by geographic region
When ecosystem types
overlapped regions, each
region received a point.
Regions with fewer types
are not necessarily in
better condition because
numbers reflect sampling
and reporting biases in
the literature and in
heritage programs.
 Alaska:0
 Hawaii: 0
                                                          Note: Data not
                                                          available for U.S.
                                                          territories
44
                               GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                     Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
M.1—Number and distribution of general ecosystem types that are classified as: (A) critically
endangered, endangered, or threatened (as a group); and (B) critically endangered (only)
                        A
                   (156 Types)
       Forests (45)
         30%
Other Wetlands (35)
     22%
                                Forested Wetlands (16)
                                      10%
                                        Aquatic (15)
                                          10%
Grasslands, Savannas,
   Barrens (35)
     22%
                    Shrublands (10)
                       24%
                     Shrublands (10)
                         6%
prairies and old-growth forests—exist today in small fragments. Less than 5 percent of
our native, old-growth forests remain in the conterminous 48 states. Many other native
ecosystems, such as virgin eastern deciduous forest, Texas native prairie, and California's
native grasslands and riparian (streamside or lakeside) forests, have been virtually
eliminated. In addition, many critically important ecosystems exist as disconnected
fragments, such as all riparian forests, which have declined by 70 percent.
   For this milestone, National Biological Service (NBS) data depicting the current
status of our endangered ecosystems provide a ranking of the nation's declining ecosys-
tem types by the percentage of original area lost or degraded. Ecosystem types that are
critically endangered (41 ecosystems) have lost more than 98 percent of their original
area; endangered ecosystem types (58) have experienced an 85 to 98 percent decline; and
threatened (38), a 70 to 84 percent decline. The chart above shows the percentage of these
lost or degraded  ecosystems by general ecosystem types. For example, the seven forest
ecosystems that are critically endangered include ecosystems such as the longleaf pine
forests of the  southeastern coastal plain, spruce-fir forests of the southern Appalachians,
and loblolly pine-shortleaf pine in the west Gulf coastal plain. Similarly, grasslands,
savannas, and barren ecosystems that are critically endangered are oak savanna in the
Midwest and  Lakeplain wet prairie in Michigan.
   Although  endangered ecosystems now represent a small fraction of the American
landscape, they represent a valuable and irreplaceable resource. The protection of these
critical resources will be complemented by effective management of other terrestrial
ecosystems. This milestone establishes a target to eliminate the loss of those ecosystem
types  considered critically endangered, endangered, and threatened, which is an essential
step in protecting and managing terrestrial ecosystems.

Tracking Results
   Progress toward this milestone will be measured in part using data from the NBS's
Gap Analysis Program. This analysis  maps the extent of the nation's ecosystems, assesses
the protection status of each type, and identifies protection gaps. The NBS plans to
periodically update its reports on the status of those ecosystems threatened with extinc-
tion. Additional data for tracking progress will be obtained from other federal agency
programs. The Nature Conservancy, universities, state and tribal agencies, local agencies
and organizations, and other interest groups.
                                                Forests (7)
                                                 17%
Grasslands, Savannas,
   Barrens (22)
     55%
                                                    Forested Wetlands (1)
                                                          2%
                                                                                             Aquatic (1)
                                                                                                2%
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                  45

-------
      3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
i •{•••mini
 MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
                         the populations of endangered,
                         threatened, rare, and declining
                         species of native terrestrial animals
                         and plants will be stabilized or
                         increased.
                         The health of terrestrial animal and plant populations is greatly affected by the health
                      of the terrestrial ecosystems on which they depend. Documented declines of wildlife
                      populations, especially in amphibians, reptiles, and birds, have paralleled declines in the
                      health of terrestrial ecosystems over the last several decades. These population declines
                      are a result of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (breaking continuous tracts of
                      habitat into pieces too small to sustain species populations); effects of toxic chemicals,
                      pesticides, and other pollutants; and competition from non-native species.
                         Threatened and endangered species are particularly important because they are the
                      rarest genetic components of our biodiversity storehouse. Their status often reflects the
                      status of the whole terrestrial system. Species listed as endangered or threatened are
                      distributed among the major taxonomic groups and are found in every state and U.S.
                      territory (Figs. 2 and 3).
                         Although the most endangered species—those with only a few individuals left—
                      might become less critical to ecosystem functions by virtue of their small numbers, their
                      demise reflects the impacts that affect all species in the system, and their loss represents
                      final and irreversible loss of an element of genetic diversity. Today, multi-species or
                      ecosystem approaches to implementing the Endangered Species Act are seeking to
                      protect more terrestrial species than those listed. Recovery efforts often attempt to
                      stabilize or improve habitat, thus providing cascading benefits for vast numbers of other
                      species dependent on those same habitats. Similarly, many wildlife conservation pro-
                      grams focus on habitat or whole ecosystems, thus providing benefit to all species in those
                      areas. This milestone helps measure the progress of these efforts and represents an overall
                      objective to stabilize terrestrial wildlife and plant populations that are threatened with
                      extinction.
                      Fig. 2—Distribution of federally listed threatened and endangered species
                      by taxonomic group.
                         Plants
                          54%
                                                         Animals
                                                           46%
                                                                     s / s t /
                                                                    \N\\\
                                                                     / t / / f
                                                  Mammals

                                                  Birds

                                                  Reptiles
                                                  Fishes
                                                  Amphibians
                                                  Invertebrates
46
                              GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Fig. 3—Number of federally listed threatened and endangered species by geographic region.
 7—Alaska
 206—Hawaiian Islands
 20—Other Pacific Islands
66—Puerto Rico
14—Virgin Islands
Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Population reductions in many plant and animal species have occurred for many
decades. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has focused efforts on collecting data on all
of the endangered or threatened species. These data are reported and provide information
on the percent of species known to be stable or improving, the percent declining, and the
percent for which the population trend is unknown. Stable or improving species are
defined as those for which the trend toward extinction has been halted or reversed in the
wild.
   Of the 108 species listed as threatened or endangered between  1968 and 1973, 58
percent are currently known to be stable or improving in their native habitats. Of the 294
species listed between 1989 and 1993, only 22 percent have recovered to the point that
populations are stable or increasing. Over 41 percent of all 909 species listed as of
September 30, 1994, have stabilized or are improving.3 In addition, 35 percent of listed
species are declining, while there is uncertainty about the population trend of the remain-
ing species (M.2).
   Reversing species decline will require important decisions regarding ecological
management and economic growth. Establishing a target to stabilize or increase listed
plant and animal populations, however, is a critical first step in ensuring ecosystem
sustainability.

Tracking Results
   The U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, the National Biological Service, The Nature
Conservancy, and state Natural Heritage Program databases house important population
statistics and are being considered as sources of the data needed to develop indicators and
milestone targets. The FWS will continue reporting on the endangered and threatened
species in its biennial reports to Congress. Migratory bird information, obtained through
the Breeding Bird Survey and the National Waterfowl Management Program, can be used
to determine whether bird species populations are healthy or declining.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                  47

-------
     3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
                     M.2—Current population trends of federally listed threatened and
                     endangered species according to time of listing.
                         100
                              N=106  N=86   N=66  N=224  N=294
                     0)
                     Q
                     0)
                     Q.
                               68-73   74-78  79-83  84-88  89-93

                                Time of listing in 5-year interval

                              N=Number of species in the 5-year interval
                    Percent of species
                    with an unknown
                    population trend

                    Percent of species
                    declining

                    Percent of species
                    stable or improving
48
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i ••••inn
      MILESTONE
           3
By  2005,
ecosystem conditions and
functions will be restored to
ultimately provide adequate
amounts of habitat with the
necessary size, mixture, and
quality to sustain native animals
and plants in all regions.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Protection of "representative" types of ecosystems, that is, those
ecosystems which were common and once dominated the landscape
in a given region, will sustain native species, human populations,
and valuable natural resources. Improving the quality, functions,
and values of ecosystems—even commonplace ones such as
second-growth forests and riparian corridors—will benefit human
and natural communities. Intact riparian corridors and second-
growth forests, for example, provide wildlife habitat, flood control,
pollutant filtering, and other important ecosystem services and
functions.
   This milestone recognizes the need for an extent and pattern of
interconnected ecosystems so that vegetation restoration and other
land management practices achieve intended wildlife and other
environmental benefits. It describes conditions that  are desirable to
ensure sustaining populations of animals and plants that are native
to a region.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Protecting native ecosystems and practicing sustainable land stewardship should
protect the wildlife and plant species that depend on them for survival. The condition
of native vegetation, the health of animal species that depend on terrestrial ecosys-
tems, and the status of conservation practices applied on these lands can serve as
surrogate measures of ecosystem health. We have lost 26 percent of our forests and
more than 95 percent of our native prairies. Surveys indicate that 56 percent of
Neotropical migratory bird species (those species which migrate between the southern
hemisphere and North America) and 57 percent of waterfowl species (short-distance
migrants) are in decline. These declines have resulted  from a variety of factors
including deforestation and other habitat losses, lack of hunting controls in Central
and South America, and pollution from agricultural  and silvicultural practices. Data
on the status of other wildlife, especially non-game  species, may become available in
the future.
   Based on past trends and current status, and with adoption of a long-term ap-
proach to ecological and economic sustainability of our terrestrial resources, this
milestone establishes a target to restore conditions and functions of representative
ecosystem  types in all regions. Improving management in all ecosystems will enhance
the land's productivity for human and ecological uses. No single measure of success
can be proposed for both the extent and pattern of ecosystems that are not threatened
with extinction. One or more numeric targets for this milestone could be set in the
future if we can define an appropriate quantitative measure(s) for success.
                                 RELATED FEDERAL TARGET
                                   Bureau of Land Management
                               Riparian Wetland Initiative for the 1990s
                                  Restore and maintain [BLM] riparian-
                               wetland areas so that 75% or more are
                               in proper functioning condition by 1997
                               . .  . Achieve an advanced  ecological
                               status,  except  where   resource
                               management objectives, including proper
                               functioning condition, would  require an
                               earlier successional stage.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                 49

-------
      3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
                        Tracking Results
                           Progress toward this milestone's achievement is highly dependent on public and
                        private land management. Many measurements that can help describe progress will be
                        used by agencies and others who are working to restore terrestrial ecosystem functions,
                        area, and quality. A number of monitoring tools and data sources are proposed to measure
                        progress toward achieving this milestone.
                           Through its NBS and FWS, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has initiated
                        biological surveys of the nation's ecosystems and wildlife communities that will be
                        updated at regular intervals. These survey data indicate trends for species and vegetative
                        communities. DOI also maintains program data from its land and water management
                        agencies on the condition of grazing land (Bureau of Land Management), national park
                        lands (National Park Service), and so forth. To supplement these survey and program
                        data, satellite imaging and other techniques are being developed that will allow better
                        measurement of both the amounts and patterns of vegetation and, therefore, progress
                        toward achievement of the milestone.
                           Data and tools to monitor  wildlife trends are sketchy, but bird population data can be
                        used as a proxy for both the extent and connectedness of terrestrial ecosystems. Migra-
                        tory birds respond to changes  in the amount of habitat available for breeding and winter-
                        ing, and migratory and breeding patterns are affected by the mosaic of ecosystems across
                        the landscape. Breeding Bird Surveys, Christmas Bird Counts, the Feeder Watch Pro-
                        gram, the National Waterfowl Management Program, and  other data collection efforts are
                        conducted annually for migratory and resident bird species. Avian species data provide a
                        historical perspective and a baseline for measuring the success of future ecosystem
                        management efforts. Targets and trend data related to other wildlife and plant populations
                        can be developed as status information on nonavian species becomes available.
                           Some tools exist to monitor trends in the use of management and conservation
                        practices at both the private and federal levels. For example, USDA's Environmental
                        Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP) encompasses the Conservation
                        Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and Environmental Quality
                        Incentives Program (EQIP). These programs help  farmers and ranchers prevent soil
                        erosion and water pollution, protect farm and ranch land, conserve water used in agricul-
                        ture, preserve wildlife habitat, and encourage energy conservation. The Forestry Incen-
                        tives Program (FIP) and Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP), administered by the U.S.
                        Forest Service, facilitate responsible private forest management through use of manage-
                        ment plans. FIP encourages tree planting and timber stand improvement, while SIP
                        details strategies for managing wildlife, recreation, soils, fish, aesthetics, timber, and
                        other natural resources.
                           While USDA conservation programs do not track resource abundance, they do
                        provide measures of acreage managed with land conservation practices that protect soil,
                        native vegetation,  and wildlife. Information from ECARP, FIP, and SIP includes data on
                        participation, acreage enrolled, payments made, and implementation of conservation
                        practices. The National Resources Inventory (NRI), conducted by USDA's Natural
                        Resources Conservation Service, inventories soil, water, and related resources throughout
                        the country. Surveys are performed every 5 years and include data on soil characteristics,
                        land cover/use, erosion, land treatment, conservation treatment needs,  vegetation, and
                        potential for conversion to cropland. Land acreage enrolled in conservation or incentive
                        programs and the status of lands described in the NRI are  being considered as potential
                        indicators for tracking progress toward achieving this milestone. Other USDA data can
                        be used to track progress, such as vegetation and wildlife information from ECARP, FIP,
                        and other USDA programs that support ecosystem restoration.
50                                                           GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Strategy

   Overall principles for achieving the Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems goal include
ensuring that all relevant and identifiable ecological and economic consequences are
considered in decisions; improving coordination among federal agencies; forming
partnerships between federal, state, and local governments, tribes,
landowners, and other stakeholders; improving communication with
the public; carrying out federal responsibilities more efficiently and
cost-effectively; using the best science; improving information and
data management; and adjusting management direction as new
information becomes available. These principles are embodied in a
June 1995 report by the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force, The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustain-
able Economies. This report lays out a series of recommendations        opportunities to develop land due to the
                                                                  need for protecting  natural habitats.
   ,     -r.    ..     ,     .„ ,            ,  .        ,,       ,.
and specific actions that will be necessary to improve the coordma-
tion and collaboration of federal agencies.                            benef jts associated with ecosystem
                                                                     The Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
                                                                  milestones will have significant costs, but
                                                                  it is difficult to estimate them with the
                                                                  information currently available. Some of
                                                                  the costs will be in the form  of lost
                                                                              few
                                                                 protection will be more fully assessed.
   Establishing ecosystem protection as a national priority encour-
ages institutions and individuals to work toward a common set of
objectives. Local-, state-, and regional-level implementation of
ecosystem management approaches will ensure the integration of all factors—ecological,
economic, and social—affecting natural systems. The federal government will support, to
the extent possible, cooperation among private and nonprofit organizations in protecting
ecosystems. EPA proposes to continue working with other federal and public agencies
and private landowners to manage their lands using sound ecosystem management
principles to protect land,  water, and air resources. Much of the federal effort for terres-
trial ecosystem protection needs to focus on providing governments and private organiza-
tions with appropriate tools and capabilities. Some of the tools are described below.

Improved Scientific  Understanding, Monitoring Data,
and Analytical Tools
   Current efforts in managing terrestrial ecosystems are often  limited by lack of
ecological understanding,  limited monitoring information, and inadequate analysis tools.
Over the next decade, a concerted effort should be directed at strengthening the scientific
foundation for the conservation of biodiversity and protection of terrestrial ecosystems.
EPA and other agencies are taking steps to improve monitoring  and data management
systems through participation in the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the
National Environmental Monitoring and Research Network.

Improved Land Use  Decisions and Practices
   Land management decisions, ranging from small individual  landowner decisions to
large-scale decisions about development and land use, ultimately control the condition of
the nation's terrestrial ecosystems. Actions to strengthen the land use  decision process
should be characterized by a strong scientific foundation, a consideration of the economic
forces that often drive land use decisions, and an acceptance that land use planning can
help achieve a sustainable local economy that ensures healthy economic activity and
conserves natural resources and environmental quality. EPA will be a proponent for land
stewardship, using approaches like community-based environmental protection, which is
aimed at integrating environmental protection across geographic areas in collaboration
with local communities.
   Other federal agencies that support private landowners and manage public lands will
continue their work to protect and enhance natural and human-dominated ecosystems.
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, for example,  will develop conservation


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          51

-------
      3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
                        plans on rural lands to manage them for soil erosion control, protect wildlife and the
                        environment, and restore native vegetation and other life.

                        More Effective Government Institutions
                           A significant challenge for dealing with terrestrial ecosystems is changing existing
                        institutions and traditional relationships between government agencies, different levels of
                        government, nongovernment organizations, industry, and private citizens. The Inter-
                        agency Ecosystem Management Task Force has proposed a series of recommendations to
                        improve this coordination. At EPA, the change requires a shift from a regulatory focus to
                        include more nonregulatory approaches, as well as a shift from implementing environ-
                        mental protection one statute, or one pollutant, at a time to an approach that identifies
                        problems and solutions present in specific ecosystems. This place-based approach
                        requires different institutional relationships, and EPA will strive to demonstrate, through
                        its community-based environmental protection initiatives and a series of ecosystem
                        projects, many alternative approaches that can be replicated. These approaches will
                        include working with state and tribal partners to develop multimedia compliance assur-
                        ance plans for places that contain endangered species or places where high-risk threats to
                        human health and the environment are present.

                        Expanded Environmental Education
                           Environmental education is an integral part of instituting new approaches to protect-
                        ing the terrestrial environment. Many of the necessary actions must involve, and be led
                        by, landowners, businesses, citizens, and local institutions. Education efforts should be
                        directed at fostering the regional and local capabilities needed for ecosystem protection
                        projects. To engage in productive discussions about protecting specific ecosystems,
                        federal agencies will need to expand efforts that promote ecological literacy and aware-
                        ness of emerging policies (See Empowering People with Information and Education and
                        Expanding Their Right to Know).

                        Public-Private Funding for Habitat and Wildlife Conservation
                           Public-private partnerships can protect wildlife and their habitats. A large outdoor
                        industry takes in over $18 billion a year from Americans who engage in wildlife-
                        associated recreation4; funding wildlife and ecological conservation makes economic
                        sense. One way to protect wildlife, and the habitats and ecosystems on which they
                        depend, is to build mechanisms for beneficiaries to pay for wildlife protection. Sportsmen
                        support game species with fees on equipment and fuel taxes, but other public funding for
                        wildlife is largely for endangered species protection. Funding will be more effective if
                        species' habitats are protected before they are  driven to the brink of extinction. A revenue
                        instrument that could be used to forge a public-private funding partnership is user fees.
                        According to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a 5 percent
                        surcharge levied on  manufacturers' prices for outdoor products and recreational vehicles
                        could generate up to $350 million annually to  fund wildlife diversity programs. Publicly
                        collected revenues could be distributed through a combination of public agencies and
                        private organizations to protect wildlife habitat. Another way to raise public funds for
                        ecological and biodiversity protection is development fees that, in effect, are mitigation
                        for the losses of endangered and other species' habitat that development causes or has
                        caused. State and local taxes and other public  funding alternatives also can be used to
                        share costs with the  private sector.
                           There are many public and private initiatives and programs designed  to protect
                        wildlife and/or conserve natural resources, employing the approaches mentioned above
                        and others. EPA will continue to participate in or support these activities. They  include
                        the National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council, Partners in Flight (migratory
52                                                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
birds), Wildlife Habitat Council (corporate lands), the North American Waterfowl
Management Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and various place-based
efforts such as the Great Plains Initiative.
References

Text Notes
   I.    Aquatic ecosystems are addressed in milestones 1 and 2 in Chapter 2, Clean
           Waters.
   2.    Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the
           United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biologi-
           cal Report 28. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
           Biological Service.
   3.    USFWS. 1994. Recovery Program Endangered and Threatened Species, 1994
           Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
           and Wildlife Service.
   4.    USDOI and USDOC. 1993. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
           Associated Recreation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
           Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
           and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.

Milestone Data Sources
   M.I  Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Projections. Endangered Ecosys-
           tems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degrada-
           tion. Biological Report 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
           National Biological Service.
   M.2.  USFWS. 1994. Recovery Program Endangered and Threatened Species, 1994
           Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
           and Wildlife Service.

Figure Data Sources
   1.    Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Projections. Endangered Ecosys-
           tems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degrada-
           tion. Biological Report 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
           National Biological Service.
   2.    USFWS. 1994. Recovery Program Endangered and Threatened Species, 1994
           Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
           and Wildlife Service.
   3.    Ibid.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         53

-------
     3. Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems
54
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                         4.    Safe  Drinking  Water
                                 Long-Range Goal
                                 Every American public water system will provide
                                 water that is consistently safe to drink.
The Challenge

   Thanks to decades of effort by public and private organizations and the enactment of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), most Americans can turn on their taps without fear
of receiving unsafe water. The challenge associated with this goal is twofold. First, we
must ensure that people already receiving high-quality water continue to do so. Second,
we must reduce the percentage of the population who now drink
water from public systems in violation of health requirements.
   Ensuring consistently safe drinking water requires that govern-
ment (federal, state, tribal, and municipal) play a strong role in
protecting the water as it moves through the three stages of the
system—the raw source water, the water treatment plant, and the
pipes that deliver finished water from the treatment plant to the tap.
   •  Water supply source. Water withdrawn from a ground water
      aquifer, lake, reservoir, or  stream should be of high enough
      quality to use as a source for drinking  water supply. (See
      Clean Waters chapter.) Using polluted source water greatly
      increases the level and expense of treatment needed to
      provide finished water that meets public health standards.
   •  Water treatment plant.  Treatment plants remove harmful
      contaminants from the incoming raw water. Virtually all
      plants that treat surface water (e.g., water from rivers and
      lakes) use some form of disinfection. Many also employ a
      system of sediment basins and filtration processes. Ground
      water also is frequently treated, especially if it is pumped
      from aquifers underlying developed areas.
   •  Delivery system. The network of pumps, tanks, and pipes
      that stores and conveys the finished water to homes,
      businesses, and other distribution points must be designed
      and maintained to resist infiltration from sewage, runoff,
      and other pollution sources, including  lead solder in the
      piping system.
   EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded that drinking water contamination is one of
the highest environmental risks to human health.1 This conclusion is due, in part, to the
variability in quality of the raw water source and the potential for contamination from
materials used in the delivery system as the water travels to the consumer's tap.
   Over 90 percent of the people in the United States get their drinking water from
public supplies. Most public water systems meet drinking water standards. In 1994, 81
percent of the population served by community systems received water that had no
reported health violations (Fig. 1). Of course, that also means that 19 percent of those
served by community water systems, or approximately 46 million people, drank water
that violated health standards at least once during the year.
    Drinking Water Standards
   EPA sets national primary drinking
water standards in two ways: through the
establishment of maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) and through treatment
technique requirements.
   MCLs are the maximum permissible
levels of contaminants in drinking water
that is delivered to any user of a public
water system.
   Treatment techniques are procedures
that public water systems must follow to
ensure contaminants are limited in the
drinking water supply. EPA is authorized
to establish a treatment technique when
it is not economically or technologically
feasible to ascertain the level of a
contaminant. For example, techniques
like  filtration and disinfection are
established to remove microorganisms
such as Giardia lamblia, Legionnella, and
viruses, all of which are very difficult to
detect in water. Treatment requirements
also are set to control lead and copper
levels in drinking water.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                  55

-------
      4. Safe Drinking Water
        Fig. 1—Compliance of community drinking water systems with health requirements in 1994.
        Population served
        by community drinking
        water systems in 1994:
        243 million

        Number of community
        drinking water systems:
        57,000
       81 percent
   of population served
by drinking water systems
with no reported violations
  of health requirements*
                                               19 percent
                                              of population
                                          r  served by systems  ,
                                          with reported violations
                                                                 \
* As many as one-fourth
  of the community water
  systems did not
  complete all required
  monitoring. The
  compliance status of
  some of those could
  not be assessed from
  the data reported.
8 percent
total
conform
violations




9 percent
surface
water
treatment
violations



1 percent
lead and
copper
treatment
violations



<1 percent
chemical/
radiological
contamination
violations
              The highest risk from unsafe drinking water is exposure to waterborne pathogens, which can cause
           acute health problems requiring medical treatment. As shown in Fig. 2, the majority of waterborne
           outbreaks over the past two decades have been acute gastrointestinal illnesses for which the pathogen
           was unknown. However, parasitic pathogens have recently been noted to be the leading cause of
           waterborne disease outbreaks.
              Since the early 1980s, the number of public water systems reporting outbreaks has decreased. But
           for systems serving a large population, a waterborne disease outbreak can sharply impact a large
           number of people. The 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, for example, affected more than
           400,000 people, making it the largest waterborne disease outbreak ever reported in  the United States.
           Compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act is one way to reduce the probability
           of waterborne disease outbreaks in the future. Measuring progress remains an issue, however, because
           there is no national program to ensure consistent reporting of outbreaks or individual cases.
           Responsibilities

              EPA is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish and enforce drinking water safety
           standards and delegate primary enforcement authority (primacy) to the states. Currently, 49 states and 6
           U.S. territories have primacy. Together, EPA and the primacy states/territories regulate approximately
           190,000 public water  systems, which serve more than 240 million people. About 57,000 of these
           systems are classified as community water systems. They supply water to homes and businesses.
           Another 25,000 systems distribute water to schools and industries that serve at least 25 of the same
           people 6 months or more per year. The rest deliver water to transient users at roadside rest stops, parks,
           and other facilities.
               Whether the program is administered by EPA or the state/territory, all public water system operators
           must ensure that their drinking water is free of contaminants at levels that can pose a risk to human
           health. EPA has established safety standards for 81 contaminants,  including specific treatment require-
           ments for systems that use surface water and for communities where lead  in drinking water is a prob-
           lem. These safety standards either define the maximum level  at which a contaminant is allowed in water
56
                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Fig. 2—Waterborne outbreaks in the United States by year and type.
                                                              |  AGI  (Acute gastrointestinal illness of unknown origin)
                                                                  Parasitic
                                                                  Bacterial
                                                                  Viral
                                                              3  Chemical
           1971 197319751977197919811983 1985 198719891991 1993

                              Year
delivered to the tap or specify certain types of treatment (e.g., filtration or corrosion control) for
contaminants that are difficult to measure. Each standard requires monitoring, which varies by the type
and size of the system, and reporting. If contaminants are found to exceed the health-based standards,
public water suppliers are required to enhance treatment or take other action to reduce the levels below
the maximum contaminant level (MCL). New standards for priority contaminants will be developed as
required by the 1996 SDWA amendments.
   The 1996 SDWA amendments also establish a strong new emphasis on preventing contamination
problems through source water protection and enhanced water system management. The states are
central in creating prevention programs and helping water systems improve their operations to avoid
contamination. Congress established a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to assist states and
communities in installing and upgrading treatment facilities and strengthening the managerial, techni-
cal, and financial capacity of water systems to reliably deliver safe
drinking water. A portion of the SRF, which is authorized at
$1 billion annually through Fiscal Year 2003, will be used for
source water protection and other prevention programs.
   Although EPA has primary federal responsibility for establish-
ing drinking water standards, programs related to drinking water
quality also exist in the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Interior,
and Health and Human Services. Virtually all states have instituted
drinking water control programs that extend beyond EPA and other
federal requirements.
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   EPA proposes four drinking water milestones to be achieved by
2005. Milestone 1 sets a target for reducing the number of people
receiving potentially contaminated drinking water from public
water systems. The second milestone focuses on reducing to zero
the number of unfiltered community water systems in violation of
EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule. The third milestone is aimed
at increasing the percentage of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and other
surface water bodies that meet drinking water designated uses
under the Clean Water Act. Milestone 4 proposes an increase in the
percentage of people who receive water from systems that have
source water protection programs in place.
 RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
 Dept. of Health and Human Services
        Healthy People 2000
[By  2000,]  reduce  outbreaks  of
waterborne disease from infectious
agents and chemical contaminants to no
more than  11  per year.  (Baseline:
Average of 31 outbreaks per year during
1981-88.)
[By 2000,] reduce outbreaks  of water-
borne disease from infectious agents and
chemical poisoning in people served by
community water system to no more than
6 per year.  (Baseline: 13 during outbreaks
per year during 1981 -88.)

Note: Community  water systems are
public or privately owned systems that
serve large or small communities,
subdivisions, or trailer parks with at least
15 service connections or 25 year-round
residents.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                   57

-------
      4. Safe Drinking Water
    Federal
  Reviewers:
 Please provide
  other related
 agency targets
                      ••••linn
                      MILESTONE
                                  1
            By  2005,
                                              the population served by community
                                              water systems in violation of health-
                                              based requirements will  be reduced
                                              from  19 to 5 percent.
   RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
   Dept. of Health and Human Services
          Healthy People 2000
    [By 2000,] Increase to at least 85
  percent the proportion of people who
  receive  a supply of drinking water that
  meets the safe drinking water standards
  established by the EPA.  This target
  includes both  MCL and monitoring/
  reporting requirements.  (Baseline: 74
  percent of 58,099  community water
  systems serving approximately 80 percent
  of the population in 1988)
M.1—Percent of population served by
community water systems that are
reported in violation of health-based
requirements at least once during the
year.
              New requirements for
             filtration of surface water
              sources go into effect
      20 -i
      15-
11
It
II
10-
          1991  1992  1993  1994 2005

Note: As many as one-fourth of the water systems
did not complete all required monitoring. The
compliance status of some of these could not be
assessed from reported data. The exclusion of
monitoring/reporting violations might lead to
some underestimation.
   This milestone sets a target for reducing the number of people
who receive water from community drinking water systems that do
not meet EPA's health standards. Health-based requirements are
defined as the acceptable maximum contaminant level (MCL)
defined in the EPA drinking water regulations for the finished water
and related treatment technique requirements. The milestone does
not include systems that violate monitoring/reporting requirements.
Violations of EPA's health standards do not usually result in disease
outbreaks.  But violations are a surrogate measure for potential
exposure to harmful contaminants, which increases the probability
that an illness will result from drinking the water.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In 1991 and 1992, the population served by community water
 systems with violations was relatively low. In 1993 EPA's Surface
 Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) took effect. It required that water
 systems using inadequately protected  surface water install treat-
 ment to filter microbiological contaminants. This change resulted in
 an increase in violations from large and medium unfiltered water
 systems. In 1994, approximately 19 percent of the people served by
 drinking water systems (46 million people out of 243 million)
 received drinking water that did not meet all health requirements.
 About 21 million of the 46 million were served by systems that
 violated the SWTR.
    The milestone sets a 2005 target of 5 percent of the population
 receiving water from water systems that violate one or more health-
 based requirements during the year. This dramatic reduction in
 population at risk from unsafe drinking water will be due princi-
 pally to the substantial progress expected in converting unfiltered
 water systems to complete filtration treatment over the next decade.

 Tracking Results
    Progress will be measured with information compiled from the
 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), which will
 provide both the states and EPA greater capability to oversee and
 manage the drinking water program.
58
                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••inn
      MILESTONE
           2
By 2005,
every person served by a public
water system that draws from an
inadequately protected river, lake, or
reservoir will receive drinking water
that is adequately filtered.
  Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requires that public water systems
using inadequately protected surface water sources install filtration and disinfection
treatment to remove microbiological contaminants from the drinking water. Compliance
with this rule will reduce the probability of exposure to Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and
many other pathogens from drinking water.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   The deadline for having filtration treatment in place was June 29, 1993. One thousand
systems using unfiltered surface water sources, serving more than 12 million people,
were found to be in noncompliance on that date. At the end of 1995, the number of
systems that had not completed filtration treatment and did not meet all SWTR require-
ments was reduced to 393 (serving 9.9 million people). Based on consent schedules, EPA
expects an additional 127 systems to come into compliance by 1996. EPA's target is for
all of them to meet the SWTR requirements by 2005.

Tracking Results
   Progress will be measured with information compiled from EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Information System  (SDWIS), which will provide both the states and EPA greater
capability to oversee and manage the drinking water program.
                                                        M.2—Number of unfiltered systems
                                                        not in compliance with SWTR
                                                        requirements and population served.
                                                                         No. of systems

                                                                         Population served
                                                                  12.0
                                                        &
                                                        S.
                                                                 1993   1994   1995  2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAR 12/20/96
                                                              59

-------
      4. Safe Drinking Water
    Federal
  Reviewers:
 Please provide
  other related
 agency targets
      • •••inn
      MILESTONE
                                  3
By  2005,
                              90 percent of the nation's river and
                              stream miles and lake and reservoir
                              acres designated as drinking water
                              supplies will provide water that is
                              safe to use after conventional
                              treatment.
M.3—Percent of rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs safe for use as a public
drinking water supply.
     100n
                              90
               1994
   Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population is provided water by public water
systems that draw from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The quality of the source water is an
important factor in determining the level (and expense) of treatment needed to produce
finished water that meets safety standards. For pathogen removal, at a minimum source
(or raw) waters  require conventional treatment: coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and
disinfection. If a source becomes too polluted, it might not be economically or techno-
logically feasible to provide water that meets the EPA and state safety standards since
greater than conventional treatment might be required to make the water safe to drink.
   This milestone focuses on the quality of surface sources of drinking water. Using
water quality monitoring and other measures, each state and tribe assesses whether waters
designated as drinking water supplies are of high enough quality to actually be used as
drinking water sources. Protecting these designated water bodies requires watershed
management, including control of nonpoint and point sources of pollution.  In some cases,
management within the reservoir itself is also required to maintain high water quality
conditions year-round.

                   Past Trends and 2005 Target
                      Figure M.3 charts data from the most recent National Water
                   Quality Inventory Report to Congress along with the milestone
                   target. EPA estimates that given a reasonable level of effort toward
                   water quality improvement through further implementation of
                   source water protection programs (see milestone 4) and other
                   watershed protection efforts, 90 percent of the assessed river and
                   stream miles and lake and reservoir acres designated for drinking
                   water use will meet drinking water supply requirements by 2005.

                   Tracking Results
                      Progress toward achieving this milestone will be measured
                   using information submitted to EPA by states and tribes for the
                   National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Currently
                   data are reported by the states once every 2 years. EPA and its
                   public and private partners are working together to provide a more
                   comprehensive assessment of the nation's waters. (See box on the
                   National Water Quality Inventory on page 24.)
      2005
In 1994, 17 percent of the nation's rivers and
streams and 42 percent of its lakes designated for
drinking water use were assessed by the states
and tribes. Consequently, the 1994 column is
based on these limited assessments. The target
might change as more waters are assessed.
60
                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i ••••mill
      MILESTONE
           4
By 2005,
60 percent of the population served
by community water systems will
receive their water from systems with
source water protection programs in
place.
  Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   A critical component of providing safe drinking water is assurance that the source of
the water is not polluted. This can be accomplished by establishing source water protec-
tion programs. Although EPA's emphasis under the Safe Drinking Water Act has histori-
cally focused on programs for ground water sources (known as wellhead protection
programs), the emphasis on surface water protection programs is expected to increase
substantially in the next few years.
   A successful ground water protection program has four elements: (1) a geographic
delineation of the area covered by the program, (2) an inventory to identify all potential
sources of contamination, (3) a contingency plan specifying action to be taken if an
accidental spill or other incident threatens the water supply, and (4) effective management
and regulation of potential sources of contamination. These same elements will be needed
for surface water protection programs.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   As of 1993, five percent of the population served by community drinking water
systems was known to receive water from systems with wellhead protection programs.
Data on surface water source protection programs are not available. To meet the 2005
goal, EPA will provide  guidance to communities on establishing source water protection
programs. Special focus will be placed  on small systems, which often lack the necessary
financial, managerial, and technical capability to implement effective programs.

Tracking Results
   Various methods may be used to measure progress toward
implementing source water protection programs. Current tracking     ^^^^^^^^^
of local-level implementation through the wellhead protection
program biennial report will be expanded to include communities
that rely on surface water. This tracking mechanism will measure
the population  protected through implementation efforts, as well as
the number of water systems addressed.
                              M.4—Percent of population and
                              community water systems with
                              ground water or surface water
                              protection programs.
                                                                     Population
                                                       Systems
                                                               100n
                                                           
                                                           TO
                                                           C
                                                           d>
                                                           O
                                                                     1993  2005
                                                                                    1993   2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                61

-------
      4. Safe Drinking Water
                       Strategy

                           The passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996 substantially
                       changes the national drinking water program for water utilities, states, and EPA, and
                       provides greater protection and information to the 240 million Americans served by
                       public water systems. The amendments increase state flexibility, provide for more
                       efficient investments by water systems, give better information to consumers, and
                       strengthen EPA's scientific work in setting drinking water standards.2 The SDWA
                       amendments will guide government efforts to achieve the Safe Drinking Water mile-
                       stones and will help to ensure that every American is provided water that is consistently
                       safe to drink.
                           Four themes characterize these efforts:
                           1.  New and stronger approaches to prevent contamination of drinking water.
                           2.  Better information for consumers, including the "right to know" about local
                              drinking water quality.
                           3.  Regulatory improvements, including better science, prioritization of effort, and
                              risk assessment.
                           4.  New funding for states and communities through a Drinking Water State Revolv-
                              ing Fund.
                 Costs
     In a 1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a  Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated  that the
  annual public  and private costs of
  meeting safe drinking water standards
  were approximately $3.6 billion in 1990
  and would rise to $6.6 billion by 2000 to
  fully meet standards expected to be in
  place by then (constant 1986 dollars).
  Achievement of the proposed milestones
  might require implementation  of some
  programs not anticipated when these
  estimates were  prepared, which would
  add to the costs.  Over the next few years,
  the costs and benefits associated with
  safe drinking water programs will be more
  fully assessed.
                   New and Stronger Prevention Approaches
                      Source water protection. The SDWA amendments establish a
                   strong new emphasis on preventing contamination problems
                   through source water protection and enhanced water system
                   management.  The states will be central in creating and focusing
                   prevention programs and helping water systems improve their
                   operations to avoid contamination problems.  States will assess the
                   susceptibility to contamination of source waters of public water
                   systems. These assessments will provide the information necessary
                   for states to develop tailored monitoring programs and for water
                   systems to seek help from states in protecting source water or
                   initiating local government efforts.
                      Capacity building. The amendments create a program to build
                   nationally on the demonstrated success of several states in strength-
                   ening the managerial, technical, and financial capacity of water
                   systems to reliably deliver safe drinking water.  State programs will
                   have (1) the legal authority to ensure that new water systems have
                   sufficient technical, managerial, and financial capacity to  meet
                   drinking water standards and (2) a strategy to identify and assist
existing water systems needing improvements in these capacities or aid to comply with
standards. Water systems in significant noncompliance status will be identified, and
states will report to EPA on the success of capacity development efforts.
   Operator certification. One of the most important, cost-effective means to strengthen
drinking water safety is to improve the knowledge and skills of public water system
operators. The amendments require  all states to implement a program of operator
certification to ensure every water system has a qualified operator to meet increasingly
complicated operating demands.

Better Consumer Information/Right-to-Know
   The consumer information provisions of the SDWA amendments herald  a new era of
public involvement in drinking water protection.
   Consumer confidence reports and other consumer information. Community water
systems will send customers an annual report with information about their source water
62
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                                      Partnership for Safe Water

      In 1995, EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced a new partnership between EPA, the states, and water
   suppliers aimed at safeguarding drinking water. In light of the uncertainties regarding the occurrence and control
   of Cryptosporidium and other emerging microbial contaminants, the Partnership for Safe Water seeks to safeguard
   surface water supplies around the country and to demonstrate to the public that the federal government, states,
   and local water supply agencies can work together to protect drinking water supplies. National partners include
   EPA, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA),
   the National Association of Water Companies, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and the
   American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
      The Partnership for Safe  Water encourages individual water suppliers to assess  their facilities, treatment
   processes, operating and maintenance procedures, operator training,  and management oversight practices to
   identify areas that will enhance their ability to prevent entry of microbial contaminants to treated water, and to
   voluntarily implement those actions which are appropriate for the system. The Partnership for Safe Water is being
   conducted in four phases.
      Phase 1—Commitment to  Basic Program Requirements. Basic program requirements include complying for 6
   months with the Surface Water Treatment Rule, which ensures that water systems using surface sources filter
   their water.
      Phase II—Data  Collection. Partners commit to collecting basic plant and  plant performance data and to
   evaluating areas where performance may be enhanced.
      Phase III—Self-Assessment and Correction. Partners review plant design, operation, maintenance, and
   administrative factors to identify performance-limiting issues and to implement corrective actions short of major
   construction or capital expenditures.
      Phase IV—Composite Correction Program. This program includes the same steps identified in Phase III, but
   uses an independent and more detailed evaluation. Corrective actions are implemented  if they do not entail major
   construction or major capital expenditures.
      Since the program's official initiation in September 1995, when utilities were mailed the self-assessment guidance
   and a Partnership Agreement for signature, 170 utilities serving 80 million people have joined the Partnership.
   The utilities have submitted baseline reports including analysis of one year's turbidity data and are working on the
   self-assessment of their plant  performance. The Partners have established a committee of volunteers to review
   the adequacy of the utilities' self-assessment process and recommend to EPA whether a certificate of completion
   should be awarded. Prior to beginning a major effort to train volunteers, EPA and a small initial group of volunteers
   have tested the evaluation  process at two utilities that had already completed self-assessments. Training should
   begin shortly, as well as a push to increase utility participation and recruit volunteers for the evaluation teams.
      Systems taking action  to reduce risk from microbial contaminants learn a great deal through their efforts.
   Participation in the Partnership facilitates sharing of information among  water systems. The  Partnership for Safe
   Water will develop, improve, and provide tools that all water systems can use to take similar actions and achieve
   similar results.
and the level of contaminants in the treated drinking water. States will also make avail-
able to the public a statewide annual report on violations of national primary drinking
water regulations. Additionally, every 3 years states will report to EPA and the public on
their efforts toward capacity building. Citizens will be encouraged to comment on the
annual priority list of projects eligible for SRF assistance.

Regulatory Improvements

   Recognizing that responsible flexibility (e.g., decisions based on good science) and a
better prioritization of effort could improve protection of public health, the 1996 SDWA
amendments establish a new process  for regulating drinking water contaminants.
   New risk-based contaminant selection. Instead of developing regulations on 25
contaminants every 3 years as required by the 1986 SDWA, EPA now has the flexibility
to decide whether to regulate a contaminant after completing a required review of at least
five contaminants every 5 years.  EPA will use three criteria for deciding to regulate a


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                           63

-------
      4. Safe Drinking Water
                                 New York City Watershed Agreement

          "By putting in place the mechanisms for protecting New York City's drinking water at the source,
          by keeping contamination out of the water supply in the first place, we offer the promise of protect-
          ing public health while saving billions of dollars for ratepayers."   - Carol Browner

          Since 1991,  EPA has been promoting the watershed approach as a mechanism to achieve the next
    generation of water protection.  For the New York City Watershed Agreement, the Safe Drinking Water Act
    served as the "driver" for using a watershed approach. It has made a difference.
          Nine million residents of New York City and surrounding suburbs rely for the source of their drinking
    water on a series of reservoirs located many miles away in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds in upstate
    New York.  New York City owns less than 10 percent of the watersheds, which  cover about 1,900 square
    miles.
          EPA's Surface  Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), promulgated in 1989, requires filtration of all surface
    water supplies (rivers and lakes) to protect against microbial contamination. This requirement can be waived
    if a water system's treatment processes and natural conditions provide safe  water and if the watershed is
    actively protected to ensure that safety in the future.  Under the SWTR's authority EPA worked with New York
    City, New York State, and local communities on a program to implement this watershed protection requirement
    in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds.
          In 1993, EPA issued New York City a waiver of the filtration requirement on the condition that the city
    would take numerous steps to maintain and protect the Catskill/Delaware's drinking water quality. EPA then
    urged New York's governor to convene a group representing New York City, New York State, the watershed
    communities, EPA,  and environmental groups to negotiate an effective and equitable watershed program.
          The negotiations produced a landmark agreement that successfully resolves long-standing controversies
    and sets forth responsibilities and benefits for all major parties. The city will finalize its regulations for watershed
    land uses, acquire  sensitive lands to protect key  reservoirs and waterways, conduct more extensive water
    quality testing in the watershed, and support upstate/downstate partnership programs. New York State will
    adopt the city's watershed regulations.
          The agreement represents historic progress by moving New York City and the Catskill/Delaware
    watersheds past many decades of controversy toward a commitment to complementary, mutually beneficial
    goals and solutions.3
                        contaminant: (1) the contaminant adversely affects human health; (2) it is known or
                        substantially likely to occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of
                        public health concern; and (3) regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health
                        risk reduction. By making risk prioritization dominant in the selection  of contaminants to
                        be regulated, this approach departs dramatically from the previous law.
                           Occurrence information. The collection, organization, and ready availability of
                        contaminant occurrence data will take on unprecedented importance. Monitoring for
                        unregulated contaminants will be streamlined, and a publicly accessible national database
                        on occurrences of regulated and unregulated contaminants will be established.
                           Cost-benefit analysis and research for new standards.  In developing all future
                        drinking water standards, EPA will conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis, provide
                        comprehensive and understandable information to the public, and use the best available
                        peer-reviewed science and supporting studies. Flexibility is built in by allowing overall
                        risk reduction in instances where certain means of controlling one contaminant might
                        increase the risk from another (risk-risk balancing).
                           Arsenic, radon, disinfection by-products/Cryptosporidium, and sulfate.  Under the
                        new amendments, arsenic will be regulated by January 2001. Sulfate is slated to be
                        among the first five contaminants for which EPA will determine the need for regulation.
                        Risk assessment for radon and a study of risk reduction benefits from various mitigation
                        measures will also be undertaken, with regulations forthcoming.  Disinfectant by-
                        products and Cryptosporidium will be regulated according to the schedule agreed to in
                        1994 by an EPA-led regulatory negotiation committee.


64                                                           GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund for States and Communities
   The creation of a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to assist communities
in installing and upgrading drinking water treatment facilities is among the most impor-
tant changes in the nation's drinking water program. The SRF is authorized for a total of
$9.6 billion through Fiscal Year 2003. States are authorized to use SRF funds for new
prevention programs, and EPA is encouraging states to place a high priority on these
activities.
References

Text Notes
   1.     USEPA. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environ-
            mental Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
            Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board.
   2.     USEPA. 1996. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996: General Guide
            to Provisions. August 1996. EPA 810-S-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S.
            Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
   3.     USEPA. 1996. Exerpt from New York City Watershed Progress Piece (internal
            correspondence, November 5,1996.) Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen-
            tal Protection Agency, Office of Water.

Milestone Data Sources
   M.I    USEPA. 1994. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
   M.2    Ibid.
   M.3    USEPA. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress.
            Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
   M.4    State Wellhead Protection Program Biennial Reports, 1993.

Figure Data Sources
   1.     State Wellhead Protection Program Biennial Reports, 1995.
   2.     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993. CDC Surveillance Summa-
             ries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 42 (SS-5).
         Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1996. CDC Surveillance Summa-
             ries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45 (SS-1).
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                        65

-------
     4. Safe Drinking Water
66
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                       5.   Safe  Food
                              Long-Range Goal
                              The foods Americans consume will continue
                              to be safe for all people to eat.
The Challenge

   Although most of the food consumed in the United States is safe to eat, residues of
pesticides and other chemicals can contaminate food during production, processing,
marketing, storage, transportation, and preparation. Pesticides are used to prevent pests
from damaging or contaminating our food, helping to ensure more abundant and more
wholesome food at lower prices. At some levels, chemical residues can cause serious
acute and chronic health effects, such as cancer and genetic damage. In fact, during the
first two decades of this century, major food safety problems in the meat packing industry
and chemical or physical contamination of food threatened the health of many Ameri-
cans, providing the impetus for the establishment of federal food safety laws.
   In an effort to protect public health, EPA and other federal agencies have taken steps
to ensure the safety of the food supply. Regulatory programs have been established that
seek to keep harmful residues out of food by making sure that chemicals approved for use
on food are safe, and by preventing contamination with unauthorized chemical residues.
The effectiveness of these programs has been shown by data collected over the past
decade that indicate that only a very small fraction of the food supply has excess or
illegal pesticide residues. EPA has been successful in eliminating several widely used
food-production pesticides that were  contaminating the food supply and endangering
public health—DDT, chlordane, heptachlor, aldrin, and dieldrin.
   The challenge facing the nation is not only to maintain the current high level of food
safety but also to cost-effectively provide safer food in the future. EPA will continue its
work to eliminate any unacceptable risks from existing chemicals in the food supply and
to prevent any new toxic  chemicals from contaminating food.
Responsibilities

   Satisfactory protection of the food supply in our complex production, processing, and
marketing system involves the coordinated and concerted action of multiple actors. EPA
and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) work with other federal agencies, state and
local government, nongovernment organizations, and industry to protect the foods
Americans eat.
   The federal role in ensuring safe food is defined by several laws including the 1938
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the 1972 Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FFDCA is the principal statute that guides
federal regulation of food safety.  It authorizes EPA to establish tolerances, or maximum
allowable levels, for pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities and, in some
cases, processed foods.  Both FFDCA and FIFRA were amended in 1996 with the
passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which establishes a uniform, health-
based standard for pesticide residues in food. FFDCA also gives FDA the responsibility


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                        67

-------
      5. Safe Food
                        of regulating veterinary drugs administered to food-producing animals, as well as
                        nonpesticidal chemicals like food additives and coloring.
                           FIFRA requires the regulation of pesticide use and gives EPA the authority to review
                        and approve or disapprove existing and new commercial pesticides through a registration
                        or licensing process. As part of this process, pesticide manufacturers are required to
                        submit data on the health and environmental effects of their products to EPA. EPA's
                        programs do not control other food issues; nonchemical contamination and spoilage, for
                        example, are generally the responsibilities of FDA and the U.S. Department of Agricul-
                        ture (USDA).
                           Although FIFRA and FFDCA define a strong federal role in ensuring the safety of our
                        nation's food,  others also have important responsibilities. Specifically, state and tribal
                        pesticide regulatory agencies play fundamental roles in implementing and enforcing
                        pesticide use requirements and in educating the public on food safety issues. FDA and
                        USDA also enforce tolerance levels on food in interstate commerce and monitor residue
                        levels in the marketplace.
                        Environmental Milestones for 2005

                           Progress will be measured by three environmental milestones and several other
                        objectives which appear in the strategy section. Data for these measures will be obtained
                        from FDA and USDA, as well as other sources. FDA monitors a number of industrial
                        chemicals, environmental contaminants, and pesticides in food. USDA also collects data
                        on chemical residues in the food supply, including meat, poultry, and eggs. Both FDA
                        and USDA data will be used to monitor trends in chemical residues and ensure compli-
                        ance with established standards.
                           Although EPA, FDA, and USDA data and collaborative food safety projects are
                        referred to in this chapter, the safe food milestones apply only to those food safety
                        concerns which are the responsibility of EPA. Fish and shellfish and sediment contamina-
                        tion targets are addressed in the Clean Waters chapter (milestone 3) and Restoration of
                        Contaminated Sites chapter (milestone 7).
                           With the exception of milestone 1, this chapter deals with reducing risks from legally
                        applied food-use pesticides, that is, those used according to label instructions. Illegal or
                        improper application, or misuse, is dealt with routinely through state and federal enforce-
                        ment and compliance programs.
68                                                           GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                    iiini
      MILESTONE
           1
Through  2005,
the frequency of illegal pesticide
residues in food will remain at or
below the current low level.
  Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   One measure of potential human health risks from contaminated food is the extent of
illegal pesticide residues found in food. Increases in illegal residues could have serious
effects on human health and reduce public confidence in the food supply. Illegal pesticide
residues include both unauthorized chemicals at any level (zero tolerance) and authorized
chemicals at levels above established EPA standards (above tolerance levels).

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In general, pesticide residues in food have remained at low levels for many years. In
1994, only about 1 percent of domestic food samples (55 out of 5,366 samples) contained
illegal pesticide residues or exceeded established tolerance levels. In imported foods, the
frequency was 3.6 percent (197 out of 5,488 samples). In 1987, 1.5 percent of domestic
samples and 3.4 percent of imported foods exceeded tolerance levels. Achieving this
milestone will prevent the escalation of current low levels of illegal residues and conse-
quent health risks  to the U.S. population.

Tracking Results
   FDA is responsible for enforcement of food tolerance levels (except in meat, poultry,
and eggs). Under its food surveillance monitoring program, FDA collects monitoring data
on pesticide residues that exceed these  levels. Samples are analyzed and weighted by
factors such as volume of production and past history  of tolerance violations. Samples
span  a range of foods and chemicals and help identify changes from year to year. The
results are reported by FDA every year and will be used to track
progress toward this milestone.
   USDA pesticide residue data for meat, poultry, and eggs also
will be obtained and used to track progress. USDA data are now      ^____-i______
becoming available and will be used in the future to complement
FDA data.
                             M.1—Percent of domestic and
                             imported food samples with illegal
                             pesticide residues.
                                                                5-


                                                                4-


                                                            c   3-


                                                            S.   2-


                                                                1-


                                                                0
                                                                  '87  '88  '89  '90  '91   '92   '93  '94


                                                           Illegal residue refers to chemicals detected at
                                                           levels above established tolerances or for which
                                                           there is no tolerance.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                69

-------
      5. Safe Food
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••inn
 MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
                         there will be a significant
                         reduction in the use of the food
                         production pesticides that have
                         the highest potential to cause
                         cancer.
M.2a—Percent of acre treatments with
pesticide active ingredients used in U.S.
crop production in 1992, by cancer
categories.
Acre treatments refer to application of a pesticide to
one acre of cropland one time.
M.2b—Percent of pesticide active
ingredient volume used in U.S. crop
production in 1992, by cancer categories.
No evidence of
cancer (47%)


                   This milestone tracks the quantities of cancer-causing
                (carcinogenic) pesticides used annually in crop production.
                Cancer is a major public health concern and a principal focus
                of food safety programs at FDA and EPA. One way to reduce
                adverse health effects associated with food is to decrease the
                use of pesticides that can cause cancer. EPA has already
                removed from use a number of pesticides and other chemicals
                that can cause cancer. Further progress can be achieved by
                replacing carcinogenic pesticides with other chemicals and
                with nonchemical pest controls.

                Past Trends and 2005 Target
                   Baselines are being developed using methods established
                by EPA for rating chemicals according to their potential for
                causing cancer. Pesticides are rated on an alphabetical scale
                from A to E. The A-rated pesticides are known to cause cancer
                in humans, whereas the E-rated pesticides have shown no
                evidence to date of causing cancer. Preliminary data for 1992
                reveal that of the 393 pesticides used most often in the United
                States, those with the highest cancer-causing potential are a
                relatively small fraction. There is no reported use of A-rated
                pesticides in food production. There are 48  B-rated  chemicals;
                these represent 11 percent of active pesticide ingredients and
                are used in 7 percent of treated acres. These data will be used to
                develop more specific targets for reductions in the use of
                cancer-causing pesticides. EPA also is  updating its cancer-
                rating guidelines, and the results of this update will  be reflected
                in tracking progress toward this milestone in the future.

                 Tracking Results
                   EPA data on the cancer-causing potential of pesticides, as
                well as data from USDA and other sources, will be  used to
                calculate the amount of pesticide used and the crop  acreage
                treated for pesticide categories A though E.
70
                              GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goats, Milestones, and Strategies
       • •••Illl!
       MILESTONE
            3
By  2005,
all pesticide residues in food will
meet the statutory standard of
"reasonable certainty of no harm."
   This milestone addresses further reductions in the theoretical risks from the 11
percent of pesticide active ingredients that could present a lifetime health risk at maxi-
mum allowable residue levels. EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System determines whether
a person's exposure to individual pesticides in food has the potential to exceed public
health standards. This evaluation system is used routinely for all pesticides for which
tolerances (maximum allowable levels) have been established. It takes into account the
estimated percentage of crops treated with a particular pesticide and the amount of treated
food consumed by different age groups. The system compares the resulting exposure
estimate with the reference dose (RfD) for the chemical across all crops. The RfD is an
estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a person's life
span, provides a reasonable certainty of no harm.
   EPA is developing a database and the capability to aggregate these calculations across
all chemicals and crop tolerance levels to arrive at values that can be used to evaluate
trends over time. Separate calculations can be made for infants and children, as well as
for the overall population. These data reveal the extent to which risks are above safety
standards and should be reduced.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   As of 1995, about 50 pesticide active ingredients (out of a total of 453 pesticide active
ingredients that have  established tolerance levels) had significant RfD exceedances,
taking into account anticipated residues and estimated percent of
crop treated. Achieving the milestone will eliminate all instances      -^^——^———
where the RfD is exceeded.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
Tracking Results
   Each year, EPA will report the number of RfD exceedances by
pesticides used in food production. In addition, EPA will develop
baseline data on aggregate exposure as a percentage of the RfD.
EPA will use these data to establish new targets for reducing the
number of pesticides for which the estimated exposures are greater
than 75 percent of the RfD.
                               M.3—Number of pesticides with food
                               tolerances that potentially exceed
                               "reasonable certainty of no harm"
                               (RfD).
                                      60 -i
                                      50-
                                      40-
                                               50
                                                               Q.
                                                              •5
                                                               O
                                                                            1995
                                                                                          2005
                                                             The number charted in 1995 (50) represents 11%
                                                             of a total of 453 pesticides.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                   71

-------
      5. Safe Food
                        Strategy
                 Costs
      In a 1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated that the
  annual public  and private costs of
  meeting all pesticide standards (not just
  those for food safety) were approximately
  $980 million in 1990 and would rise to
  $1.7 billion by 2000 to fully meet
  standards expected to be in place by then
  (constant 1986 dollars). Achievement of
  the proposed milestones  might require
  implementation  of some programs not
  anticipated when these estimates were
  prepared, which would add to the costs.
  Over the next few years, the costs and
  benefits associated with food safety
  programs will be more fully assessed.
                   Pollution prevention is the heart of the strategy for achieving the food safety goal. The
                strategy involves encouraging safer means of pest control and reducing exposure to
                higher-risk pesticides. It is designed to maintain appropriate policies and standards for
                pesticides and other chemicals; implement and enforce regulatory policies, standards, and
                                   specific product controls; use cooperative, voluntary, and educa-
                                   tional approaches to achieve program goals; and monitor and
                                   evaluate program performance to ensure cost-effectiveness.
                                      A very important aspect of EPA's food safety strategy is reliance
                                   on the initiative and cooperation of many partners. State and tribal
                                   pesticide regulatory agencies have important roles in implementing
                                   and enforcing pesticide policies and educating the public. Other
                                   partners include the pesticide manufacturers and users, environmen-
                                   tal and public interest groups, the news media, and other federal and
                                   international agencies.
Fig. 1—U.S. crop acreage under IPM.
  £
  o
  <0
  CL
       100n
80-
       60-
 Z.    40-
  o
  CD
 Q.
       20 -I
     Comprehensive,
     nationwide data
     currently under
     development by
       USD A in
     cooperation with
         EPA
                1995
                   Reducing Unacceptable Health Risks
                      All the milestones are concerned with reducing unacceptable
                   health risks associated with pesticides used on food. To help
                   achieve them, the federal government will agressively promote the
                   use of integrated pest management (IPM). By 2005, the percent of
                   U.S. crop acreage under integrated pest management will
                   increase to 90 percent.
                      IPM is a pest control approach that minimizes pesticide use and
                   maximizes reliance on nonchemical controls. It combines biologi-
                   cal, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to minimize risks to
human health and the environment, while providing economically sound levels of pest
control. For example, rather than applying pesticides on a set schedule, IPM uses
techniques such as field scouting to determine if pests numbers have reached a "damage
threshold" before chemicals are used. IPM also emphasizes preservation of beneficial
insects and slowing or preventing the development of pesticide resistance. The effective-
ness of IPM requires the support of pesticide user groups, extension specialists, research-
ers, custom applicators, pest management consultants, pesticide suppliers, and agencies
like USDA and EPA.
   IPM programs have already begun to reduce our dependence on chemical controls.
Consumers expect continued reductions in pesticide use. As IPM increases, human health
risks will be reduced.
                      EPA is currently working with USDA and grower groups to
                   promote IPM under the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
                   Program (PESP). Several partnerships with grower groups have
                   been established in the last year, and many more are planned.
                   Partnerships involve public commitments by users to the principles
                   of IPM and particular goals for training and participation. Each
                   year, EPA intends to present data on crop production under IPM, in
                   terms of the number of PESP partnerships in place and the scope of
                   crop coverage.
                      Other mechanisms that EPA will use to reduce unacceptable
                   risks include:
                   •    Implementation ofFQPA. The Food Quality Protection Act of
                        1996 contains many provisions that will assist EPA in address-
       2005              ing unacceptable health risks. These  provisions include a
72
                                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                     Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
       review of all existing tolerances to ensure that they meet the new, health-based
       standard, and incentives for the registration of safer pesticides and the use of
       alternatives to pesticides.
    •   Reregistration of existing pesticides. Congress has directed EPA to reregister or
       take off the market all existing pesticides originally registered when standards for
       government approval were less stringent than they are today. Reregistration
       reduces risk by eliminating uses that do not meet current standards. All residue
       limits for pesticides in food or animal feed are being reassessed to ensure they are
       appropriate.
    •   Special review. A formal process is used for determining whether use of a suspect
       pesticide poses unreasonable risks to people or the environment. During the
       process, a detailed review of a pesticide's risks and benefits is conducted, and a
       decision is made as to whether future use will be authorized.  EPA has evaluated
       more than 100 pesticides or groups of pesticides through this program.  Many
       chemicals and uses have been eliminated or restricted to reduce dietary and other
       risks since the program began in the early 1970s.
    •   Field implementation and communication. EPA uses a range of outreach ap-
       proaches for pesticide users, for agencies implementing various pesticide pro-
       grams and projects, and for the general public. Outreach is essential to protect
       workers, endangered species, and ground water; to provide training of pesticide
       applicators; to promote integrated pest management and environmental steward-
       ship; and to support compliance through EPA's regional programs and those of the
       states and tribes. EPA also is working to make pesticide registration information
       more easily available to the public.
    •   Policy, regulations, and guidelines. EPA is continually developing new policies
       and streamlining existing ones to keep up with newly discovered risks and
       scientific advances, to be more flexible and cost-effective, and to harmonize its
       pesticide program requirements with those of other nations.

Increasing the Use of Safer Pesticides
    Milestones 2 and 3 move toward the long-range goal by using safer pesticide ingredi-
ents. Pesticide registration strategies provide a key to achieving these milestones. By
2005,75 percent of new pesticide registrations will be for safer
(reduced risk) pesticides. In addition, by 2005, all "inert"            -^^———^~—
ingredients in registered pesticide products will be safe (see Fig.
3).
   Compared to conventional pesticides, certain chemical and
biological pesticides have a lower potential for human health risks.
These are referred to as "safer" pesticides. Naturally occurring
compounds and biological pesticides, such as fungi, bacteria,
viruses, and other microbial pesticides, can be classified as safer
pesticides if they have a nontoxic mode of action. The number of
new active pesticide ingredients that fall into the biological or
reduced risk category has varied in recent years, from 2 in FY 1990
to a high of 15 in FY 1994. As more of these safer pesticides are
registered and then used by growers as alternatives, the risk to food
consumers will be reduced.
   EPA is adopting a program goal to demonstrate a preference for
the registration of safer pesticides, which will encourage their
development, registration, and manufacture. Criteria for character-
izing safer active ingredients are being developed, taking into
consideration factors like toxicity, persistence, environmental
mobility, and bioconcentration potential. EPA is granting regulatory
Fig. 2—Number of new pesticide
active ingredients registered that are
classified safer (reduced risk).
 !9 <2
 .y 'c
 a) '"6
 Q. <1>
        40-,
        30-
        20-
                                     31
        10-
                   '91
                         '92
                               '93
                                    '94
The number above each black column is the num-
ber of pesticides classified as safer. The topmost
number is the total number of new pesticides.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                       73

-------
      5. Safe Food
Fig. 3—Number of food-use inert
ingredients in pesticides that have
not been reviewed and approved.
 
       800 -,
      600-
400-
       200-
             Early
             1980s
                   relief for products with nontoxic modes of action so that developing
                   and marketing these products is less expensive. EPA is also forming
                   a new organizational unit to focus on registration of safer pesticides
                   and pollution prevention activities. Based on increases over the past
                   year, EPA expects the percentage of new reduced-risk active
                   ingredients to increase each year, to 75 percent by 2005.
                      Pesticides used in food production can contain chemical
                   components other than the active ingredients. These "inert" compo-
                   nents can be found in foods, and, in some cases, might present
                   unacceptable health risks. Their risks might be comparable to those
                   of active ingredients, including both long-term risks, such as cancer
                   or nervous system disorders, and short-term risks, such as nausea,
                   dizziness, and skin or eye irritation.
                      In  the mid-1980s EPA established a new policy that required
                   more stringent review of inert ingredients. The requirements
                   included submission of safety data by applicants and review by the
                   Agency to determine the acceptability of any risks. All new inerts
contained in proposed pesticide registrations must have a database adequate to evaluate
risks, dependent on toxicity and the use pattern of the chemical. The policy requires inerts
in food-use pesticides to undergo the most extensive testing.
   In addition to new inerts, EPA is reevaluating inerts in previously registered pesti-
cides, categorizing them based on their known toxicity, and making determinations on
them. EPA has reviewed about 300 of the existing food use inerts and will make determi-
nations on the remaining 300 food use inerts and 1,400 non-food use inerts by 2005,
eliminating the use of those which have been demonstrated to cause health problems.
   EPA also will approve new pesticides for use in line with current health and safety
standards, with special emphasis on encouraging the use of safer pesticides and better
application technology/practices. Finally, EPA will promote special initiatives to reduce
pesticide users' dependency on pesticides and increase the use of both integrated pest
management programs and safer pesticide products.
                       1995
                                2005
                        References

                        Milestone Data Sources
                          M.I    FDA. 1995. Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1994; Surveillance
                                    Sample Violation Rates for Foods, 1987-1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Food
                                    and Drug Administration, Division of Programs and Enforcement Policy.
                          M.2a  S. Nako. 1994. EPA staff estimates based on EPA/OPP cancer ratings and
                                    Doane Pesticide Usage Data Base to be included in OPP Annual Report for
                                    FY96 and later years and/or EPA Annual Pesticide Market Estimates
                                    Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
                                    Pesticide Programs.
                          M.2b  Ibid.
                          M.3    USEPA. 1995. To be published in Office of Pesticide Programs Annual Report
                                    for FY96 and later years. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                    Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.

                        Figure Data Sources
                          1.    USEPA. Estimates to be made by USDA in cooperation with EPA and to be
                                   published in OPP Annual Report for FY96 and later years. Washington, DC:
                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
                                   Toxic Substances.
74
                                                      GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
  2.    USEPA. Chemicals Registered for the First Time as Pesticidal Active Ingredi-
           ents under FIFRA. EPA733-B-94-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen-
           tal Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
  3.    USEPA. To be reported in OPP Annual Report for FY96 and later years, based
           on Agency file data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
           Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                       75

-------
     5. Safe Food
76                                          GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                            Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                     6.   Safe  Homes,  Schools,
                            and   Workplaces
                            Long-Range Goal
                            All Americans will live, learn, and work in safe and
                            healthy environments.
The Challenge

   Regardless of where we live or work in the United States—in rural areas, cities, or
suburbs—we are exposed to pollutants that can affect our health and productivity. Toxic
chemicals, including pesticides, used in and around the workplace can threaten the health
of workers. Products used in the home can also contain harmful chemicals. Although
environmental degradation of all kinds is increasingly a concern, environmental risks
indoors and in workplaces are more severe than many other environmental risks facing
this nation.1

Homes and Other Indoor Environments
   Most people are aware that outdoor pollution can be harmful to their health, but many
are unaware that pollution inside their homes, schools, and workplaces (whether an office
or a factory) can affect their health, comfort, and productivity.
   Indoor pollution is of particular concern because people spend as much as 90 percent
of their time indoors. Studies over the past two decades have shown that indoor levels of
many air pollutants are two to five times higher than outdoor levels. Levels in new or
renovated buildings can be up to 100 times higher than those outdoors because newer
buildings are constructed with synthetic materials, furnished with chemically formulated
products, and tightly sealed to save energy.
   Long-term health effects, which include respiratory diseases, damage to the brain and
nervous system, and cancer, can be severely debilitating or fatal. They are associated with
indoor pollutants such as radon, lead, and environmental tobacco smoke. Mold, dust
mites, animal dander, bacteria, and viruses also contribute to a wide array of acute and
chronic health problems, including asthma. Other harmful contaminants are pesticide
residues, carbon monoxide from combustion appliances, and the volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds in consumer and commercial products. Asbestos exposure causes
debilitating respiratory problems and some forms of cancer.
   In our homes and schools, children can be exposed to lead in paint, radon gas,
pesticides, asbestos, and other toxics. Safeguarding children from exposure to toxic
materials is a prime responsibility for EPA.
   Poor indoor environments can result in substantial economic losses through medical
costs, work absences, decreased productivity, and material damage. In its  1989 Report to
Congress on Indoor Air Quality, EPA concluded that while current data do not permit a
precise assessment of these costs, the direct economic losses alone amount to "tens of
billions" of dollars per year.2
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                  77

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
         Some Critical Indoor
       Environmental Problems
     Lead: In 1991, the U.S. Department
  of Health and Human Services identified
  lead poisoning as the top environmental
  health hazard to U.S. children.
     Radon: Radon, a naturally occurring
  radioactive gas, is the second leading
  cause of lung cancer in the United States.
     Environmental Tobacco Smoke
  (ETS): ETS exposure is responsible for
  a large number of lung cancer deaths in
  nonsmokers, as well as lower respiratory
  tract infections in children.
     Biological Agents: Exposure to
  airborne  biological agents indoors  can
  result in  infectious or allergic diseases
  such as Legionnaire's disease and
  asthma.
     Other  Contaminants: Carbon
  monoxide, volatile organic compounds,
  asbestos, and other contaminants  can
  cause toxic effects.
     Sick Building Syndrome: "Sick
  building syndrome" refers to a series of
  acute symptoms such as headaches,
  irritation and congestion of the mucous
  membranes, lethargy, and dizziness,
  which  are experienced when  one is
  present in a building but dissipate soon
  after one leaves.
 Industrial and Agricultural Workplaces
    Acute systemic poisonings, cancer and other chronic health
 problems, reproductive complications, and birth defects are among
 the potential health effects of exposure to certain workplace
 chemicals. Conventional synthetic pesticides meant to have toxic
 effects on pests sometimes also produce human health problems
 such as acute illness and allergic reactions, as well as delayed
 health effects. Occupational exposure to carcinogens is of particu-
 lar concern, but other materials—such as heavy metals or PCBs—
 known to cause neurological or reproductive effects also present
 significant threats because of the high concentrations that can be
 encountered in the workplace and the large size of the exposed
 worker population.
    A lack of data makes reliable, comprehensive estimates of the
 acute and chronic health problems of workers difficult. The actual
 number of acute incidents, in particular, is likely to be considerably
 higher than estimated because occurrences go unreported for
 various reasons, including failure to recognize pesticide or chemi-
 cal poisoning and failure of health care providers to record inci-
 dents adequately. Some workers do not seek treatment, or they fail
 to disclose that they were working with pesticides or chemicals.
 One study suggests that only 8 to 15  percent of farm workers who
 experience symptoms seek medical treatment.3
    The challenge is first, to help all Americans understand the
 relatively high risks of exposure to contaminants indoors and in
 workplaces, and second, to implement and evaluate voluntary and
 required  approaches to making these environments safer.
 Responsibilities
    EPA plays an important role in ensuring that the American
 people have safe environments in which to live, learn, and work.
 The Agency is involved in the screening, testing, and control of
 chemicals. Additionally, EPA conducts research, disseminates
information, and takes both regulatory and nonregulatory actions to
improve indoor environments. The relevant statutes include:
  •  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
     (FIFRA) gives EPA the authority to review and approve
     existing and new commercial pesticides via a registration or
     licensing process. As a part of this process, pesticide manu-
     facturers are required to report on the health and environmen-
     tal effects of their products.
  •  The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EPA the
     responsibility of regulating both existing and new chemicals.
  •  The Worker Protection Standard is designed to provide
     information and training so that agricultural workers and
     pesticide handlers can minimize their exposure to pesticides.
  •  The Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Act  (Title X of
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992)
     provides for consistency and quality control in evaluating and
     controlling lead hazards in public and private housing.
78
                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
   •  The Radon Abatement Act establishes a long-term national goal of making
      indoor air as free of radon as the ambient air, and provides for a variety of
      voluntary mechanisms for achieving that goal.
   •  The Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Act of 1986 (Title IV of the
      Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)) authorizes EPA to
      conduct research and develop and disseminate information on all aspects of indoor
      air quality.
   •  The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) calls for the inspec-
      tion of all elementary and secondary schools in order to identify any asbestos-
      containing building materials, prepare an asbestos management plan for each
      school, and train school maintenance and custodial workers.
   EPA shares its responsibilities with other federal and state agencies. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates worker safety and health. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts research on occupational hazards (including
investigations of buildings with suspected indoor air quality problems) and recommends
approaches to improve worker safety and health. The Department of Energy conducts
research and provides information on ionizing radiation, including radon, and on the
relationship between energy conservation and indoor environmental quality in buildings.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission controls certain aspects of indoor environ-
mental quality through regulations,  guidelines,  and research on consumer products. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development administers the nation's housing
policies under a mandate to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing. In addition to
federal legislation, a number of states have passed laws related to indoor environmental
quality and worker safety.
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   Milestones are proposed for reducing risks in homes and other indoor environments
and in workplaces, both indoors and outdoors.
   The safe indoor environment milestones address lead, radon, and environmental
tobacco smoke. These three contaminants were chosen for milestone development
because they are considered to be among the top environmental risks to public health and
enough data are available to measure progress. Environmental milestones for other indoor
problems such as biological contaminants, volatile organic compounds, and sick building
syndrome have not yet been developed because of limitations in technology and data.
However, EPA has defined several actions to reduce these contaminants and progress
measures for these actions are included in the strategy discussion. As information and our
understanding improves, additional risk reduction milestones will be developed.
    The safe workplace milestones (4-7) address only the use of toxic chemicals in the
workplace, which is EPA's responsibility. The setting of occupational exposure limits for
toxic chemicals or other workplace hazards is the responsibility of other agencies,
principally the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         79

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
                          (••••inn
                           MILESTONE
                                 1
    By  2005,
                                                   the number of young children with
                                                   high levels of lead in their blood will
                                                   be reduced by more than 50 percent
                                                   compared to the late 1980s.
         Special Population Target
    By 2005, the total number of inner-city, low-
    income, African-American children between the
    ages of  1 and 5 years with blood lead levels
    exceeding 10 ng/dL will be less than 175,000,
    compared with approximately 400,000 children
    in the late 1980s.
    By 2005, the total number of inner-city, low-
    income, African-American children between the
    ages of  1 and 5 years with blood lead levels
    exceeding 15 ug/dL will be less than 75,000,
    compared with approximately 160,000 children
    in the late 1980s.
M.1a—Blood lead levels in U.S. children.
T3
CO
C/>
O

 O
     2000
     1500-
     1000-
•5    500-
 d
             Exceeds 10 ug/dL

            15000
                1700
                       730
                    N/A
                            Exceeds 15 pg/dL

                            9000
                                 500
                                III
        x£" \P
                         V*
   In the United States, children's mean blood lead levels
have significantly decreased since the 1970s. This reduc-
tion is primarily the result of the phaseout of lead in
gasoline and reductions in other sources and pathways of
exposure. However, high blood lead levels continue to be
one of the most critical environmental threats to children's
health. This threat is greatest to low-income minority
children in urban settings, whose mean blood lead levels
are about twice the U.S. average. This disproportion is the
reason for separate milestones for inner-city, low-income,
African-American children (see box). EPA had hoped to
develop an additional goal for U.S.  Hispanic children,  but
data limitations prevent doing so at this time.
   Lead-based paint and lead in dust from lead-based paint
remain the major sources of childhood  exposure in the
United States today. Although lead was banned from
residential paint in 1978, it is estimated that 83 percent of
all housing units built before 1980 contain some lead-based
paint. Lead's potential health effects on children include
impaired learning and behavior and hearing and growth
deficits. Fetuses can be harmed through prenatal exposure.
In adults, lead in the blood can interfere with hearing,
increase blood pressure, and, at high levels, cause kidney
damage and anemia.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In the late 1970s, approximately 15 million children
between 6 months and 5 years old had  blood lead levels
greater than 10 micrograms  per deciliter (u.g/dL), which is
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definition
of lead toxicity for children. In the late 1980s, approxi-
mately 1.7 million children between the ages of 1 and  5
in the United States had blood lead levels exceeding
10 u,g/dL. At the same time, about 500,000 children had
even higher blood lead levels, exceeding  15 |ig/dL.
   In 1990, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) developed blood lead reduction goals for
the year 2000 using data from the Second National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), 1976-
80.4'5 NHANES provides the most  representative national
blood lead estimates. The blood lead level targets chosen
were based on 1985 CDC childhood lead poisoning
80
                                                        GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
prevention guidelines, which defined lead toxicity at
25 |ig/dL. In 1991, CDC redefined lead toxicity for
children at 10 (ig/dL. EPA developed targets for the year
2005 using the CDC guidelines and data from the more
current NHANES III, 1988-91.6
   Achieving this milestone will reduce the total number
of children between the ages of 1 and 5 years with blood
lead levels exceeding 10 ng/dL to no more than 730,000
nationwide and will reduce the total number of children
between the ages of 1 and 5 years with blood lead levels
exceeding 15 pig/dL to no more than 250,000 nationwide.

Tracking Results
   Progress will be measured  through the NHANES
surveys, which are conducted approximately every 10
years.
     RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
     Dept. of Health and Human Services
            Healthy People 2000
   [By 2000,] reduce the prevalence of blood lead
levels exceeding 15 ug/dL and 25 ug/dL among
children aged 6 months through 5 years to no more
than 300,000 and zero, respectively. (Baseline: An
estimated 3 million children had levels exceeding
15 ug/dL,  and 234,000 had levels  exceeding
25ug/dLin1984.)
                                                      M.1b—Blood lead levels in African-American,
                                                      inner-city, low-income children.
                                                        V)
                                                        TJ
                                                        (A
                                                        O
                                                        c
                                                        0)
                                                        u
                                                        O
                                                        z.
                                                               CQQ   Exceeds 10 fig/dL   Exceeds
                                                               400-
                                                               300-
                                                      * For its midcourse review of Healthy People 2000, DHHS
                                                      recalculated the goal using NHANES III data. The resulting
                                                      projected number was 95,000. However, because DHHS
                                                      does not revise its goals to make them less ambitious, it is
                                                      keeping its original goal of 75,000.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                         81

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
• •••III II
MILESTONE
                                 2
       RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS

       Dept. of Health and Human Services
              Healthy People 2000
     [By 2000,] increase to at least 40 percent the
  proportion of homes in which homeowners/
  occupants have tested for  radon concentrations
  and that have either been found to pose minimal
  risk or have been modified to reduce risk to health.
  (Baseline: Less than 5 percent of homes had been
  tested in 1989.)
     [By 2000,] increase to at least 30 the number
  of states requiring that  prospective buyers be
  informed of the presence of lead-based paint and
  radon concentrations in  all buildings offered for
  sale.
     [By 2000,] expand to at least 35 the number of
  states in which 75 percent of local jurisdictions
  have adopted construction standards and
  techniques that minimize elevated indoor radon
  levels in those new building areas locally
  determined to have elevated radon levels.
  (Baseline: 1 state in 1989.)
M.2—Reducing health risks of radon.
                                  New homes
           Homes tested   Homes with  constructed with
             for radon     radon miti-  radon-resistant
E
_c
<0
0)

o
   o
   CO
   O>
   o
 o
100-i

10-


1 -
n 1 -


1C


0.0

27
.0




.0




yallUM lemon



1.0
03 1
0.0 1 1
luuiuni^uca


1.5


                                                  By 2005,
                       27 million homes will have been
                       voluntarily tested for radon,
                       corrective action will have been taken
                       in 1 million homes, and 1.5 million
                       new homes will have been built with
                       radon-resistant features, resulting in
                       a 25 percent reduction from 1985
                       levels in the number of Americans
                       exposed to elevated radon in their
                       homes.
                      The Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control
                   and Prevention, and EPA have warned that radon, a
                   naturally occurring radioactive gas, is the second leading
                   cause of lung cancer in the United States. At present, radon
                   is estimated to account for 7,000 to 30,000 lung cancer
                   deaths each year. EPA estimates that the reduction in
                   exposure proposed in this milestone will eventually reduce
                   the incidence of radon-related lung cancer deaths by
                   approximately 500 deaths per year compared to the 1985
                   baseline.

                   Past Trends and 2005 Target

                      Starting from a baseline of zero in 1985, by 1994
                   approximately 10 million homes had been tested for radon,
                   300,000 households had taken mitigative actions, and
                   300,000 new homes had been constructed using radon-
                   resistant techniques. Approximately 6 million homes are
                   now estimated to contain radon levels above the recom-
                   mended level of 4 picocuries per liter. In 1990, the Public
                   Health Service developed radon reduction goals for the
                   year 2000 using 1989 as the baseline. EPA's milestone is
                   based on data collected from 1989 through 1994.

                   Tracking Results

                      The biennial Radon Risk Communications and Results
                   Study conducted by the Conference of Radiation Control
                   Program Directors provides data on the prevalence of
                   radon testing and corrective actions taken in existing
                   homes.7 The annual Builders Survey conducted by the
                   National Association of Home Builders provides data on
                   the number of new homes built with radon-resistant
                   features.8 These data, along with data from EPA's National
                   Residential Radon Survey, will be used to assess progress
                   in achieving this milestone.
82
                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
      • •••Illl!
      MILESTONE
           3
By 2005,
children's exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke will decrease through
voluntary actions in the home. The
proportion of households in which
children 6 and younger are regularly
exposed to smoking will be reduced
to 15 percent from over 39 percent in
1986.
     Federal
   Reviewers:
  Please provide
   other related
  agency targets
   In 1992, EPA issued Respiratory Health Effects of
Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, a
major report and formal risk assessment on environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS). This report concluded that ETS is a
class-A carcinogen and is responsible for a large number of
respiratory illnesses in children. EPA estimates that ETS is
responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per
year in U.S. nonsmokers and 150,000 to 300,000 lower
respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of
age. In addition, environmental tobacco smoke exacerbates
existing cases of childhood asthma and is a factor in new
cases.

Pasf Trends and 2005 Target
   Over the past 30 years, smoking among adults has
decreased by about 40 percent. The proportion of house-
holds that expose young children to ETS has declined from
39 percent in 1986 to 32 percent in 1991 to 29 percent in
1994.
   The EPA milestone is based on the progress anticipated
by the Department of Health and Human Services in
achieving its goal for 2000 (see box). It also anticipates that
EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
other organizations will continue to promote public
awareness of the effects of ETS on children.

Tracking Results
   Historical data on the number of children regularly
exposed to tobacco smoke in the home are taken from the
National Health Interview Survey, an annual survey
conducted by the Department of Health and Human
Services.9 Represented are households with children 6 and
under and with a regular smoker in the home. Similar data,
beginning in 1992, are available from the Conference of
Radiation  Control Program Directors' biennial survey. Both
surveys will be used to track future progress toward this
milestone.
                             RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
                             Dept. of Health and Human Services
                                   Healthy People 2000
                           [By 2000,] reduce to no more than 20 percent
                        the proportion of children aged 6 and younger who
                        are regularly exposed to tobacco smoke at home.
                        (Baseline: More than 39 percent in 1986, as 39
                        percent of households with one or more children
                        aged 6 or younger had a cigarette smoker in the
                        household.)
                           [By 2000,] reduce asthma morbidity,  as
                        measured by a reduction in hospitalizations to no
                        more than 160 per 100,000 people. (Baseline: 188
                        per 100,000 in 1987.)
                      M.3—Percent of households in which young
                      children are regularly exposed to smoking.
                             50 n
                        CO
                       T3
                        O>
                        CO
                        O
                        0)
                        CJ
                        0)
                       Q.
29
                                                               1986    1991    1994   2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                               83

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
      ••••inn
      MILESTONE
                                 4
                   By  2005,
                              the number of workers suffering
                              adverse health effects caused by
                              acute poisoning from pesticides will
                              be reduced significantly from 1992
                              levels.
     20000n
   Pesticide poisonings can result in acute illnesses and even deaths. Beyond serious
concerns for the well-being of workers and their families, deaths, hospitalizations, and
physician visits also present costs to different sectors of society. These costs include
increased medical expenses, reduced productivity of the workforce, increased liability
risks for pesticide manufacturers, higher legal costs, and increased insurance rates.
Deaths, hospitalizations, and visits to physicians attributable to acute poisonings from
pesticides in the workplace are proposed as measures of progress in reducing health
threats.

Past Trends and 2005 Targets
   Currently, the available national data regarding acute pesticide poisonings are not
comprehensive. They consist mainly of poison control center data, national health
statistics, and commissioned studies. They do not cover the entire U.S. population or
workforce. Another limitation is that these data combine pesticide-related hospitalizations
from both occupational and nonoccupational incidents. Because data on acute occupa-
tion-related pesticide poisonings are not directly available, EPA will work with the
American Association of Poison Control Centers to obtain existing data for the years
1985-92 and will use these data to develop a baseline from which to measure progress.

Tracking Results
   Results in reducing acute hazards from pesticides in homes and workplaces will be
assessed by counting or estimating the number of deaths, hospitalizations, and visits to
physicians. Progress will be measured through evaluation of annual aggregate poison
control center data published by the American Association of Poison Control Centers,
                               annual statistics from the National Center for Health
                               Statistics, and EPA-commissioned studies. It is
                               important to note that the added emphasis  on
                               documenting and tracking pesticide-related poison-
                               ings might initially result in  an increase in the
                               number of reported cases. Nevertheless, EPA still
                               expects a significant reduction in the number of
                               cases by 2005.
M.4—Numbers of acute pesticide poisonings
reported to poison control centers participating in
the national data collection system.
                                           18704
      5000
         1984
                 1986
  1988
1990
1992
                                                1994
84
                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
      MILESTONE
            5
By  2005,
the use of safe agricultural
biopesticides will double
from 1995 levels.
      Federal
    Reviewers:
   Please provide
    other related
   agency targets
   Biopesticides include both microbial pesticides, such as bacteria, viruses, or other
microorganisms used to control pests, and biochemical pesticides, which include phero-
mones (insect sex attractants), insect or plant growth regulators, and hormones.
Biopesticides typically pose less risk to agricultural workers than their conventional
pesticide counterparts because of their unique modes of action, low use volumes, species
specificity, and natural occurrence. To the extent that agricultural biopesticides are used
in place of higher-risk conventional pesticides, risks to workers from pesticides will
decrease. (See also Safe Food.)

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In recent years, an increasing number of biological pesticides have entered the
market, reflecting a growing demand for and use of such pesticides. In fiscal year 1994,
15 of 31 new pesticide active ingredients registered by EPA were biological pesticides.
Because these registration increases are so recent, usage surveys do not yet show a large
aggregate use relative to conventional pesticides. However, EPA is confident that
doubling the use of biological pesticides by the year 2005 is achievable, given the
increasing number of new registrations for biopesticides, the growing use of integrated
pest management practices, and the growing consumer
demand for organically grown foods.                       __^_
Tracking Results
   EPA will track the use of biopesticides through
annual and biennial public and proprietary surveys.
Relevant use information will include the crop acreage
treated, percent of crop treated, and pounds of active
ingredient used. Where existing information is inad-
equate, EPA will commission its own surveys to track
biopesticide use.
                        M.5—Use of safe agricultural biopesticides.
                                        Insecticides/
                                         miticides
                               30% -,
Plant growth reg./
  harvest aids/
   defoliants
                                                                27.4%
                        p  en
                                                       Safe biopesticides shown are insecticides/miticides and
                                                       plant growth regulators/harvest aids/defoliants. No
                                                       significant amounts of herbicides and fungicides are
                                                       reported in the database.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                    85

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
i ••••mm!
 MILESTONE
                                  6
                                               By  2005,
                         the number of existing industrial
                         high-production-volume chemicals
                         shown to be used safely in the
                         workplace will nearly triple.
M.6a—Categories of chemicals in
commerce.
  c
  in
 I
 o
                      30
Of the chemicals that have not yet been reviewed
by EPA, the polymers are usually of low toxicity.
Low-volume chemicals are produced and used at
levels below 10,000 Ib/yr; intermediate-volume
chemicals, in quantities between 10,000 and
1 million Ib/yr. The highest priority for review is
the high-production-volume chemicals produced
or used in quantities over 1 million Ib/yr.

M.6b—Number of high-production-
volume chemicals reviewed and
found to be used safely.
     2500 -i
2000-
1500-
     1000-
                            2100
 ID
 T3
 
-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i ••••inn
      MILESTONE
           7
By 2005,
worker protection will be promoted
for as many as 10,000 new chemicals.
   Workers have a right to expect that EPA will ensure the safety of new chemicals
before they are introduced into the workplace. Achieving this milestone will help protect
workers from health risks associated with the estimated 10,000 new chemicals that will
enter production between now and 2005. EPA will establish exposure limits for all new
chemicals that might present an unreasonable risk to workers. In addition to the exposure
limits, other protective measures might include requirements for the use of equipment
such as respirators or other controls that minimize risk.
   New chemicals often are safer than older chemicals, and the additional 10,000
chemicals could provide companies with the flexibility to choose safer substitutes for
existing chemicals that are known to be hazardous. Such substitutions can improve
employee safety and health.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Since 1979, EPA has approved new chemicals that are safe when used as intended. To
date, approximately 12,000 have been approved and have entered commerce. Achieving
this milestone will mean at least 10,000 more will be approved as safe for intended uses
by 2005.

Tracking Results
   Results will be determined by how many additional new chemicals are approved for
manufacture, introduced on the market, and substituted for older chemicals. The quantity
of production of new chemicals will be tracked in EPA's quadrennial updates of produc-
tion volume. Tracking will include data on how often additional use or production
precautions are needed after the initial EPA review has been concluded. This effort will
be supported by reviews of industry data used to identify any  previously unknown
adverse effects.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                 87

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
                Costs
     In a 1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated that the
  annual  public  and private costs of
  meeting the requirements of legislation
  related to radon  and  other indoor
  pollutants  were approximately $440
  million in 1990 and would rise to $900
  million by 2000 to fully meet requirements
  expected to be in place (constant 1986
  dollars).  A 1990  study by the U.S.
  Department  of Housing and  Urban
  Development  estimated that the cost of
  remediating housing with  lead-based
  paint will range from $60 billion to $230
  billion over the first 10 years, depending
  on the abatement criterion used.12 (See
  Chapters 5 and 7 for related costs of
  meeting standards for pesticides and
  other toxic chemicals.) Achievement of
  the proposed milestones might  require
  implementation  of some programs not
  anticipated  when these estimates were
  prepared, which would add to the costs.
  Over the next few years, the costs and
  benefits of indoor environment and
  workplace protection  programs will be
  more fully assessed.
Strategy
   The milestones for safe homes, schools, and workplaces will be achieved through a
combination of voluntary and regulatory approaches. Increased public awareness and
voluntary actions in the private sector are key parts of EPA's strategy to make indoor
environments healthier for people. Voluntary actions also play a role in reducing risks to
                   workers, but the safe workplaces strategy relies more on regulatory
                   approaches to prevent pollution. Partnerships among all levels of
                   government, industry, and health organizations—many of which are
                   already in place—will provide the framework for these efforts.
                   Safe Homes and Other Indoor Environments
                      Lead. EPA's 1991 strategy to reduce lead exposure calls for
                   research, development of safe and cost-effective methods for
                   abatement and management of lead paint hazards in homes, and
                   regulatory and pollution prevention programs. EPA coordinates its
                   activities with other federal agencies such as the Department of
                   Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease
                   Control and Prevention, as well as state and local programs. For
                   example, EPA and HUD recently finalized a rule giving buyers and
                   renters the right to know about known lead hazards in pre-1978
                   housing before sale or lease.
                      Radon.  EPA encourages homeowners to test for radon and to
                   take corrective actions when radon levels exceed the recommended
                   level. EPA has developed and distributed information on the health
                   risks of radon, methods for reducing radon in new and older homes,
                   and standardized methods for radon testing. In addition, the Agency
                   encourages radon testing as part of home real estate transactions
                   and encourages radon testing and mitigation in schools. EPA
                   communicates information through a variety of public educational
                   programs conducted in partnership with states and local communi-
                   ties and more than 20 organizations like the American Lung
                   Association, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National
                   Association of Counties. Through training and technical assistance,
                   EPA encourages the use of radon-resistant building techniques in
                   new home construction. In 1994, the Council of American Building
Officials adopted EPA-recommended model standards for radon-resistant new construc-
tion into its model residential building code.
   Environmental tobacco smoke. Many organizations provide information to the public
about the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Federal agencies include EPA
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; private sector organizations
include the American Lung Association,  the American Heart Association, and the
American Cancer Society. EPA anticipates that increasing public awareness will continue
to reduce exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke in the home.
   Consumer and commercial products. By 2005, EPA will have reached agreements
with manufacturers to substantially reduce emissions from 10 or more products
whose emissions create a relatively high adverse impact on indoor air quality and
public health. The Carpet Policy Dialogue is the model for pollution prevention agree-
ments with manufacturers. Completed in 1991, the year-long dialogue between carpet and
associated industries, six federal agencies, unions, and public interest groups explored
ways to reduce consumer exposure to emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
As a result, carpet manufacturers have already accomplished significant reductions in
88
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
product emissions. Today, they test their product lines for total VOC emissions and
conduct a voluntary industry-wide carpet certification program that assists consumers in
selecting low-emitting products.
   Through the Indoor Air Source Characterization Project, EPA will characterize and
prioritize emissions from other product sources. High-priority sources will be chosen
yearly for pollution prevention initiatives. EPA will work with manufacturers to lower
emissions whenever possible and improve the ability of consumers to make informed
purchasing decisions.
   Commercial buildings and schools. Through similar partnerships, EPA expects to
improve indoor air quality in commercial buildings and schools by encouraging better
operation and maintenance practices. By 2005,3,000 or more school or commercial
buildings will have indoor air quality management plans that are in keeping with
EPA guidelines. Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility
Managers outlines methods for preventing and resolving indoor air quality problems in
commercial office buildings.10 Developed jointly by EPA and NIOSH, it is the basis for
an extensive training program that EPA conducts with the Building Owners and Manag-
ers Association. EPA has recently published Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools, which
provides similar guidance for school systems.11 In addition, EPA will continue to work
with states to establish State Model Accreditation Plans for training and accreditation of
asbestos inspectors and abatement workers performing in schools and industrial and
commercial buildings.
   Understanding indoor air quality in large buildings. By 2005, EPA will develop a
database of environmental, building, occupant, and ventilation parameters in 300 or
more buildings, from a  baseline of 30 buildings in 1995, to assist in the development
of public and private actions designed to improve indoor environments. EPA is
working with others in the scientific community to improve our understanding of indoor
pollution. Currently, no comprehensive data are available to provide a baseline for
measuring improvements of the overall air quality in buildings. In response, EPA has
initiated the Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation program to collect indoor air
quality data in  a randomly selected sample of buildings nationwide. Data are collected
regarding the building, ventilation system, occupants,  and occupant perceptions. Each
year, additional buildings will be selected, measurements and information will be taken,
and data will be systematically added to the database. Data will be useful in developing
public and private sector strategies and programs to improve indoor environments.

Safe Industrial and Agricultural Workplaces
Pesticides  in the Workplace
   Safer pesticides.  EPA is advocating the use of biopesticides and is designing a
streamlined registration process that will foster their adoption. EPA will continue to
provide regulatory incentives to biopesticide manufacturers. Such incentives reduce the
time and cost of bringing biopesticides to the market, thereby reducing their prices and
giving pesticide users safer, economically viable choices for pest control.
   Safer pest management practices. By 2005, strategies for reducing exposure to
higher-risk pesticides in the workplace will be implemented for at least 50 pesticide
user groups representing major occupational sites.  In 1993, a number of agencies
developed the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) to foster voluntary
public-private partnerships that implement environmental stewardship plans for agricul-
tural and nonagricultural sites. Major organizations representing agriculture, golf courses,
and lawn and garden care are participating. Pesticide user groups  that become PESP
partners commit to working with EPA to develop strategies for reducing risks associated
with higher-risk conventional pesticides. The strategies include integrated pest manage-
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                           89

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
                        ment practices and, once implemented, are monitored to evaluate their success.
                           As of August 1, 1995, the PESP had 16 partners representing 12 agricultural use sites
                        and 4 nonagricultural use sites. EPA is actively seeking new partners, covering pesticide
                        use sites such as utility rights-of-way, lawn care, golf courses, California citrus, Califor-
                        nia pears, potatoes, apples, and corn. Annual PESP reports will detail progress toward the
                        target of 50 PESP partners by 2005. Regulatory and nonregulatory (financial) incentives
                        will be made available to support research and the adoption of safe pest management
                        practices. EPA has provided funding through grants to several of its partners to facilitate
                        strategy development. Exchange of ideas, strategies, and information is an important part
                        of PESP. EPA provides a liaison to support communication among PESP partners.
                           Worker training. By 2005,95 percent of handlers and farm workers using pesti-
                        cides will be adequately trained in the safe handling, use, and disposal of pesticides.
                        A lack of adequate training can often lead to unnecessary worker exposure to pesticides,
                        possibly causing adverse health effects. Programs for training users of restricted-use
                        pesticides have existed for some time. EPA sets national standards for these training
                        programs, which certify more than 1 million applicators nationwide. Such certification
                        programs are conducted by states, territories, and tribes to ensure that users are knowl-
                        edgeable about risks and appropriate uses.
                           The  Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is the keystone in mitigating occupational
                        exposure to pesticides for agricultural use sites. It requires expanded handler training and
                        mandates, for the first time, safety training for all farm workers who might be exposed to
                        pesticides. In addition, it requires improved labeling, more protective restricted entry
                        intervals, broader use of personal protective equipment,  and the posting of warning signs
                        when areas are unsafe to enter. Progress toward this target will be measured by compar-
                        ing state, tribal, EPA, and USDA estimates of the numbers trained to  the total number of
                        farm workers and handlers reported in the census data, compliance surveys, and other
                        baseline estimates.
                           Better pesticide labeling. By 2005, more than 95 percent of agricultural pesticide
                        products will have label language that is clear enough for workers to be able to
                        reduce their potential for health-threatening occupational exposure. Guaranteeing
                        that agricultural pesticide product labeling conveys information adequate to protect
                        workers is another critical component in reducing worker risk. Although many labels
                        have adequate safety information, inconsistent and inadequate label language regarding
                        the safe use and handling of products has been a problem, especially for pesticides
                        registered years ago. EPA will work with pesticide registrants to ensure that the labeling
                        of all agricultural pesticide products conveys information adequate to protect workers,
                        including the use of personal protective equipment and restrictions on reentry into areas
                        recently treated with pesticides.
                           EPA's new Label Audit Program will be useful in measuring progress toward this
                        target. The program will identify agricultural pesticide labels with insufficient safety
                        information and will require that inadequate  labels be updated in a timely fashion so that
                        workers can obtain better information about using or handling specific products.

                        Other Chemicals in the Workplace
                           Although OSHA and NIOSH have the lead federal responsibilities for work safety
                        and health issues, EPA plays an important role in protecting workers from toxic chemi-
                        cals. The Toxic-Free Communities chapter describes some of EPA's capabilities in overall
                        protection of public health from chemical risks, whereas this strategy focuses on protect-
                        ing workers from high-risk industrial chemicals.
                           Many of the tens of thousands of new and existing chemicals are of little  concern to
                        workers, but thousands of others pose potential risks. For these chemicals, the lack of
                        crucial toxicity and exposure data can affect workers' health and their rights to know
                        about risks to which they might be exposed.  EPA is using its authorities under TSCA to


90                                                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
assess and reduce the risks in the workplace from proposed new chemicals and chemicals
that are already in use.
    New chemicals. Each new chemical proposed by the chemical industry is reviewed
for its impact on workers. If its effects are considered too serious, EPA will not allow
production. If,  however, the chemical is deemed of low concern for its intended use or
can be made safe by appropriate handling by workers, the company is allowed to produce
the chemical. Requirements for special handling  and use precautions are often written
into agreements with chemical manufacturers so  that workers, the general public, and the
environment are protected.
    OSHA and NIOSH have worked with EPA to develop guidelines for new chemicals
that might present significant risks to workers. The ONE Committee—a group of OSHA,
NIOSH, EPA, and Mine Safety and Health Administration officials who coordinate
worker toxics information—oversees this effort. This cooperation has resulted in an EPA
program for setting occupational exposure levels for certain new chemicals. Manufactur-
ers of these chemicals are required to institute exposure safeguards that remain in place
unless production volumes increase to a point where OSHA decides to issue a permis-
sible exposure  limit on its own authority.
    Existing chemicals. EPA uses the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to protect
workers from existing chemicals by, among other means, requiring additional chemical
testing to quantify effects; reaching voluntary control agreements with manufacturers;
providing expanded chemical information resources for workers  and the public; cooperat-
ing with other EPA, state, and federal agencies to control a chemical in a specific medium
(e.g., air, water, land); and, if necessary, using regulatory powers to curtail or even ban
uses.
    Better information on chemical uses will be provided to health and safety profession-
als and the public through the establishment of a  Chemical Use Inventory. The inventory
will ensure adequate data on chemical uses in the workplace to support analysis of use
trends and to assist  in the management of occupational exposures.
    Green chemistry. "Green chemistry" techniques for the development of chemical
products will reduce the use and generation of toxic substances in the workplace. Green
chemistry incorporates basic chemical transformation techniques and principles as a way
of reaching source and risk reduction. EPA has developed the green chemistry program
over the last 5 years as part of its commitment to  work with industry to encourage
innovative approaches to pollution prevention. A good example now in development is
the substitution of supercritical carbon dioxide for more toxic solvents used in manufac-
turing and processing. Also in development is the use of harmless simple sugars to
replace the carcinogen benzene in the manufacture of certain chemicals.
References

Text Notes
   1.    USEPA. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmen-
             tal Problems. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
             Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
   2.    USEPA. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Washington, DC: U.S.
             Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
   3.    USEPA. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmen-
             tal Protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
             Science Advisory Board.
   4.    NHANES II data are for children 6 months to 5 years. NHANES III data are for
             children  1 to 5 years.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          91

-------
      6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
                         5.    K.R. Mahaffey, J.L. Annest, J, Roberts, and R.S. Murphy. 1982. National
                                   Estimates of Blood Lead Levels: United States, 1976-1980. JAMA
                                   307(10):573-579.
                         6.    D.J. Brody, J.L. Pirkle, R.A. Kramer, K.M. Flegal, T.D. Matte, E.W. Gunter, and
                                   D.C. Paschal. 1994. Blood Lead Levels in the U.S. Population (NHANES
                                   III, 1988-1991). JAMA 272(4):277-283.
                         7.    CRCPD. 1992. Radon Risk Communication and Results Study. Conference on
                                   Radiation Control Program Directors, Frankfort, KY.
                         8.    NAHB. 1995. Annual Builders Survey. Washington, DC: National Association
                                   of Home  Builders.
                         9.    PHS. 1994. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health
                                   Service, National Center for Health Statistics.
                         10.   USEPA. 1991. Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility
                                   Managers. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
                                   National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
                         11.   USEPA. 1995. Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools. Washington, DC: U.S.
                                   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
                         12.   HUD. 1990. Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of Lead-
                                   Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing, Report to Congress. Washing-
                                   ton, DC:  U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
                                   Policy Development and Research.

                       Milestone Data Sources
                         M.la  K.R. Mahaffey, J.L. Annest, J. Roberts, and R.S. Murphy. 1982. National
                                   Estimates of Blood Lead Levels: United States, 1976-1980. JAMA
                                   307(10):573-579.
                                D.J. Brody, J.L. Pirkle,  R.A. Kramer, K.M. Flegal, T.D. Matte, E.W. Gunter,
                                   and D.C.  Paschal. 1994. Blood Lead Levels in the U.S. Population
                                   (NHANES III, 1988-1991). JAMA 272(4):277-283.
                                NHANES II  data refers to children 6 months to 5 years. NHANES III data
                                   refers to children 1 to 5 years.
                         M.lb  Ibid.
                         M.2   USEPA. 1994. Radon Related Lung Cancer Deaths. Washington, DC: U.S.
                                   Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
                                NAHB. 1995. Annual Builders Survey. Washington, DC: National Association
                                   of Home  Builders.
                                CRCPD. 1992. Radon Risk Communication and Results Study. Conference on
                                   Radiation Control Program Directors, Frankfort, KY.
                         M.3   USEPA. 1992. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer
                                   and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                   Agency, Office of Research and Development.
                                PHS. 1994. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD. Public Health
                                   Service, National Center for Health Statistics.
                         M.4   T. L. Litovitz, S. A. Normann, and J.C. Veltri. 1986. Annual Report of the
                                   American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection
                                    System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 4:427-458.
                                T. L. Litovitz, T.G. Martin, and B. Schmitz. 1987. Annual Report of the
                                    American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection
                                    System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 5:405-445.
                                T.L. Litovitz, B.F. Schmitz, N. Matyunas, and T.G. Martin. 1988. Annual
                                    Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National
                                    Data Collection System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 6:479-
                                    515.
92                                                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
         T.L. Litovitz, B.F. Schmitz, and K.C. Holm. 1989. Annual Report of the
             American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection
             System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 7:495-545.
         T.L. Litovitz, B.F. Schmitz, and K.M. Bailey. 1990. Annual Report of the
             American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection
             System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 8:394-442.
         T.L. Litovitz, K.M. Bailey, B.F. Schmitz, K.C. Holm, and W. Klein-Schwartz.
             1991. Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control
             Centers National Data Collection System. American Journal of Emergency
             Medicine 9:461-509.
         T.L. Litovitz, K.C. Holm, K.M. Bailey, and B.F. Schmitz. 1992. Annual Report
             of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data
             Collection System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 10:452-505.
         T.L. Litovitz, K.C. Holm, C. Clancy, B.F. Schmitz, L.R. Clark, and G.M.
             Oderda. 1993. Annual Report of the American Association of Poison
             Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. American Journal of
             Emergency Medicine 11:494-555.
         T.L. Litovitz, L.R. Clark, and R.A. Soloway. 1994. Annual Report of the
             American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveil-
             lance System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 12:546-584.
         T.L. Litovitz, L. Felberg, R.A. Soloway, M. Ford, and R. Geller. 1995. Annual
             Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic
             Exposure Surveillance System. American Journal of Emergency Medicine
             13:551-597.
  M.5   USEPA. Calculations made by Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and
             Economic Analysis Division.
  M.6   Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Screening and Testing Chemicals in
             Commerce.
         USEPA, OPPT in-house analysis.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         93

-------
     6. Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces
94                                           GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                       7.  Toxic-Free
                              Communities
                              Long-Range Goal

                              By relying on pollution prevention, reuse, and recycling
                              in the way we produce and consume materials, all
                              Americans will live in communities free of toxic impacts.
The Challenge

   Every time a person throws something into the garbage or a business disposes of
wastes, energy and natural resources are squandered. In some cases, public health and
environmental quality are put at risk from toxic chemicals that are not only in wastes, but
also in consumer products.
   Over 70,000 chemicals are available for use in commerce, and about a thousand more
new chemicals are produced each year. Toxicity and exposure data remain inadequate for
thousands of these chemicals of potential concern.1 The National Research Council, in a
1984 report, stressed that only about 20 percent of chemicals in commerce have even
minimal toxicity information.2 The lack of information limits industry and government in
their ability to ensure the safe use of chemicals, and it deprives the public of its right to
know the hazards it faces.
   People generate municipal solid waste in their homes arid yards and at stores and
businesses. At 4.4 pounds a day per person, the municipal solid waste stream totaled over
209 million tons in 1994. Residents and commercial establishments can make a tremen-
dous positive impact on their communities through source reduction and recycling
programs. By rising to the challenge of producing less waste and recycling more, people
can conserve energy and natural resources.
                         Pollution Prevention—The Preferred Approach

    Pollution prevention is a bold approach to protecting public health and the environment. It means avoiding the
  creation of pollution in the first place by eliminating or minimizing the generation of wastes and harmful by-
  products at their source.
    Prevention is ranked first in EPA's hierarchy of approaches to environmental protection. This preference is
  grounded in two fundamental principles: protection of public health and the environment, and economic growth.
  Pollution prevention is preferred because it
    •  Avoids the inadvertent transfer of pollutants from one medium to another that can occur with end-of-pipe
       controls.
    •  Eliminates the risks that accompany any release of pollutants into the environment.
    •  Conserves natural resources for future generations by preventing excessive waste and residue, and by
       minimizing the depletion of resources.
    Second, pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled or recovered. Third, pollution that cannot be
  prevented, recycled, or recovered should be treated in an environmentally safe manner. Fourth, disposal or release
  into the environment should be employed only as & last resort.
    This hierarchy is a set of preferences, not hard-and-fast rules that assume that prevention is always feasible or
  desirable. The value of prevention in a particular setting will depend on its effectiveness, cost, and feasibility.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     95

-------
       7. Toxic-Free Communities
        Toxics Release
           Inventory

    The Toxics Release Inventory
  (TRI)  is a national database of
  toxic chemical releases into the
  environment from manufacturing
  facilities  (including  federal
  facilities).  Congress mandated
  its creation through section 313
  of the Emergency Planning and
  Community Right-to-Know Act
  (EPCRA), also known as Title III
  of the Superfund Amendments
  and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
  Section 313 of EPCRA requires
  owners and operators of certain
  manufacturing facilities to report
  releases of over 580  different
  toxic chemicals and 20 chemical
  categories to EPA.  Under the
  Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,
  reporting  under TRI includes
  both the quantities of the toxic
  chemicals that are managed in
  wastes and efforts to reduce or
  eliminate those quantities. Since
  1991, facilities have  been
  required to report annually on the
  quantity of toxic chemicals that
  have  been released, disposed
  of, treated, combusted for energy
  recovery,  and recycled. Since
  1993, federal facilities have also
  been required to comply with TRI
  and other right-to-know require-
  ments.
    Under TRI, the term "wastes"
  is not  rigidly  defined,  but
  generally is  understood  to
  include all materials produced as
  unwanted by-products of indus-
  trial processes. TRI counts only
  the quantities of toxic chemicals
  contained in these wastes, not
  the total quantity of the wastes,
  which might also include organic
  and inorganic materials such as
  dirt, water, and  oil. Under the
  Resource Conservation and
  Recovery Act, however, facilities
  are required to track and report
  on  the  total  quantities  of
  regulated hazardous wastes, not
  just  the amount  of  toxic
  chemicals contained in the
  wastes.
   Toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, and municipal waste—once
considered "out of sight, out of mind"—have now become familiar
environmental concerns to most Americans. With increased awareness
about the national dimensions, pervasiveness, and risks of exposure to
toxic and other waste, communities have begun to rise to the challenge.
Many have instituted successful programs for reduction, reuse, or recycling
of products that historically required disposal. Corporations have begun to
equate environmental pollution with economic waste so that opportunities
for recycling, reuse, and other improved waste management practices are
increasing.
   The common ground between economic prosperity and environmental
sustainability has become evident. Partnerships between industries and
government are taking hold throughout the country, shifting gears from
confrontation to collaboration and redirecting funds from environmental
lawsuits to cleanup and prevention.
   The task for the immediate future is to gain consensus on these oppor-
tunities, set national priorities, and measure our progress in pollution
reduction and prevention. The greater challenge before us is to create more
economic wealth with less environmental impact and greater protection of
public health.
   Pollution prevention will be the dominant force in achieving our
environmental goals. It is potentially the most cost-effective method of
environmental protection because it reduces raw material and energy
losses, the need for "end-of-pipe" treatment and disposal technologies, and
the potential  liabilities associated with the management of toxic chemicals.
Responsibilities

   Virtually every EPA authority has a role in supporting pollution
prevention and recycling. The primary authorities include the Toxic
Substances Control Act, Pollution Prevention Act, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
In addition, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act promote source
reduction and recycling in regulations, permits,  and enforcement actions.
Superfund indirectly encourages prevention with its strict liability require-
ments. Other federal authorities and executive orders encourage toxic-free
communities through promotion of energy and resource efficiencies.
   State and local governments also encourage greater prevention and
recycling through regulatory and voluntary means. Local governments, in
particular, have initiated solid waste recycling programs. Ultimately,
however, every person and every business share in the responsibility of
conserving energy and other natural resources, reducing the amount of
waste they produce, and reducing the amount of hazardous materials
released into the environment.
Environmental  Milestones for 2005

   To avoid adverse environmental health effects, all wastes must be
stored, treated, and disposed of properly (see Chapter 9, Safe Waste
Management). But it is even more advantageous to reduce the amount of
wastes and toxics produced in the first place. These milestones offer
several measures of progress in preventing pollution of the environment.
96
                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
      MILESTONE
               ••mi      By  2005,
           1
industrial facilities will reduce by 25
percent (from 1992 levels) the
quantities of the toxic chemicals in
waste streams that are released,
disposed of, treated, or combusted
for energy recovery. Half of this
reduction will be achieved through
pollution prevention practices.
                    Federal
                  Reviewers:
                 Please provide
                  other related
                 agency targets
   Toxic chemicals in wastes can endanger public health and
environmental resources and, as with other wastes, often represent
an inefficient use of natural resources. Industrial facilities are among
the largest sources of toxic chemicals in waste streams. Reducing
toxic chemicals in industrial waste streams will result in more
efficient use of natural resources and contribute significantly to the
goal of toxic-free communities.

Past Trends and 2005 Target

   Approximately 18 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in produc-
tion-related waste streams were released, treated, or combusted for
energy recovery in 1992. In 1993, these quantities decreased to
17 billion pounds, a 6 percent drop. The quantities of toxic chemi-
cals in waste streams are projected to continue to decrease. Achiev-
ing a 25 percent reduction by 2005 is an aggressive but realistic
target, given current trends, and will result in a further reduction of
4.5 billion pounds of toxic  chemicals in wastes. At least half of this
reduction will be achieved  through pollution prevention, with the
remainder to be achieved through recycling.

Tracking Results

   Progress will be measured annually against a baseline of 1992
TRI data. In 1992, approximately 27,000 industrial facilities
reported on the quantities of over 300 toxic chemicals released,
disposed of, treated, combusted for energy recovery,  and recycled.
(New chemicals were added to the TRI reporting system in 1994.
These additional chemicals are not reflected in the graph. As initial
data are received and analyzed, EPA will set reduction goals for
these added chemicals.)
                                 RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS

                                 Dept. of Health and Human Services
                                       Healthy People 2000
                                  [By 2000,] reduce human exposure
                               to toxic agents by confining total pounds
                               of toxic agents released into the air, water,
                               and soil each year to no more than: 0.24
                               billion  pounds of those toxic agents
                               included on the Department of Health and
                               Human Services list of carcinogens
                               (Baseline: 0.32 billion pounds in 1988)
                               and 2.6 billion pounds of those toxic
                               agents included on the Agency for Toxic
                               Substances and Disease Registry list of
                               the most toxic chemicals (Baseline: 2.62
                               billion pounds in 1988).
                             M.1— Quantities of toxic chemicals in
                             production-related wastes reported to
                             TRI as released (including disposal),
                             treated, or combusted for energy
                             recovery.
                                     20-,
                                        176
                                             18 1
                                                 17.0
                                                     16.5 16.7
                                                              13.6
                               O "
                               I

                                                            •£&
                                                            I
                                                            o
                                     15-
10-
                                                                      1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2005
                                                           1991-93 figures are actual, with 1992 serving as
                                                           the milestone baseline; 1994, 1995, and 2005
                                                           figures are projected.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                97

-------
       7. Toxic-Free Communities
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
••••inn
MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
                        more than 99 percent of new
                        chemicals approved since 1995 will
                        have been used safely and will not
                        require additional controls.
                         The review process for new chemicals helps ensure their safety before they are
                      introduced into the marketplace, where they could harm workers, the general public, or
                      the environment. The process, which is similar to the Food and Drug Administration's
                      review of new drugs, prevents pollution in two ways. First, the review of about 10 to 15
                      percent of all new chemicals submitted by industry results in controls on their use,
                      withdrawal, or suspension of production pending testing. Industry and EPA work
                      cooperatively on many of the issues encountered in this process.
                         Second, the evaluation of new chemicals aids market forces in determining which
                      chemicals are best for various applications, taking into account cost, risk, hazard, ease of
                      disposal, and other factors. In this way, older chemicals, many of which either have not
                      been reviewed for toxicity or have known hazardous properties, can be supplanted by
                      newer, safer replacements. Some of the submissions are for genetically engineered
                      microorganisms that are intended to replace conventional chemicals that present greater
                      environmental and human health concerns. EPA's new chemicals program also reviews
                      the safety of these microbial biotechnology products.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         Approximately 2,000 new chemicals are submitted annually for EPA review. About
                      half go into production. This milestone measures whether the estimated 10,000 additional
                      new chemicals that will be introduced by 2005 will be safe for their intended uses.
                      "Safety" will be judged by whether they later require additional controls on their produc-
                      tion and use. The target is consistent with  the record over the past 5 years of chemicals
                      that have required additional controls after EPA's approval. Achieving the milestone
                      means that no additional safety requirements will be needed for virtually all chemicals
                      that EPA approves over the next 10 years.

                      Tracking Results
                         Tracking will include the use of data on the frequency of additional controls placed on
                      new chemicals after the initial EPA review. This effort will be supported by industry data
                      on identification of any previously unknown adverse effects.
98
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i HI •••inn
      MILESTONE
           3
By  2005,
the number of existing high-
production-volume chemicals shown
to be used safely will nearly triple.
                           Federal
                          Reviewers:
                        Please provide
                         other related
                        agency targets
   Certain chemicals pose the greatest risks to communities
because of the large volumes in which they are produced and used.
These "existing" high-priority, high-production-volume (HPV)
chemicals were grandfathered into the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) in 1979 without a requirement to show that the
chemicals were safe. Because of a lack of sufficient resources in the
past, basic toxicity information is lacking to gauge the health and
environmental impacts of HPV chemicals. Thus, these chemicals
pose a potential risk to public health. One of EPA's top priorities is
to ensure that basic toxicity information is available so that these
approximately 3,000 to 4,000 HPV chemicals are used safely.
Achieving this milestone can reduce the risks presented by some of
the most heavily used chemicals and will represent significant
progress in reviewing chemicals for safe use by industry and
consumers. (See also Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces,
milestone 6.)

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Over the last 5 years, safety reviews have been performed on
about 750 HPV chemicals and risk management actions were taken
where necessary. EPA's Toxics Agenda (in development) calls for an
additional 1,350 safety reviews between now and 2005. Achieve-
ment of this milestone will nearly triple the number of safety
reviews for HPV chemicals to 2,100.

Tracking Results
   Achievement of this milestone will be measured by the numbers
of assessments and risk management actions taken for high-volume
toxic substances over the next 10 years.
   The TSCA existing chemicals program has information systems
for tracking both past and ongoing chemical reviews. These data
systems will allow EPA to develop statistical summaries and
thereby judge program effectiveness. EPA will track this milestone
by using data on EPA actions such as dissemination of information
about existing chemicals, voluntary agreements, and other
nonregulatory or regulatory actions.
                              M.3a—Number of high-production-
                              volume chemicals reviewed and
                              found to be used safely.
                                    2500 H
                                                           2100
                                             1995
                           2005
                              M.3b—Production of chemicals in
                              TSCA chemical inventory.
o
E
£
o
0)
10

X
o
Q.
CL
                                    30000-,
                                    20000-
                                    10000-
                                           30000
                                                 23000
                                                                        Polymeric Low-vol.  Med.-vol.  High-vol.

                                                                                 Category

                                                            Polymers present little health risk. Low-volume
                                                            chemicals are produced at less than 10,000 pounds per
                                                            year or are no longer produced. Intermediate-volume
                                                            chemicals are produced at volumes of 10,000 to
                                                            I million pounds per year. High-volume chemicals are
                                                            produced at greater than 1 million pounds per year.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                  99

-------
       7. Toxic-Free Communities
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
MILESTONE
            w	     By  2005,
                                4
   RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS

   Dept. of Health and Human Services
          Healthy People 2000
     [By 2000,] reduce human exposure
  to solid waste-related water, air, and soil
  contamination, as measured by a
  reduction in average pounds of municipal
  solid waste produced per person each
  day to no more than 4.3 pounds before
  recovery and 3.2 pounds after recovery.
  (Baseline: 4.0 pounds per person each
  day in 1988)
     [By 2000,]  Establish curbside
  recycling programs that serve at least 50
  percent of the U.S. population and
  continue  to increase  household
  hazardous waste collection programs
  [1,529 programs in 2000]. (Baseline
  1988:26% served by curbside recycling;
  802  hazardous  waste  collection
  programs)
    RELATED FEDERAL TARGET

       President Clinton's Climate
          Change Action Plan

     EPA has a target of increasing
  recycling to 30 percent in the year 2000.
  Recycling decreases the emission of
  greenhouse gases, such as methane
  from landfills. This target  is part of the
  U.S. commitment made  at the Earth
  Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to
  reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
     Additional  EPA climate  change
  commitments involving waste manage-
  ment include reducing the amount of
  waste generated in the United States.
  EPA will foster waste prevention practices
  in businesses (e.g., using lightweight
  packaging, reusing pallets), backyard
  composting, unit-based waste manage-
  ment fees, and other efforts that contri-
  bute to  a reduction in per capita MSW
  generation rates.
                        municipal solid waste will be
                        recovered for recycling or
                        composting at a rate of 35 percent.
                        Municipal solid waste generation will
                        be reduced to the 1990 level of 4.3
                        pounds per person per day, with the
                        amount of waste combusted or
                        landfilled decreasing to 2.8 pounds
                        per person per day.
               Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) poses a challenge
            to the development of sustainable communities. Source reduction of
            municipal solid waste and recycling reduce air, water, and soil
            pollution and conserve energy and natural resources. Slowing the
            growth of MSW generation through source reduction and increased
            recycling is important from the perspective of climate change as
            well (see box).3 Source reduction and recycling also prevent
            pollution from extraction and processing of raw materials, manufac-
            turing, transportation, and waste management. One recycling
            option, composting, provides the added benefits of soil restoration,
            reduced need for fertilizers and pesticides, erosion control, storm
            runoff control, and bioremediation of soils contaminated with toxic
            organics and heavy metals.

            Past Trends and 2005 Target
               Targets for this milestone build on President Clinton's Climate
            Change Action Plan (see box). EPA expects that the nation can
            achieve 35 percent recycling by 2005. Per capita waste generation
            has been increasing by almost 20 percent per decade since 1960,
            when it was estimated to be 2.67 pounds per person per day. EPA's
            target for 2005 is to reduce per capita MSW generation to the 1990
            level of 4.3 pounds per day, with the amount of per capita MSW
            combusted or landfilled decreasing to 2.8 pounds per person per day
            (as compared to 3.6 pounds per person per day in 1990).

            Tracking Results
               EPA's  report, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
            United States, will provide data on municipal solid waste genera-
            tion, recovery, and discards annually.
100
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                             Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
  M.4a—Percent of municipal solid
  waste recycled or composted, 1960-
  2005.
      40 -i
                               35.0
                                                     5-
                                                     TJ
                                                     c
                                                     3
                                                     o
                                                     Q.
M.4b—Per capita generation of
municipal solid waste, 1960-2005.
         1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005
                                                          1960   1970  1980  1990  2000  2010
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                              101

-------
      7. Toxic-Free Communities
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••nun
 MILESTONE
                                 5
By 2005,
                        the presence of the most persistent,
                        bioaccumulative, and toxic
                        constituents in hazardous waste will
                        be reduced by 50 percent from 1991
                        levels.
                         Hazardous waste can be acutely or chronically dangerous to people and other living
                      things if managed improperly.  It can be toxic, corrosive, ignitable, or reactive.  "Persis-
                      tent" refers to some chemical constituents of waste, such as certain metals and chlori-
                      nated organics, that generally do not break down into other substances once released into
                      the environment. "Bioaccumulative" refers to substances that tend to concentrate in the
                      tissues of plants and animals and then can be passed on to humans.  "Toxic" refers to
                      substances that have the potential to harm the environment or adversely impact human
                      health (e.g., reproductive or mutagenic health effects, cancer).  Long-term exposure to
                      even small doses of toxic constituents can be harmful to many different types of living
                      things.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         The Waste Minimization National Plan, released in November 1994, outlines EPA's
                      major goals, objectives, and action items to pave the way toward national reductions in
                      the generation of hazardous waste.  Because the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
                      constituents in waste are of great concern, regardless of how they are managed, EPA has
                      set a target of a 50 percent reduction in the amount of each of these constituents in waste
                      by 2005. The 50 percent target was established based on estimates of an ambitious, but
                      attainable, reduction. EPA's Waste Minimization National Plan also establishes an
                      interim target of a 25 percent reduction by the year 2000.

                      Tracking Results
                         EPA is constructing a baseline for tracking the results, generally using 1991 data
                      where available. The Agency is selecting data sources that already exist for the 1991
                      baseline. EPA is currently developing a list of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and
                      toxic chemicals, which is scheduled to be available  by spring 1997. For monitoring
                      progress toward the 2000 interim target and the 2005 milestone, EPA is identifying future
                      data sources and data collection instruments through the Waste Information Needs (WIN)
                      Initiative.
102
                              GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Strategy
    Achieving the goal of toxic-free communities requires a broad strategy that addresses
not only pollution reduction technology, but also social and economic factors. As more
Americans understand the costs of waste and toxic substances, in terms of both the
economy and the environment, individuals and industries will adjust
their ways of doing business.
    The overarching principles guiding the strategy for toxic-free
communities are contained in the pollution prevention hierarchy
(see box in "The Challenge" section). The strategy has several
interrelated focal points:
    •   Reviewing new and existing chemicals.
    •   Using market forces.
    •   Promoting stewardship and partnership.
               Costs
Chemical Review
   An important component of the strategy is EPA's chemical
review program, which is designed to make sure that new chemicals
are safe before they are introduced into the marketplace and that
chemicals already in use are safe.
   EPA is taking a two-pronged approach to help ensure commu-
nity safety. First, all new industrial chemicals proposed by manufac-
turers are reviewed for their impacts on human health and the
environment. If their effects are considered serious, EPA will not
allow production. If, however, the health effects of a chemical's
intended use are of low concern or if the chemical can be made safe
by appropriate handling, production is allowed. Requirements for
special precautions are frequently written into agreements with chemical manufacturers.
   Second, EPA reviews risks posed by the plethora of "existing chemicals" already in
commerce. The safe use of chemicals already in use in the United States requires that
toxicity information be collected, critical exposures assessed, and appropriate controls put
in place. This is being accomplished using a combination of voluntary industry actions,
information dissemination, and federal, state, and local controls. EPA, in conjunction
with other government agencies, industry, unions, and environmental partners, will
develop an agenda that uses risk evaluation as its main criterion for decision making on
chemicals. To develop its risk-based agenda, EPA will focus on high-volume chemicals
because high production volume indicates greater exposure potential. In selecting 1,350
priority chemicals, EPA will use factors including relative toxicity, exposure, use pat-
terns,  and environmental persistence.
   Progress toward the long-term goal will also be made though industry's voluntary
risk-reduction, product stewardship programs such as the "responsible care" program of
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which is designed to improve the safety of
chemicals in commerce.

Market Forces
   Because recycling and reducing waste often save money, businesses and consumers
are quick to adopt such practices when they are available. Industry has developed many
cost-effective methods to reduce the amount of waste generated or the amount that must
be disposed of, stored, and treated.
   Individuals, institutions, and private companies have tremendous potential  to leverage
their purchasing power toward products and services that pose fewer environmental
problems. Although consumers have begun to consider environmental impacts when
   In a 1990 report, Environmental
Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
Environment, EPA estimated that the
annual public  and private costs of
meeting toxic chemical control standards
(but  excluding  municipal  solid waste
management and recycling costs) were
approximately $600 million in 1990 and
would rise to $1.2 billion by 2000 to fully
meet standards  expected to be in place
by then  (constant  1986  dollars).
Achievement of the proposed milestones
might require implementation of some
programs  not anticipated when these
estimates  were  prepared, which would
add to the costs.  Over the next few years,
the costs and benefits associated with
toxics reduction programs will be more
fully assessed.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                  103

-------
       7. Toxic-Free Communities
making purchasing decisions and there are a number of private sector environmental
certification (eco-labeling) programs, significant changes in consumer buying patterns are
not yet visible.
   A number of forces, however, are beginning to increase consumer awareness of the
environmental impacts of products and the important role that consumers can play in
bringing environmental improvement. First, a recent study shows that although manufac-
turers have reduced emissions, those reductions have been offset by increases in the toxic
components in finished products.6 Second, a variety of new national environmental
labeling programs have begun. Both of these trends may result in heightened consumer
awareness of the environmental impacts of products and who is responsible for them—
not just during processing, manufacturing, and distribution but during use and ultimate
disposal as well.
   Over the next 10 years, EPA expects that virtually every product and service will be
redesigned by American businesses, which will increase opportunities to produce and
purchase environmentally preferable products. Environmentally preferable products are
those which have few unnecessary inputs  of chemicals and natural resources, require less
energy to produce and use, are safer to produce and use, have a long product life, and are
more easily recycled or reused.
   By  2005, capital investments in prevention technologies will grow from 45
percent in 1992 to 60 percent of environmental investments.        __•-__«_
This action is taking place as industry transforms pollution control
from primarily end-of-pipe technologies to in-process pollution
prevention. In the early 1980s, only 15 percent of capital budgets
spent on pollution abatement was for prevention. In recent years,
the proportion of expenditures for pollution prevention has in-
creased significantly to approximately 45  percent (see Fig. 1).
   By  2005,10 percent of consumer purchases (both public and
private) will be for environmentally preferable products and
services. The federal government has the potential to create demand
for "green" products and thereby jump-start public and private
markets for such products. The federal government is increasing its
own purchases of environmentally preferable products, with a target
of 25 percent by 2005. President Clinton's 1993 Executive Order on
Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention requires
executive agencies to purchase "environmentally preferable"
products and services. The primary goal of this Executive Order is
to use some of the government's purchasing power—over $200
billion  annually—to improve environmental quality.
   Market share devoted to environmentally preferable products
can provide impetus for investment, which, in turn, can make such products more
competitive in the private marketplace. EPA has taken the first step by issuing guidelines
for government  purchases of products with recycled content. Currently, EPA is develop-
ing guidance to  help government agencies purchase products with multiple environmental
attributes. The guidance takes a product life-cycle perspective in determining the environ-
mental preferability of products and services.
   Eventually, EPA will expand its efforts to the general consumer marketplace, identify-
ing education and technical assistance needs and the best ways to help consumers
incorporate environmental considerations into their purchasing decisions.

Stewardship and Partnership
   A "next generation" of EPA's voluntary industrial pollution reduction program—the
33/50 Program—will help to achieve the milestone of 25 percent reduction in industrial
toxic wastes. The original 33/50 program  achieved its goals of reducing 1.5 billion
   Fig. 1 — Capital expenditures on in-
   process controls as percentage of
   total pollution abatement capital
   costs.
         80-,
    ~    60-
    r    4o-
    o
    'c
         20-
                                      60
          1980 1985  1990 1995  2000  2005
104
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                                    Design for the Environment:
                                  Partnerships for a Cleaner Future

       Businesses operating in the 1990s and early 21st century face the competing demands of keeping costs
    low and quality high, staying competitive in a global market, and meeting consumer preferences for more
    environmentally benign products.
       Design for the Environment (Df E) is a down-to-earth strategy for organizing and managing these challenging
    demands. Businesses design for the environment by implementing pollution prevention, energy efficiency,
    and other resource conservation measures; producing and using less toxic and nontoxic materials; making
    products that can be refurbished, disassembled, and recycled; and keeping careful track of the environmental
    costs associated with each product or process.
       Df E helps businesses incorporate environmental considerations into the design and redesign of products,
    processes, and technical and management systems. The program creates voluntary partnerships with industry,
    professional organizations, state and local governments, other federal agencies, and the public. EPA provides
    businesses with the information and assessment tools they need to design for the environment and helps
    them use this information to make informed choices. Within each business, the DfE program works to make
    sure the information reaches the people who make the choices—from buyers to industrial design engineers.
pounds of pollution by 33 percent by 1992 and 50 percent by 1995 on a voluntary basis.
   Companies participating in the 33/50 program cut emissions at nearly three times the
rate of other TRI reporters. They often developed new products and services using less
harmful materials, and they reengineered production processes to be more
efficient and produce less waste.
   Assistance and incentives will encourage industry to make more
voluntary commitments to waste reduction goals. For example, EPA is
working with  hundreds of major businesses throughout the country in
voluntary efforts to reduce municipal solid waste through the WasteWi$e
program. WasteWi$e partners commit to actions of their choice to reduce,
recycle, and buy recycled; in turn, EPA provides technical assistance and
recognition to participants. In the first year, member corporations pre-
vented 242,000 tons  of waste.
   Similarly,  in the hazardous waste area, EPA and the states are focusing
on reducing the amount and toxicity of the hazardous waste generated,
particularly when such reductions lead to benefits in more than one
environmental medium (air, water, or soil). EPA will meet these goals
through a variety of voluntary programs and possibly regulatory programs.
Federal  and state governments will aid industry by providing information,
establishing networks for information sharing, and providing tools to help
industry set its own hazardous waste reduction priorities.
    Voluntary Programs

   EPA is encouraging innova-
tive and flexible approaches to
achieve better environmental
results—tapping the creativity of
industry, states, and local com-
munities to increase protection for
all Americans. With Project XL—
excellence  and Leadership—
EPA offers businesses,  states,
and communities this challenge:
If  you  can achieve greater
environmental  results, EPA will
provide flexibility and cut red tape
so that you can find the cheapest
and most efficient way to  do it.
References

Text Notes
   1.    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Screening and Testing
             Chemicals in Commerce OTA-BP-ENV-166. Washington, DC: Office of
             Technology Assessment.
   2.    National Research Council. 1984. Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine
             Needs and Priorities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                            105

-------
       7. Toxic-Free Communities
                         3.    1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, DC: The White House.
                         4.    USEPA. 1996. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
                                   1995 Update. EPA/530-R-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
                                   Protection Agency.
                         5.    USEPA. 1994. The Waste Minimization National Plan. EPA 530-R-94-045.
                                   Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
                                   Waste and Emergency Response.
                         6.    Inform, Inc. 1995. Toxics Watch. New York, NY: Inform, Inc.

                       Milestone Data Sources
                         M.I    USEPA.  1995. Toxics Release Inventory public data release. Washington, DC:
                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                         M.3a   EPA staff projections, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
                         M.3b   U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.  1995. Screening and Testing
                                   Chemicals in Commerce (OTA-BP-ENV-166).  Washington, DC: Office of
                                   Technology Assessment.
                         M.4a   USEPA.  1996. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
                                   1995 Update. EPA/530-R-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
                                   Protection Agency.
                         M.4b   Ibid.
                         M.5    USEPA.  1994. The Waste Minimization National Plan. EPA 530-R-94-045.
                                   Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
                                   Waste and Emergency Response.
106                                                       GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                             Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                       8.  Preventing  Accidental
                              Releases
                               Long-Range Goal
                               Accidental releases of substances that endanger our
                               communities and the natural environment will be
                               reduced to as near zero as possible. Those which do
                               occur will cause only negligible harm to people,
                               animals, and plants.
The Challenge

   Oil, chemicals, and radioactive materials are an integral part of modern life and major
factors in our global economy. Accidental releases of these substances, however, can be
very harmful to both human health and the environment. Many catastrophic accidents
have released these substances, resulting in deaths, disruption of lives through injury and
evacuation, widespread environmental damage, and destruction of valuable property. The
1984 chemical release in Bhopal, India, killed 3,000 people and injured more than
100,000 others. The Chernobyl disaster spread radioactive material over much of the
Ukraine and northern Europe. Oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdez disaster, have damaged
large ecosystems and affected the livelihoods of many people. Damage estimates for the
Exxon Valdez incident alone are reported to be more than $2 billion.1
   Although the United States  has avoided a chemical catastrophe on the scale of
Bhopal, more than 5,000 chemical accidents are reported each year to the National
Response Center and EPA regional offices. Oil spills are even more common; more than
15,000 are reported yearly. Radiological accidents, though not nearly as common as other
hazardous releases, can be just as devastating because of the serious health effects
associated with radiation overexposure.
   In the past, accidental releases were considered unavoidable. Government and
industry focused their attention primarily on responding to them. Public concern about
damages caused by accidental releases faded as time passed, until the next release or spill
occurred. Catastrophic accidents, however, have changed attitudes on the part of govern-
ment, industry, and the public. These groups now realize that environmental damage
caused by major accidents can be long-term and, in some cases, irreversible. It is clear
that such accidents often are avoidable and must be prevented. The challenge is to
advance effective accident prevention efforts by all levels of government and the private
sector.
Responsibilities

   Many federal, state, and local government and nongovernmental organizations play
important roles in both lessening the effects of releases and preventing spills and acci-
dents. On the federal level, multiple agencies, operating under different statutory authori-
ties, are involved in coordinating accident prevention, mitigation, and response. Accident
prevention regulations are developed to ensure transportation safety, worker safety, and


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                  107

-------
        8. Preventing Accidental Releases
   Coordinated Planning Reduces
      Future Risks from Floods
     After the Midwest floods of 1993, EPA
  took action to help prevent and prepare
  for environmental and health  conse-
  quences from accidental releases  in
  future floods. In addition, the Agency
  organized a committee to address issues
  and problems that arose during the
  floods. The committee, which included
  representatives from a number of federal
  agencies, met from  February to April
  1994.  The  committee  addressed
  problems associated with assessing
  damage to water and  wastewater
  facilities, conducting water  quality
  monitoring, and measuring contamination
  of private wells during and after a major
  flooding event.  In  addition,  public
  outreach, federal/state relationships,
  interagency planning issues, and the
  distribution  of supplemental disaster
  funds to states were  top priorities. The
  group identified activities that could help
  resolve these issues to better prepare for
  future floods, such as clear identification
  of tanks and drums and their contents.
     The EPA regional office in  Kansas
  City developed a training/outreach
  program, in cooperation with state and
  local organizations, to inform owners and
  operators of hazardous materials facilities
  about release prevention measures.
environmental and public safety. The U.S. Department of Transportation and its modal
administrations, particularly the Research and Special Programs Administration and the
U.S. Coast Guard, control transportation of hazardous materials. The Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) addresses worker protection. EPA addresses environ-
mental and public health issues related to accidental releases under various statutes
including the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act. EPA's most recent regulations, under the Clean Air Act,
require each regulated facility to submit a Risk Management Plan that summarizes
hazards at the facility and describes the prevention and emergency response programs
(see box, page 109).
   The federal government also provides leadership and assistance to state and local
governments and industry in their efforts  to prevent and respond to accidental releases.
The federal government champions efforts to reduce risk by providing tools to states and
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to help them more effectively use the
information on chemical hazards and risks available. The government reviews the trends
and provides regulations and guidance to promote public safety, health,  and protection of
the environment.
   To assist state and local governments  in responding to emergencies that exceed their
capabilities, three primary federal contingency plans have been developed:
                    •   The National Contingency Plan is designed to address
                        hazardous substance and oil pollution incidents. The National
                        Response Team, made up of 15 federal agencies and depart-
                        ments, coordinates the plan.
                    •   The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, for
                        which there are 17 signatory agencies, addresses significant
                        radiological emergencies.
                    •   The Federal Response Plan was developed for any type of
                        catastrophe; 27 agencies make up the Catastrophe Disaster
                        Response Group.
                      EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard cochair the National Response
                   Team, and EPA is a primary agency for the other two federal
                   contingency plans. In addition, federal rules issued under at least 10
                   statutes require industry and state and local agencies to develop
                   contingency plans. In this capacity, one of EPA's top priorities is
                   working with individuals and teams from local, state, and federal
                   agencies to ensure that the actions they take are complementary and
                   not duplicative.
                      Industry, professional and trade associations, interest groups, and
                   the public also have important responsibilities in preventing,
                   preparing for, and responding to oil spills and chemical and radio-
                   logical accidents. Industry must acknowledge a general duty to
                   prevent releases of oil, chemicals, and radiological substances, and
                   must make information on risks and hazards available in a form that
                   is understandable to the public. Professional and trade associations
                   should direct their talents to encourage prevention  by grappling with
                   common problems, promoting innovative approaches to risk
                   management, and supporting research. Environmental and labor
                   groups should help their constituencies communicate with industry
                   and government  to promote a safer environment. The public must
                   use the information  available to make informed judgments and must
                   work with local industries to find solutions that protect human
                   health and make economic sense.
108
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
          Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Title III

     In October 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, commonly
   known as SARA, was signed into federal law. An important part of SARA, whose main
   thrust is to identify and clean up waste sites that are potentially toxic, is known as Title
   III, The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
     Title III has two important provisions:
     (1)  It provides for emergency response planning to cope with the accidental release
         of toxic chemicals into the air, land, and water.
     (2)  The community right-to-know provisions of Title III will help to increase the public's
         knowledge and access to information on the presence of hazardous chemicals
         in their communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment.
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   Attainment of the long-range goal of fewer and less severe
accidental releases requires a focus on both preventing accidents
and improving mitigation and response measures. To guide these
efforts, EPA proposes a set of milestones that reflect the Agency's
priorities of first preventing accidents, and second, when the
possibility of an accident cannot be eliminated, assisting the state
and locality in improving response and minimizing damage.
   Environmental milestone 1 sets a target for reducing the
number of accidental releases of oil, chemicals, and radioactive
substances. Environmental milestone 2 calls for a large increase in
the number of facilities in densely populated areas that have
reduced hazardous chemical inventories to minimum levels or have
eliminated them to prevent accidents. The percentages in these
milestones were selected based on trends in the number of petro-
leum releases after passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and
EPA's best professional judgment. Achieving these milestones is
dependent on a number of economic and societal factors. It will be
necessary to make allowances for these other factors when progress
is evaluated.
        Local Emergency
       Planning Committee

   Under Title III, a locality is required to
organize a Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) that is responsible for:
  •   Collecting information  about
      hazardous materials.
  •   Developing and updating, on an
      annual  basis, the Hazardous
      Materials Emergency  Response
      Plan (HMERP).
  •   Providing information to the public
      about the use, storage,  and
      manufacture   of  hazardous
      materials.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                 109

-------
       8. Preventing Accidental Releases
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
••••inn
MILESTONE
                                 1
By 2005,
      RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
          United States Coast Guard
      Performance Plan for Marine Safety,
     Security, and Environmental Protection

 Goal: [By 1998,] reduce the amount of oil and
    chemicals spilled into the water from maritime
    sources by 20%.
 Primary Measure: Gallons of oil and chemicals
    discharged from maritime sources per million
    gallons of oil and chemicals shipped.
    (Baseline: 4.77 gallons spilled per 1 million
    gallons shipped in 1993.)
 Goal: [By 1998,] reduce the total number of
    major and medium oil spills by 50%.
 Primary Measure: Number of  major and
    medium oil spills per  billion tons shipped.
    (Baseline: 16 medium/major oil  spills per 1
    billion tons shipped.)

 * The amount of oil and chemicals spilled from mari-
 time sources decreased from 13.05 million gallons in
 1989 to 1.95 million gallons in 1994. The total number
 of medium/major oil spills decreased from 32 in 1990
 to 9 in 1994.
M.1a—Percentage breakdown of
CERCLA hazardous substances and
petroleum releases, 1994.
                       there will be 25 percent fewer
                       accidental releases of oil, chemicals,
                       and radioactive substances than in
                       1993.
                   The majority of accidental releases occur on water (for oil)
                and land (hazardous substances) from a variety of refineries,
                production facilities, and transportation-related sources. The
                graphs below provide detail on the type and frequency of the
                different kinds of accidental releases.2

                Past Trends and 2005 Target
                   There have been few discernible trends in accidental
                releases. However, Coast Guard data on spills to maritime
                waters show that both the volume and total number of spills of
                oil and other chemicals have decreased in recent years. The
                number of other types of releases varies considerably from
                year to year. The 25 percent reduction target is based on best
                available general  industry projections.

                Tracking Results

                   Progress will be tracked with data from EPA's Emergency
                Response Notification System, a computer database contain-
                ing information on notifications of releases of oil and hazard-
                ous substances that have occurred throughout the United
                States. The sources of these data are private parties or various
                federal, state, or local response authorities.
                               M.1b—Accidental releases of oil and
                               hazardous substances.
 CERCLA
Hazardous
Substances
 Petroleum
     Releases to:
      •  Land
      D  Air
      S  Water
      E3  Ground Water
      E3  Facility grounds
      &  Other
                                                                           Oil
                                                                                      Chemical
            15000n
        JB
        £
        «

        I

        1
                                                                5000-
                                                                      12164
                                                                             10161
                                                                                       7301
I                                        6443


                                        I
                                                                       / ^ /    / J /

                                                                                Year
110
                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••Hill
      MILESTONE
          2
By 2005,
there will be a 50 percent increase
over 1993 levels in the number of
industrial facilities in high-risk areas
that have either eliminated hazardous
substance inventories or reduced
them to minimum levels.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   A proposed baseline study of selected facilities will provide
data on minimum levels and high-risk areas. The study will
establish a system to examine the safe management programs and
processes that facilities currently have in place and will track
modifications after facilities have met Risk Management Plan
requirements (see box at right).

Past Trends and 2005 Target

   No data exist on past trends. The target was set at 50 percent
based on best available projections of economic information and
industrial hazardous substance inventory information.

Tracking Results

   Data to track progress toward this milestone will be gathered in
the baseline study from selected facilities reporting under EPA's
Risk Management Plan Rule.
                                 Risk Management Plan Rule

                                 The Clean Air Act Amendments of
                               1990 included a section (112(r)(7))
                               designed to prevent accidental releases
                               to the air by focusing on chemicals that
                               pose the greatest risk to the public and
                               the environment. To do this,  EPA
                               promulgated a list of  regulated
                               substances on January 31,1994 (59 FR
                               4478). If a regulated substance is present
                               at a stationary source in more than a
                               threshold  quantity,  the owners or
                               operators are required to prepare and
                               implement a Risk Management  Plan
                               (RMP). An RMP includes a hazardous
                               assessment, a prevention program, and
                               an emergency response program. A
                               hazardous assessment includes an
                               assessment of a worst-case release and
                               a 5-year accident history. The RMP must
                               be registered with EPA and submitted to
                               state and local authorities. The RMP must
                               also be available to the public.
                                 EPA is currently preparing a final rule
                               for section 112(r)(7) regulations. Sources
                               subject to these requirements must
                               comply and submit an RMP within 3 years
                               of the rule's effective date. EPA will also
                               issue technical guidance and model risk
                               management plans. EPA will prepare
                               guidance for states and local planners on
                               the use of the RMP information.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                              111

-------
        8. Preventing Accidental Releases
                 Costs
      In a  1990 report,  Environmental
  Investments:  The  Cost of a Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated that the
  annual public and  private costs of
  meeting "multimedia" pollution standards
  including, but not limited to, the cost of
  planning for emergency responses and
  providing information to communities on
  hazardous  chemicals were  approxi-
  mately $1.6 billion in 1990 and would rise
  to $2.3 billion by 2000 to fully meet
  standards expected to be in place by then
  (constant 1986 dollars). Achievement of
  the proposed milestones might  require
  implementation of some programs not
  anticipated when these estimates  were
  prepared, which would add to the costs.
  Over the next few years, the costs and
  benefits  associated  with accident
  prevention programs will be more fully
  assessed.
Strategy

   Accidental releases can be prevented through a variety of measures: well-designed
facilities, maintenance, and training; public dialogue; and changes to equipment and
processes, including substitution of less hazardous or nonhazardous chemicals. There are,
however, formidable barriers to improved prevention efforts. These include an incom-
plete regulatory framework, inadequate public education and outreach, technology and
                   equipment gaps, and a lack of accessible information. The strategies
                   described below are designed to help overcome these barriers.
                   Although this is not an exhaustive list, it represents important steps
                   toward identifying key issues and stimulating progress toward
                   achieving the milestones and, ultimately, the goal of preventing
                   accidental releases.
                   Implementing Regulations
                      EPA will complete the statutory, regulatory, and program
                   implementation framework for industry to eliminate unintended
                   releases and for states, tribes, and local governments to implement
                   effective preparedness, prevention, and response programs. First,
                   EPA will complete Clean Air Act regulations and guidance estab-
                   lishing risk management programs and risk management plans for
                   facilities handling regulated substances. EPA will work with states
                   and tribes to build strong local prevention programs. Over the next
                   several years, the Agency will evaluate regulatory and
                   nonregulatory programs that are in place and will identify and
                   address gaps in chemical, oil, and radiological programs. EPA will
                   assess the current status of accident response equipment at all levels
                   and will demonstrate new technologies as they become available.
                      EPA, states, and tribes will continue to implement and enforce
                   rules for the prevention of accidents. To stimulate industry to
                   comply and to seek safety improvements, EPA will serve as
facilitator, providing research support, acting as intermediary for information sharing, and
bringing industry and the public together in a cooperative effort. Industry and labor must
continue to work together to identify areas where  safety improvements are possible.
Professional organizations and academia will continue to work with industry on research
for developing safer alternative processing technologies and possible chemical substitu-
tions.
   At present, there are no data on past trends for facilities in high-risk areas that have
evaluated hazards and adopted approaches to ensure transportation safety, worker safety,
and public and environmental safety. Nevertheless, EPA is proposing the following
target: By 2005, there will be a 30 percent increase in facilities in high-risk areas that
have completed hazard evaluations and have adopted inherently safer approaches to
managing chemicals. This target is  based on best available projections of economic and
industrial use information. Data will be  gathered in the baseline study from selected
facilities reporting under EPA's Risk Management Plan Rule (see milestone 2), which
will also be used to define "high-risk areas" and "inherently safer approaches."
   EPA will also work with its state and tribal partners to develop voluntary compliance
programs, and will help them develop monitoring systems to determine whether these
programs are effective in preventing accidental releases. In cases where accidental
releases have caused significant injury or have presented high risk for human health  and
the environment, EPA will assist them in taking legal actions.
112
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
 Providing Education and Training
    EPA will educate industry, government agencies, labor, public interest groups, the
 general public, and the media about the risks associated with unintended releases of
 chemicals, oil, and radiological substances. An educated public is better prepared to
 discuss accident prevention issues at the local level and more likely to take voluntary
 actions, such as training, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to accidents.
    •   EPA will develop and implement a program for training national, regional, state,
       tribal, and local radiological emergency response planners on a protective action
       guidance for nuclear incidents.
    •   EPA will continue to build cooperative partnerships among industry, government,
       labor,  academia, and the public to communicate clearly and persuasively the risks
       and hazards of spills and accidents and to train industry and community leaders in
       preventing, preparing  for, and responding to incidents.
    •   By the year 2000, educational and training materials will have been prepared and
       an information clearinghouse established to promote and distribute these materials
       to community leaders, the media, and the public.
    •   By 2005, there will be fewer and less severe unintended releases because the
       public and community and industry leaders will be aware  of the environmental
       and health risks associated with such releases. Educational and training programs
       and materials will be widely available and easily accessible.

 Understanding  Causes and Risks
    Working in partnership with industry, academia, other federal agencies, and profes-
sional organizations, EPA will develop a solid scientific understanding of the causes of
unintended releases  and the risks associated with them. Of particular interest is an
understanding of interactions among chemical, oil, and radiological substances, and their
risks to humans; the risk associated with unintended releases, especially the effects of
newly introduced chemicals into the marketplace; and new communication technologies.
EPA will also develop and promote the use of inherently safer technologies, technical
tools, and approaches for preventing and responding to unintended releases of oil,
chemicals, and radiological substances.
    •   By 2000, improved dispersion models, guidance, and other technical tools for
       predicting impact will be in use by relevant governmental agencies, industry, and
       the public.
    •   By 2000, EPA will develop incentives for continuous improvement in technolo-
       gies and approaches.
    •   EPA will obtain, provide, improve, and use  data to shape national policy on
       accident prevention and allow for the most appropriate, flexible, and cost-effective
       implementation of that policy.

Improving Information and Accountability
    EPA will assess the current status of accident data and their ability to fill the needs of
environmental milestone 1 by 1997. EPA will clarify what is needed to provide sufficient
data to describe the status quo and to track progress toward the long-range goal. EPA will
identify short-term (generally cheaper and easier) modifications of the existing data
systems, which can be accomplished by 1996-97, as well as more sweeping changes and
improvements. Wider use of existing information should increase for stakeholders in
accident prevention as well. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) maintains  an emergency event surveillance database that provides
useful data on the nature and  extent of emergency chemical releases.
    •   By 1998, EPA will design and implement a measurement system to track progress
       toward meeting the overall program goals. This system might include baseline
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         113

-------
        8. Preventing Accidental Releases
                             accident surveys, collection of other types of data, and other evaluation tools,
                             either built entirely on existing systems or including new elements.
                             EPA will work with other federal partners to streamline the Agency's and other
                             federal agencies' data collection, distribution, and use practices aimed  at improv-
                             ing the timeliness and utility of the data, and reducing data gaps and redundancies
                             by 1999.
                       References

                       Text Notes
                         1.      The National Response Team. 1989. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, A Report to
                                   the President.
                         2.      The National Response Team. 1990. Oil Spill Contingency Planning: National
                                   Status.

                       Milestone Data Sources
                         M.la   USEPA.  1994. Emergency Response Notification System. Washington, DC:
                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                         M.lb   Ibid.
114                                                       GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                             Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                       9.   Safe  Waste
                               Management
                               Long-Range Goal
                               Wastes produced by every person, business, and unit
                               of government in America will be stored, treated, and
                               disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and
                               other living things.
The Challenge

   Most industrial and commercial processes and many everyday activities produce
wastes. Some of these wastes are classified as hazardous to human health and the
environment. Depending on levels and routes of exposure, some hazardous wastes can
damage the central nervous system, reproductive system, and major organs like the liver,
lungs, kidneys, and heart. Industry can produce hazardous wastes as by-products of
manufacturing processes or as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids, that become
contaminated and are discarded. Radioactive wastes can be produced in nuclear power
production, manufacturing, mining, medical practices, and research. Common household
garbage, also referred to as municipal solid waste, is primarily nonhazardous, but it can
contain wastes that spread disease or harm the environment. Additionally, this goal covers
leakages of petroleum and other chemicals stored in underground tanks at gas stations
and other businesses. If these tanks are substandard or improperly maintained, they can
leak and contaminate ground water supplies.
   Improper management of wastes can lead to fires, explosions, and contamination of
the air, soil, and water,  including ground water. Currently, there are several management
techniques for wastes, including recycling, land disposal, and combustion. Different types
of wastes require different means of treatment and disposal; what is suitable for one
waste might not be suitable for another.
   Over the past 15  years, enforcement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) has improved  the management of hazardous and solid wastes and hazardous
materials stored in underground tanks. There are now fewer fires and explosions and
fewer toxic releases to air, land, and water. Workers and the public are less exposed to
toxic constituents in  the nation's wastes, which has reduced the risk of waste-related
cancers and other health problems.
   Recent management efforts have reduced the amount and toxicity of generated waste.
Milestones for further reductions are included under the goal for toxic-free communities
(Chapter 7). However, pollution prevention practices will not totally eliminate waste. The
challenge is to manage the remaining household, commercial, and industrial wastes in
cost-effective ways that are safe for both people and the environment.
Responsibilities
   Anyone who generates waste shares responsibility for ensuring that it is managed in
ways that do not harm people or the environment. The federal government's role in
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
115

-------
      9. Safe Waste Management
         Low- and High-Level
         Radioactive Wastes
     High-level wastes are liquid or solid
  radioactive wastes generated as a by-
  product of power generation from nuclear
  reactors. These wastes are a  result of
  the processing of discharged spent fuel.
  They  contain  high-energy  fission
  products, resulting in the need for heavy
  shielding to absorb the penetrating
  radiation.
     Low-level wastes  are radioactive
  wastes that are not classified as spent
  fuel, high-level waste, transuranic waste,
  or by-product materials such as uranium
  or thorium mill tailings. Typically, they are
  ordinary industrial or research wastes
  contaminated with radioactive material.
  Although termed "low-level wastes,"
  some  of them can pose the same
  handling  and   disposal hazards
  associated with  the  high-level and
  transuranic wastes.
                   ensuring safe waste management is to demonstrate leadership by
                   establishing program direction, setting goals, and measuring
                   success. A strong framework for safe waste management has been
                   established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
                   Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Atomic Energy Act. These
                   statutes outline the need for and scope of the federal role.
                      Enacted in 1976, RCRA establishes a federal leadership role in
                   promoting the reduction of waste and unsalvageable materials and
                   in providing for safe and economical solid and hazardous waste
                   management practices. RCRA gives EPA the authority to draft
                   regulations, set national policies, and provide guidance for regu-
                   lated entities. Specifically, RCRA requires EPA to identify hazard-
                   ous waste and establish standards that regulate handling, storage,
                   treatment, and disposal. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
                   ments (HSWA) of 1984 expanded RCRA's focus to include a
                   greater number of regulated wastes, increased limitations on land
                   disposal, and additional underground storage tank regulations. EPA,
                   states, and tribes are responsible for implementing and enforcing
                   RCRA requirements. EPA works closely with these partners—the
                   primary implementers of the program under RCRA—to facilitate
                   program development and implementation.
                      The Safe Drinking Water Act established the Underground
                   Injection Control Program (UIC) to protect underground sources of
                   drinking water from endangerment by the injection of fluids
through wells. Among the higher-risk classes of wells regulated  by EPA are shallow
injection wells (Class V), which include industrial septic systems.
   Under the Atomic Energy Act, the U.S. government has primary responsibility for
ensuring safe management and disposal of highly radioactive wastes generated by nuclear
power and the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons. EPA's primary respon-
sibility is to develop standards to  protect people and the environment from radioactive
releases from waste management and disposal sites. The Low Level Waste Policy Act
gives states responsibility for commercial low-level waste.
                        Environmental  Milestones for 2005

                           Ideally, EPA would like to measure progress in terms of the direct impact that waste
                        programs have on emissions of contaminants into air, soil, and ground water. Such
                        measurement should occur at all stages of waste management: at the point of generation
                        and during transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. Much of this information,
                        however, is not collected on a national level, if at all.
                           EPA and the states have recently launched an effort to explore a broad range of waste-
                        related information needs and technologies. The project will transform the existing
                        processes for information collection and data management. Upon its completion, im-
                        proved measurement of environmental progress will be possible.
                           Currently, several targets for safe waste management are for government actions, such
                        as issuing permits or closing unsafe facilities, which are indirect measures of progress
                        and appear in the Strategy section. They are not direct indicators of the health of people
                        or the environment, but they do provide information on government efforts to improve
                        waste management. Environmental milestones 1 through 5 are actual or surrogate
                        estimates of pollutant reductions from waste facilities.
116
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••mini
      MILESTONE
           1
By 2005,
chlorinated dioxin/furan emissions
from waste-burning facilities will be
reduced 98 percent from 1994 levels.
                       Federal
                      Reviewers:
                     Please provide
                      other related
                     agency targets
   Chlorinated dioxins and furans are toxic pollutants that are
believed to cause cancer even in very small amounts. One way
they are produced is the burning of substances that contain
chlorine. Some of the highest emissions of these compounds
come from facilities burning wastes.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Hazardous waste combustion facilities (incinerators and
kilns used in manufacturing cement and other materials) emit
dioxins and furans in small but toxic amounts. The earliest data
submitted to EPA indicate that 937 grams of these compounds
were emitted from hazardous waste combustors in  1991, and
similar amounts have been emitted in subsequent years. EPA
expects to achieve the 98 percent reduction target by means of
implementation of new standards set in 1997. (Note that these
figures are approximate and will be finalized later in 1996.)
   Municipal waste incinerators burn garbage as fuel to
generate steam and electricity. Because garbage contains small
amounts of chlorine-containing chemicals, burning can produce
dioxins and furans. EPA estimated in 1993 that 3,300 grams
were emitted annually from municipal waste combustors.
Reductions in emissions have occurred since 1993, and addi-
tional reductions are anticipated when EPA standards are fully
implemented. By the year 2000, dioxin and furan emissions
from municipal waste combustors will be less than 1 percent of
the amount emitted in 1993.
   Medical waste incinerators also emit dioxins and furans.
EPA is determining current emission levels and will set stan-
dards as necessary to reduce them.

Tracking Results
   For hazardous  waste combustors, EPA will track reduced
emissions through facility reporting required as part of the
emission standards that will be imposed in 1997. These require-
ments are likely to feature yearly, 3-year, and 5-year reporting
frequencies depending on the size of the facility and its purpose
in conducting emission testing. For municipal waste combustors,
EPA will track results through required annual compliance
testing and reporting.
                           M.1—Dioxin/furan emissions from waste
                           combustion facilities from 1991 through
                           2005.

                               a. Hazardous waste combustors

                                  3500 -i

                              c-   3000-
                            81       "
                            •i >   2500
                            W D
                            E of
                            c •><
                            |B
                            1°
                            § E   innnJ   937      937
2000-

1500-
                                  1000-
                                   500-
                                                          14
                                         1991
                                                 1994
                                                         2005
                             b. Municipal solid waste incinerators

                                  3500-]  3300
                                         1993
                                                 1995
                                                         2000
                                                        The toxicity equivalency factor (TEQ) is used to
                                                        express the relative toxicity of complex mixtures of
                                                        chemicals such as chlorinated dioxins and furans.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                117

-------
      9. Safe Waste Management
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
      in •••mm
       MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
                              emissions of mercury and other
                              harmful pollutants from waste-
                              burning facilities will be reduced by
                              at least 80 percent from 1994 levels.
M.2—Mercury emissions from waste
combustion facilities from 1991
through 2005.

   a. Hazardous waste combustors

     80 T
      60
 £•

 I
 E    40
 o
 
-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••Hill
      MILESTONE
           3
By 2005,
the annual number of confirmed
releases from underground storage
tanks will be 80 percent lower than in
1994.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Underground storage tanks are tanks that are located at least partially underground
and designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or chemicals. (See also
Restoration of Contaminated Sites, milestone 5.) The most common causes of petroleum
or other chemical releases from underground storage tanks are tank corrosion, corroded
or failed piping, spills, and overfills. Releases can lead to fires, explosions, seepage of
toxic fumes into homes and businesses, and contamination of ground water, an important
drinking water source for nearly half of all Americans. These releases contain substances
that are harmful to human health and the environment, such as benzene, a known cancer-
causing substance.
   EPA regulations cover approximately 1.1 million underground storage tanks in use at
over 400,000 facilities nationwide. Most of these storage tanks contain petroleum, and
approximately 30,000 hold hazardous chemicals covered by EPA regulations.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Over 300,000 releases from federally regulated underground storage tank systems
have been confirmed. The graph shows annual releases from 1991 projected through
2005. Although this milestone is ambitious, it is achievable because of anticipated efforts
to comply with EPA's 1998 deadline for upgrading or closing substandard systems. (The
1998 deadline will likely cause the rate of confirmed releases to rise temporarily as
owners and operators discover additional contamination when  closing or upgrading their
tanks.) The requirements will ultimately prevent releases by
eliminating substandard systems and improving tank management.
Tracking Results
   Progress will be tracked with semiannual reports from states to
EPA. These reports include data on all confirmed releases from
petroleum underground storage tanks, which constitute 97 percent
of the federal regulated universe.
                              M.3—Annual releases from
                              underground storage tanks.
                                           57.0
                                                                         1991
                                                   1994
                                                                                           2005
                                                            Improved tanks and piping will reduce releases of
                                                            oil and chemicals from storage tanks.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                119

-------
      9. Safe Waste Management
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
••••inn
MILESTONE
                                4
By 2005,
                       wellhead protection areas and
                       vulnerable ground waters will no
                       longer receive industrial wastewater
                       discharges from septic systems.
Estimated volume of industrial
wastewater discharged to the ground
through septic systems.
                         Septic systems discharge about 10 billion gallons of wastewater per year to the soil.
                      EPA estimates that 10 percent of the wastewater contains toxic industrial wastes. These
                      wastes pass through septic systems unchanged and eventually enter water table aquifers
                      while still toxic.
                         EPA regulates septic systems used to dispose of industrial wastewater as Class V
                      underground injection control wells. Ground water contamination associated with Class
                      V injection wells has been documented by EPA as part of its strategy to reduce the risk of
                      ground water contamination across the United States.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         EPA will use 1995 as a baseline year to measure the effectiveness of its Class V
                      management strategy.1 EPA launched its strategy in mid-1995 and anticipates  a modest
                      reduction in the volume of toxic industrial wastes discharged from septic systems by
                      1997. By 2001, as this effort gains momentum and more Class V wells are closed, EPA
                      expects to achieve an 80 percent reduction in the amount of toxic industrial wastes
                      released through these wells. By 2005, if the Class V management strategy has fully
                      succeeded, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground water resources will no
                      longer receive industrial wastewater discharges from misused septic systems.

                      Tracking Results
                         EPA will collect annual reports from state and EPA underground injection  control
                      programs that describe closures of industrial Class V wells. The  volume of industrial
                      wastewater no longer being injected as a result of well closure is based on the number of
                     —^I^^^^^B^^    closures per year multiplied by the estimated number of gallons per
                                        well.
 «J
 o
      250-
            1995     2001
120
                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i ••••mm
      MILESTONE
            5
                               By 2005,
                               10 percent of the amount of spent
                               nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and
                               transuranic  radioactive waste
                               currently stored across the nation
                               will be disposed of in accordance
                               with EPA disposal standards.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
                                                                 What Is Transuranic Waste?
                                                                  Transuranic (TRU) waste is a class
                                                               of  radioactive waste that contains
                                                               elements with atomic weights greater
                                                               than 92 (excluding high-level waste).
                                                               Most of this waste is  generated during
                                                               the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
                                                               Most TRU  waste does not emit high
                                                               levels of penetrating radiation but poses
                                                               a danger when small particles that emit
                                                               radiation are inhaled or ingested, causing
                                                               damage to  internal organs.  By keeping
                                                               this type of TRU waste enclosed and
                                                               contained, risks associated with
                                                               handling, transport,  and disposal are
                                                               minimized.  Some TRU wastes do emit
                                                               high levels of penetrating radiation; they
                                                               require protective shielding.
   Nuclear power generation, some kinds of mining, and various
processes in industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research
produce radioactive waste. Gaseous, liquid, or solid radioactive
waste can remain hazardous for hours, months, or hundreds of
thousands of years, and its level of radioactivity can vary widely.
These properties make it difficult to find disposal facilities  that
protect public health and safety as well as the air, soil, and water.
   Radioactive waste has been disposed of at numerous sites around
the nation, sometimes without proper consideration of the full environ-
mental impact of the disposal method or waste form. Some waste,
particularly spent nuclear fuel, remains stored at the generating
facilities, awaiting the development of acceptable disposal facilities.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Low-level, high-level, and transuranic (TRU) wastes have been
generated since the 1940s. Spent nuclear fuel from commercial
nuclear reactors has been and is now generated and stored at the
generation site until it can be disposed of in a suitable geologic
repository. The reprocessing of the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
spent nuclear fuel has yielded the volumes of high-level waste in the
United States. Additionally, much of the radioactive waste has been a by-product of the nuclear
weapons industry. By 1991, over 4.76 million cubic meters of radioactive waste under the
purview of the Atomic Energy Act had accumulated, including a total of 658,000 cubic meters of
spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and TRU waste, and waste volumes continue to increase as
some facilities continue to operate and others are cleaned up.
   Nine major DOE and commercial low-level waste disposal sites are operating in the United
States. There are no operating disposal sites for TRU waste, high-level waste, and spent nuclear
fuel. In the coming decades, the need for disposal sites will continue as nuclear weapons
facilities are retired and cleaned up.
   EPA is addressing the more serious concerns of disposing of the spent nuclear fuel, high-level
waste, and TRU waste by developing standards for their disposal. By 2005, roughly 25 percent of
all TRU waste generated since 1970 will be disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near
Carlsbad, New Mexico, under the purview of EPA regulations  (provided the facility can meet
EPA-promulgated standards by DOE's 1997 certification deadline). This amount is equivalent to
10 percent of the total amount of TRU waste plus spent nuclear fuel plus high-level waste. The
development of regulations or guidance for other types of wastes will facilitate the disposal of
additional radioactive wastes.

Tracking Results
   Progress in the amount of waste disposed of in accordance with EPA standards and regula-
tions will be measured against a baseline report developed annually by DOE.2 The report
describes radioactive wastes  produced in both the government  and commercial sectors.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                                                121

-------
      9. Safe Waste Management
                 Costs
     In a 1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
  Environment, EPA estimated that the
  annual public  and private costs of
  meeting safe waste management and
  underground storage tank standards
  were approximately $25  billion  in 1990
  and would rise to $38 billion by 2000 to
  fully meet standards expected to be in
  place by then (constant  1986 dollars).
  Achievement of the proposed milestones
  might require implementation of some
  programs not anticipated when these
  estimates were  prepared, which would
  add to the costs.  Over the next few years,
  the costs and benefits associated with
  safe waste management programs will
  be more fully assessed.
Strategy

   EPA will continue to build state, tribal, and local government capacity to implement
current safe waste management programs and will establish additional federal require-
ments where they are needed to protect human health and the environment. New stan-
dards will ultimately be adopted by the states and tribes.
   EPA will work with its government partners to develop ways to assess the effective-
ness of their permitting and inspection programs. The Agency will help them establish
                   and evaluate compliance assistance programs and will assist them
                   by taking enforcement action against noncompliers.
                      EPA is working hard with its partners and stakeholders to
                   improve other elements of programs under the Resource Conserva-
                   tion and Recovery Act. For example, EPA recently revised regula-
                   tions so that the public is able to provide earlier and better input to
                   the permitting process for hazardous waste facilities. EPA and states
                   also are working to focus RCRA on higher-risk wastes to  improve
                   the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the overall RCRA program.
                   EPA will continue to work with all stakeholders to develop flexible,
                   cost-effective ways to achieve the nation's safe waste management
                   goal.
                   Municipal Solid Waste
                      States are the primary implementers of municipal solid waste
                   landfill permit programs. By 2005,100 percent of states will
                   operate viable permit programs to ensure that municipal solid
                   waste landfills have controls to prevent dangerous releases to
                   soil and ground water. EPA will continue to help states attain
                   program approval. Those with EPA-approved programs have the
                   authority to provide flexibility in meeting or exceeding minimum
                   federal requirements for design and operation, location standards,
ground water monitoring, corrective action, financial assurance, closure, and post-closure
care. This framework ensures that national standards for environmental protection are
met while applying local solutions that are flexible, reasonable, and cost-effective. EPA
also is considering various environmentally sound, cost-effective solutions to the unique
problems facing certain small landfills.

Hazardous  Waste
   The hazardous waste program also is implemented primarily by authorized states.
EPA is proposing to authorize tribes as well. EPA will  work with states and tribes to help
them become fully authorized. An owner and operator of a facility that treats, stores, or
disposes of hazardous waste must obtain a permit to operate or to care for units that close
with hazardous waste on the premises. By 2005,100 percent of existing hazardous
waste facilities will have approved controls in place to prevent releases of harmful
pollutants to soil and ground water. Permits include a variety of conditions for the safe
design, operation, and performance of the facility, including waste sampling and analysis,
ground water monitoring, corrective action, and financial responsibility. EPA is support-
ing several efforts to streamline the permitting process by providing more cost-effective
approaches. EPA also is working with its partners to reduce reporting and record-keeping
burdens. For example, the Agency is considering electronic data exchange and periodic
surveys rather  than annual reports.
   Hazardous  waste placed on the land must first be treated to substantially diminish its
toxicity or reduce the likelihood that hazardous constituents will leak into soil and ground
water. Several  different treatment techniques are available, depending on the hazards
122
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
associated with a particular type of waste: neutralization, which decreases the acidity or
alkalinity of a substance; solidification or stabilization, which removes water from a
waste or changes it chemically so that it is less likely to be washed away; biological
treatment, which uses microorganisms to break down organic compounds; and incinera-
tion. The treatment standards are based on the performance of the best demonstrated
available technology for treating each type of hazardous waste.
   To eliminate the need for treatment and to reduce the risks associated with hazardous
waste, the Agency is supporting the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act's emphasis on source
reduction. EPA issued the Waste Minimization National Plan in 1994, which outlines
goals, objectives, and action items to pave the way toward a national reduction in the
generation of hazardous waste. The plan also establishes a flexible framework for states
and generators of hazardous waste to set their own goals and targets, to track their own
progress, and to achieve success in the most common-sense, cost-effective ways.

Underground Storage Tanks
   EPA requires that by December 1998 underground storage tank systems must be
either properly closed or equipped with corrosion protection and spill/overfill devices.
This requirement ultimately will eliminate substandard systems and improve tank
management. Although most facilities will meet the 1998 deadline, a small number of
additional substandard underground storage tanks will probably be discovered each year.
(Sixty percent of the 2.1 million underground storage tanks known since 1988 already
have been replaced, upgraded, or closed.) By 2005,95 percent of known active under-
ground storage tank systems will have been replaced, upgraded, or closed.
   The overall strategy for underground storage tank systems focuses on creating
conditions under which good management of UST systems is common business practice.
Good tank management includes prevention of releases. EPA plans to continue to fulfill
its commitment to work with states to encourage and enforce compliance with the 1998
UST requirements. EPA will encourage other public and private organizations to take
over its role in providing education about the value of good tank management as a means
of curtailing environmental and human health risks. The Agency also will work with the
regulated community to develop messages and compliance options targeted to specific
segments of the universe of UST owners and operators.

Underground Injection
   EPA will work with government and industry partners and stakeholders to carry out a
strategy for the comprehensive management of Class V (shallow) wells to reduce the
potential for ground water contamination. They will be managed so that the highest-risk
wells in the most sensitive areas are addressed first. The strategy will:
   •  Encourage states to use current authority to address Class V wells.
   •  Reach operators of Class V wells through outreach, education, and technical
      assistance.
   •  Enlist the support of local governments and citizen groups to foster effective
      management.
   The strategy relies more on voluntary compliance initiatives and less on regulation,
penalties, and other traditional approaches to permitting and enforcement. Because of the
vast number of shallow wastewater disposal wells, reliance on traditional enforcement
and compliance methods alone is not feasible.

Radioactive Wastes
   EPA has developed generic standards for the handling and disposal of four types of
radioactive waste: (1) uranium and thorium mill tailings, (2) spent nuclear fuel, (3) high-
level waste, and (4) TRU waste. Development of appropriate (site-specific) standards or
criteria for these wastes will provide improved guidance for waste disposal. Recent


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          123

-------
      9. Safe Waste Management
                       improvements in modeling methods for evaluating exposure from disposal of radioactive
                       wastes should facilitate compliance with disposal standards, although standard develop-
                       ment for many wastes is still under way.
                          By 2005, a regulatory framework that addresses all three of the major radioac-
                       tive waste categories under the purview of the Atomic Energy Act—high-level
                       wastes, TRU wastes, and low-level wastes—will be in place. Guidance might also be
                       developed for Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material
                       (NORM/NARM) and recycled material.
                       References

                       Text Notes
                         I.      As laid out in proposed Class V rule (Federal Register, August 28, 1995,
                                    Vol. 60: 44652).
                         2.      DOE.  1992. Integrated Database for 1991: United States Spent Fuel and
                                    Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics. DOE/
                                    RW-006. Washington, DC: Department of Energy.
                       Milestone Data Sources
                        M. la   USEPA. 1996. Proposed Rule: Revised Technical Standards for Hazardous
                                     Waste Combustion. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                     Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
                        M. 1 b   USEPA. 1995. Final Rule: Standards of Performance for New Stationary
                                     Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources—Municipal Waste
                                     Combustors. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                     Office of Air and Radiation.
                        M.2a   USEPA. 1996. Proposed Rule: Revised Technical Standards for Hazardous
                                     Waste Combustion. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
                                     Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
                        M.2b   USEPA. 1995. Final Rule: Standards of Performance for New Stationary
                                     Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources—Municipal Waste
                                     Combustors. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                     Office of Air and Radiation.
                        M.3     USEPA. 1994. Administrator's database. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
                                     Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
                        M.4     USEPA. 1994. Class V Injection Well Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regula-
                                     tory Flexibility Analysis. Final draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen-
                                     tal Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
                        M.5     DOE. 1992. Integrated Database for 1991: United States Spent Fuel and
                                     Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics. DOE/
                                     RW-006. Washington, DC: Department of Energy.
124                                                       GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                             Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                     10.  Restoration   of
                               Contaminated  Sites
                               Long-Range Goal
                               Places in America currently contaminated by
                               hazardous or radioactive materials will not endanger
                               public health or the natural environment and will be
                               restored to uses desired by surrounding
                               communities.
The Challenge

   Parts of America's land surface are severely contaminated by industrial wastes. The
two general categories of contamination at these sites are hazardous wastes and radioac-
tive wastes. Hazardous wastes are by-products of societal activities that are potential
hazards to human health and the environment when improperly managed. They usually
are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Hazardous wastes typically found at contami-
nated sites include industrial chemicals and petroleum by-products. Radioactive wastes
can be produced in nuclear power production, manufacturing, mining, medical practices,
and research. Radioactive wastes are often highly toxic and contain radionuclides that can
persist in the environment for thousands of years.
   Improper disposal of these wastes can endanger both human
health and the environment. A common result of improper hazard-
ous waste disposal is the contamination of ground water, the source
of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. At some sites,
toxic vapors from evaporating liquid wastes or from chemical
reactions also contaminate the air. Some pollutants, such as metals
and organic solvents, can damage vegetation, endanger wildlife, and
harm the health of people who live in nearby communities. Toxic
and hazardous substances deposited on land often are carried far
from the sites by air, ground water, and surface water runoff into
streams, lakes, and rivers and accumulate in the sediments beneath
those waters.
   Today, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles of a
Superfund site. Over 90 percent of these sites pose a threat to the
surrounding population or to sensitive environments. Various
studies by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (see box) clearly
demonstrate that hazardous and radioactive waste sites pose a threat
to public health. People are being exposed to hazardous and
radioactive waste, resulting in health problems such as respiratory
illnesses, cancers and immune system effects, birth defects and
reproductive disorders, and neurologic problems.
  Agency for Toxic Substance
 and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
   ATSDR conducts health assess-
ments at all sites proposed for the
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)
and health studies at those sites when
needed, investigates complaints of
illness or disease related to exposure to
hazardous  substances,  develops
appropriate biological testing for exposed
persons, and establishes and maintains
registries of exposed persons and
hazardous substances. The  Superfund
law (CERCLA)  requires ATSDR to
perform a health assessment within one
year from the date a site is proposed for
the NPL. Through these activities,
ATSDR supports EPA's  mandate to
better assess risk at Superfund sites by
focusing  resources  on the most
significant threats.1
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                             125

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
        National Priorities List
      The National Priorities List (NPL) is
  a published list of hazardous waste sites
  that are eligible for extensive, long-term
  cleanup action under the  Superfund
  program.  EPA developed a Hazard
  Ranking System (HRS), which ranks
  sites based on the potential danger they
  pose to people and the environment.
  Sites that score high enough on the HRS
  are eligible for the NPL. Sites are then
  published  in the Federal Register for
  public comment.
Testing of approximately 6,000 persons living near 10 abandoned hazardous waste
sites shows an increased rate of abnormal blood cells that have been associated
with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Preliminary findings from a study of 700 persons exposed to volatile organic
compounds in drinking water indicate an increased prevalence of lupus, a poten-
tially debilitating disease.
Preliminary findings from a study of children living near 700 abandoned hazardous
waste sites in California indicate that women exposed to the solvents toluene and
xylene were more than twice as likely to give birth to children with neural tube
birth defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly.
Preliminary findings from a California study show  that the children of women
living near sites contaminated with semivolatile organic chemicals, pesticides, and
heavy metals have elevated rates of limb reduction defects, central nervous system
defects, and heart defects.
A study in Texarkana, Texas, has shown that women living near an abandoned
wood treatment facility had more difficulty becoming pregnant and had fewer
pregnancies than a comparison population.
                 Since the problem of contaminated sites in the United States is
              so large and varied, no one solution can be applied  everywhere.
              Decisions about cleanup must be made with community, public
              health, and environmental concerns in mind. At present, not every
              site can be cleaned up to a level that allows people to reside there
              safely. EPA works with nearby communities to determine how best
              to use the land after cleanup. In some cases an  industrial park or
              factory might be a reasonable use; in other cases a wildlife refuge
              might be the best alternative. The Agency takes into account the
              cost of restoration and the desires of the community and then, with
              protection of public health and the environment as the paramount
              concern, determines how best to restore the land.
                 The challenge to achieve this goal centers on protecting public
              health and the environment by applying the fastest, most effective
              cleanup methods  while involving affected communities in the
              restoration decision-making process. The restoration challenge
              addresses abandoned hazardous waste sites, contaminated federal
              facilities,  active industrial facilities, underground storage tanks,
              contaminated radioactive sites, and  contaminated sediments.
                  The Brownfields Challenge: Removing Barriers to Reusing Sites
     The change in industrial technology and world economy over the last two decades has left many cities with
  abandoned industrial buildings and hazardous waste sites inside their city limits. Fear of contamination by hazardous
  wastes and its associated liability sometimes prevents the sale of these sites or the lending of capital to renovate
  and reuse them. Brownfields is a program developed by EPA to help remove these barriers and facilitate the
  productive economic reuse of old industrial sites.
     In the spring of 1995, public meetings to gain input from residents and political leaders were held across the
  nation. Although some people had reservations about reusing these sites, citizens were generally pleased with the
  idea of removing barriers to allow local communities to use them for industrial and economic development.
     Dozens of sites have been nominated for participation in the Brownfields program in cities such as Sacramento,
  Trenton, Detroit, New Orleans, and St. Louis. This is the first step in a program designed to cover a total of 50 cities
  over the next few years.
126
                                GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
 Responsibilities

   Before passage of the major environmental laws affecting waste disposal and the
 restoration of contaminated sites, business and industry disposed of hazardous waste in
 ways that are unacceptable today. Now, several laws govern proper disposal of waste and
 the cleanup of contaminated sites. Other federal agencies, industry, states, and communi-
 ties work with EPA to clean up the legacy of past contamination and to protect against
 future contamination.
   To address past contamination and respond to concerns about health and environmen-
 tal risks, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
 and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. CERCLA established the Superfund  program to
 regulate and fund the cleanup of abandoned or inactive hazardous waste sites. EPA is
 responsible for implementing this program  with assistance from other federal, state, and
 local entities. Under Superfund, those sites  with the highest potential to pose risks to
 human health and the environment are placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and
 considered eligible for federal remedial action (cleanup). EPA is developing standardized
 remedies, known as presumptive remedies,  for certain types of sites based on scientific
 and engineering analyses performed at similar Superfund sites. The use of presumptive
 remedies enables EPA to apply lessons learned at past sites to limit study costs and speed
 cleanups at similar sites.
   To address past contamination specifically at federal facilities, Congress enacted the
 1992 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) and the 1992
 Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA). CERFA expedites military base closure and
 reuse by requiring the identification and documentation of uncontaminated  real property
 at closing or realigning installations. FFCA mandates federal agency compliance with
 both state and federal hazardous waste laws and requires the Department of Energy
 (DOE) to inventory and develop treatment plans for mixed waste (a combination of
 radioactive and otherwise hazardous wastes) generated by the facilities it operates.
   To address the proper management of wastes once they have been generated, Con-
 gress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA gives
 EPA the responsibility of regulating the management of hazardous wastes from cradle to
 grave. (See Safe Waste Management.) Under Subtitle I of RCRA, enacted in 1988, EPA
established the underground storage tank program. State, tribes, and local governments
take  the lead in implementing underground  storage requirements, which include both leak
prevention and cleanup.
   In 1984, RCRA's scope was expanded through the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to set more stringent hazardous waste management requirements.
HSWA also called for the comprehensive cleanup of all hazardous waste management
facilities regulated by RCRA. RCRA's corrective action program oversees this compre-
 hensive cleanup.
   To clean up contaminated radioactive sites, several agencies have important responsi-
bilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or states with authority under the
Atomic Energy Act (Agreement States)  license sites and develop Site Decommissioning
Management Plans for facilities ceasing operation. Licensees  include nuclear power
plants, universities, medical institutions, and industry. The NRC and Agreement States
oversee cleanup activities. EPA is developing uniform national cleanup standards that
 will expedite the cleanup process. (See "Strategy" section for Radiation Cleanup Rule.)
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         127

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
  Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
     Action Program (FUSRAP)

     The U.S.  Department  of Energy
  (DOE)  is conducting  remediation
  activities at 46 sites where  the federal
  government contracted with private firms
  to process or perform  research  on
  radioactive  materials. These sites are
  being addressed under DOE's Formerly
  Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
  (FUSRAP). As of March 1996, cleanup
  had been completed at 21 of the 46 sites.
  The  remaining  FUSRAP sites are
  planned to be  completed by 2016. DOE
  estimated the timing and  budget  for
  cleanup of its radioactively contaminated
  sites in its  March  1995  Baseline
  Environmental Management Report.
        Uranium Mill Tailings
        Radiation Control Act

     The U.S. Department of Energy has
  responsibility for carrying out the
  Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
  Act, which requires  disposal,  or
  stabilization and control, of uranium mill
  tailings at 24 sites in a safe and
  environmentally sound  manner. As of
  September 1993, cleanup activities had
  been completed  at 16 of the 24 sites
  (except for residual ground water
  contamination). As of September 1996,
  only four remaining sites required
  cleanup, and those will be completed by
  September 1998.
   The Department of Energy has additional responsibility for the
cleanup of radioactive waste. A large portion of DOE's cleanup
activities are focused on nuclear weapons complex facilities like the
Hanford, Washington, site. DOE is also cleaning up many smaller
sites that were contaminated during private sector support of DOE
programs (see box at left). In addition, DOE is responsible for
carrying out national mandates such as the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act (see box at left).
Environmental Milestones for 2005

   The overall goal of EPA's cleanup programs is to protect human
health and the environment through fast and effective cleanup of
priority sites and releases, while maximizing the participation of
responsible parties and other stakeholders in cleanup efforts. EPA
has undertaken a major effort to develop measures of progress using
risk reduction as the primary indicator of improvement. The Agency
is employing cutting-edge statistical and scientific methods to
determine objective ways to measure risk reduction. Risk reduction
is a decrease in the measurable chance that damage to life, health,
property, or the environment will occur. In the future, EPA might be
able to say with certainty that the chances of a person near a
contaminated site contracting cancer or another serious illness were
reduced by some percentage as a result of specific actions.
   Although these new risk-based measures are just beginning to
come into general use at EPA, revision and refinement will occur
before they are officially adopted as a means of quantifying
improvement at a restored site. Until then, more general, but
objective measures of progress, such as number of cleanup actions
taken, will be used to measure program progress. The following
milestones reflect the best available indicator data for assessing
progress in restoring contaminated lands. Targets for 2005 are based
on the current universe of sites and reflect recent EPA program
trends and EPA administrative reforms.
                             Fast Action Prevents More Contamination

     Frontier Chemical in Niagara Falls, New York, was an abandoned commercial hazardous waste treatment,
  storage, and disposal facility. After several hazardous substance releases, in December 1992 the New York State
  Department of Environmental Conservation requested that EPA stabilize the site,  restrict access, and reactivate
  utilities. EPA found more than 4,100 drums, 366,000 gallons of hazardous wastes, and two laboratories containing
  more than 6,000 pounds of laboratory chemicals. Most of the facility was in a general state of disrepair. EPA
  stabilized the facility, preventing the release of hazardous substances into the environment. EPA identified more
  than 430 potentially responsible parties who, on September 30, 1993, entered into an Administrative Order on
  Consent with EPA to remove the drums and lab chemicals. Cleanup work was completed in May 1995. EPA has
  also identified approximately 1,500 potentially responsible parties for the tank removal and decontamination phase
  of the project.
128
                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I Hi •••Hill
      MILESTONE
           1
By 2005,
long-term health threats will be
eliminated and cleanup will be
completed at 95 percent of the 1,212
non-federal facility contaminated
sites on the 1995 Superfund National
Priorities List.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Abandoned hazardous waste sites are numerous and pose
significant threats to the public. Since 1980, EPA has identified more
than 40,000 potential hazardous waste sites. Of these 40,000 sites,
EPA has determined that 24,000 do not currently warrant further
Superfund involvement and is removing them from the inventory.
EPA expects that more than 800 sites will be added to the inventory
each year. Of these potential sites, there are currently 1,212 non-
federal facility sites on the 1995 National Priorities List (see
milestone 3 for federal facility sites). Cleanup completion of these
sites is defined as when all necessary physical construction is
completed, when the site is deleted from the National Priorities List,
or when response actions, which are the agreed-upon site remedies,
do not involve construction. Cleanup completion allows communi-
ties to put Superfund sites to productive use.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   In the first decade of the Superfund program, cleanup was
completed at 63 sites. In recent years, the pace of cleanup has
accelerated. Between 1993 and 1995, EPA completed 197 clean-
ups—more than were completed in the first decade of the program.
Recent administrative reforms, including streamlined cleanup
techniques, presumptive remedies, and other reforms, are expected
to further accelerate the cleanup rate.
   By 2005, nearly all nonfederal facility sites on the NPL
(95 percent) will have cleanup completed. The remaining sites
(5 percent) will require extensive long-term cleanup due to the
complexity of contamination. The 2005  target reflects the fact that
sites that have been in the cleanup phase for years are now reaching
the end of the cleanup process.
   The target assumes  increased federal funding for Superfund,
consistent with the President's August 1996 proposal for accelerat-
ing toxic waste cleanups in our communities.

Tracking Results
   The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) will provide data to
track progress on hazardous waste cleanup. CERCLIS data include
the results of investigations to determine whether a site should be
placed on the NPL.
                                 RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
                                 Dept. of Health and Human Services
                                        Healthy People 2000
                                   [By 2000,] eliminate significant health
                                risks  from National Priorities  List
                                hazardous waste sites as measured by
                                performance of cleanup at these sites
                                sufficient to eliminate immediate and
                                significant health threats as specified in
                                health assessments completed at all
                                sites. (Baseline: 1,082 sites were on the
                                list in March 1990; of these, health
                                assessments have been conducted for
                                approximately 1,000.)
                              M.1—Construction completions at
                              Superfund National Priorities List
                              sites.
                                   1500n
                                                              1150
                                                                        1990   1995   2000   2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                129

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••mill
 MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
                        immediate health threats will be
                        eliminated and long-term cleanup will
                        be under way at 85 percent of the
                        estimated 3,200 Superfund sites (NPL
                        and non-NPL) expected to require
                        cleanup.
       RELATED FEDERAL TARGETS
       Dept. of Health and Human Services
             Healthy People 2000
     [By 2000,] eliminate significant health risks
  from National Priorities List hazardous waste sites
  as measured by performance of cleanup at these
  sites sufficient to  eliminate immediate and
  significant health threats as specified in health
  assessments completed at all sites. (Baseline:
  1,082 sites were on the list in March 1990; of these,
  health assessments have been conducted for
  approximately 1,000).
M.2—Cumulative number of Superfund sites
(NPL and non-NPL) with removal actions
completed.
                                      2700
 CO
 £
 CO
 "o
 6
                      Removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites are
                   fast ways to reduce the greatest risks to people and the
                   environment. These actions include supplying alternative
                   drinking water, removing leaking barrels or tanks, and
                   containing the spread of wastes. Remedial actions (taken at
                   NPL sites only) are the long-term cleanups required at
                   severely contaminated sites. This milestone sets a target for
                   EPA to carry out both removal and remedial cleanup
                   actions at 85 percent of the sites requiring cleanup under
                   Superfund. The estimated 3,200 sites expected to require
                   cleanup between 1995 and 2005 include the 412 sites on
                   the current NPL where construction is not yet complete, the
                   300 sites that EPA estimates will be added to the NPL
                   between 1995 and 2005, and the estimated 2,500 NPL and
                   non-NPL sites on which removal actions will have been
                   completed but further cleanup might still be required.

                   Past Trends and 2005 Target
                      During the initial stages of the Superfund program,
                   cleanup action at many contaminated sites was too slow.
                   EPA is now implementing Superfund reform initiatives that
                   are resulting in faster, fairer, more efficient contaminated
                   site cleanups.2 By September 1995, more than 230 billion
                   gallons of ground  water, 1 billion gallons of liquid waste,
                   and 1.6 billion gallons of surface water had been treated by
                   the Superfund program. In addition, more than 64 million
                   cubic yards of solid waste, 53 million cubic yards of soil,
                   and 10 million cubic yards of sediment had been treated.
                      The 85 percent target indicates the positive results EPA
                   expects from the Superfund Reform initiatives. The 2005
                   target means that at 85 percent of 3,200 sites, immediate
                   threats requiring removal actions will be eliminated and
                   construction or other remedial action will be ongoing.

                   Tracking Results
                      CERCLIS will provide data to track progress.
                   CERCLIS data include the results of investigations to
                   determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL.
            1990 1991 1992 1993 1994     2005
130
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I ••••Hill
      MILESTONE
           3
By 2005,
at least 10 percent of
contaminated federal lands
currently on the National
Priorities List will be cleaned up.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Federal lands and facilities are among the sites contaminated by hazardous waste.
Department of Defense military sites, in particular, have received a great deal of
attention. Several of these sites are contaminated with chemical wastes such as fuels,
solvents, and wastes from military equipment repair and servicing; unexploded
ordnance; and wastes from munitions manufacture and testing. Department of Energy
sites include many of these same types of materials plus high- and low-level radioac-
tive wastes and mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes.
   Cleaning up the nation's federal contaminated land is enormously time-consuming
and costly. DOE's cleanup costs alone are estimated to range from $200 billion to
$500 billion over the next 75 years. These figures do not include the cleanup of
contaminated aquifers and restoration of ecosystems and watersheds damaged by
DOE activities.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Currently, there are more than 160 federal facilities on the National Priorities List.
Federal agencies estimate that there are over 100,000 contaminated sites on federal
properties, but a complete inventory does not exist. The nature and types of contami-
nated sites on these facilities are generally more complex than private sites.
   To date, only a handful of these sites have been addressed through remedial or
removal action, mostly at DOE and DOD facilities. An accurate percentage of lands
that have been cleaned up cannot be provided. The 10 percent cleanup target for
facilities currently on the NPL has been established based on existing trends and
projections of remedial action completions as recorded in CERCLIS.

Tracking Results
   Tracking will be based on final remedial action completions as recorded  in
CERCLIS. CERCLIS data include the results of investigations to determine  whether a
site should be placed on the NPL.
                                                            M.3—Cleanup of contaminated
                                                            federal lands.
                                                                        1984      1994     2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                131

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
          Federal
        Reviewers:
       Please provide
        other related
       agency targets
      (••••mm
      MILESTONE
                                4
By 2005,
                             stabilization to prevent the spread of
                             contamination will be under way or
                             final cleanup completed at 100
                             percent of operating industrial waste
                             facilities where people have been
                             exposed to  contamination. Seventy-
                             five percent of all facilities estimated
                             to require cleanup will be stabilized
                             or cleaned up.
M.4—Industrial facilities with
remedial actions leading to
stabilization and cleanup.
    Many industrial waste facilities pose a public health risk. These facilities contain
 unwanted materials produced in industrial operations, which may be categorized as liquid
 wastes, sludge, solid wastes, or hazardous wastes. EPA estimates that 4,000 facilities
 have contamination problems that will require some type of investigation, of which about
 2,600 need remedial action. Regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
 Subtitle C, many of these facilities have ground water contamination that will continue to
 spread if they are not controlled. The most serious contamination problems occur when
 they contaminate public and private drinking water supplies and wetlands or other
 sensitive ecosystems. These situations are the highest priority for EPA.

 Past Trends and 2005 Target
    About 4,000 facilities are undergoing review or assessment with an eye toward
 determining any  need for stabilization or cleanup. Stabilization includes isolation or
 containment of potentially hazardous materials and/or remediation.
                     Based on projections of current activity and schedules, by 2005,
	75 percent of the 2,600 sites that need remedial action will be
          "~"~   stabilized. This group of sites will include all of those with known
                  potentially hazardous human exposures.
     2000-,
                             1966
                  Tracking Results
                     Data will be tracked using the Corrective Action Program
                  Accomplishments Report from the Resource Conservation and
                  Recovery Information System (RCRIS).3 This system contains data
                  tracked by EPA and states that manage the corrective action
                  programs.
             1990
                     1995
                             2005
This strategy will ensure that actions will be
implemented at 100 percent of all RCRA facilities
where people have been exposed to contamination.
132
                                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i ••••linn
      MILESTONE
           5
By 2005,
cleanups will be completed at
200,000 leaking underground storage
tank sites—double the 1994 figure.
   Underground storage tanks (USTs) pose a significant threat to public health and the
environment. The greatest hazard from a leaking UST is contamination of ground
water, a source of drinking water for over half of all Americans. Leaking USTs present
other health and environmental hazards, such as fires and explosions and seepage of
toxic fumes into people's homes and businesses. More than 300,000 UST releases have
been confirmed, and EPA estimates that the total could reach 400,000 in the next
several years as more problem tanks are discovered. More than 100,000 cleanups had
been completed as of fiscal year 1995. Currently, approximately 1.1 million federally
regulated USTs are in use at about 400,000 sites nationwide.4 (See also Safe Waste
Management, milestone 3.)

   Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Doubling the number of cleanups completed by 2005 is an ambitious but achievable
goal. According to federal law, by December 1998 all existing underground storage
tanks must be upgraded or replaced to meet federal standards, or they must be closed.
As owners  and operators of storage tanks comply with the 1998 requirements, EPA and
the states expect more leaks to be found. The expected increased number of leaks
detected and the complexity of cleanups that remain will put a significant demand on
state technical staff. By using risk-based decision making to direct cleanup activities,
EPA believes 200,000 cleanups by 2005 is an attainable target.

   Tracking Results
   Because states do much of the cleanup for USTs, results will be tracked through
semi-annual progress reports submitted to EPA by states.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
                                            M.5—Underground storage tank cleanups,
                                            1990-2005.
                                                                                            200
                                                                                  §»-  CM n  -9
                                                                                  o  o o  o  o
                                                                               o  o  o o  o  o
                                                                                     CM CM  eg  CM
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                              133

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
          Federal
         Reviewers:
       Please provide
        other related
       agency targets
i •[•••linn
 MILESTONE
                                 6
By 2005,
radioactivity will be cleaned up or
contained at 6 percent of sites
contaminated by radioactivity.
                         Approximately 5,000 sites in the United States are contaminated with radioactive
                      materials. They range from small, slightly contaminated rooms to very large, highly
                      contaminated facilities. Some sites, such as nuclear material production plants and
                      bombing and gunnery ranges contaminated with depleted uranium, are owned by the
                      federal government, while others, such as hospitals and laboratories, are owned by the
                      private sector.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         Cleanup of radioactive sites is slow. There are few cleanup technologies and limited
                      places to store radioactive  wastes. The 6 percent target is based on DOE, DOD, NRC,
                      and EPA program schedules for cleanups. Approximately 317, or 6 percent, of the
                      currently documented radioactive sites will be made available for restricted or unre-
                      stricted use by the year 2005. The majority of these sites will involve small-scale
                      cleanups or decommissioning activities associated with licenses held by small or sealed
                      radioactive source users.

                      Tracking Results
                         Data to track progress toward this milestone will be collected from several federal
                      agencies. Specifically, EPA maintains information on the status of CERCLA site clean-
                      ups under the CERCLIS database. DOE also maintains records of site cleanup activities
                      under its Project Tracking  System and Performance Measures Data Bases,  and NRC and
                      authorized states retain their own records on radioactive material licenses.
M.6—Cleanup of radioactively
contaminated sites.
   ?
   IU   A
   0>   4-
          mid-1980s  mid-1990s    2005
134
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i  ••••inn
      MILESTONE
           7
       By  2005,
        point sources of contamination will
        be controlled in 10 percent of the
        watersheds where sediment
        contamination has currently been
        determined to be widespread.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
M.7—Watersheds with high
probability of widespread sediment
contamination.
      10CH
                              86
               1995
Watersheds where major facility discharge limits
or monitoring requirements have not yet been
evaluated and appropriately revised to protect
sediment quality.
   Certain types of chemicals in water tend to bind to particles and collect in sediment.
Chemicals often persist longer in sediment than in water because conditions might not
favor natural degradation. When present at elevated concentrations in sediment, pollut-
ants can be released back to water. Pollutants can also accumulate in bottom-dwelling
organisms and in fish and shellfish (see Clean Waters) and move up the food chain. In
both cases, excessive levels of chemicals in sediment might become hazardous to aquatic
life and people and require cleanup or other remedial work as well as further controls on
the sources of contamination.
   EPA collects and analyzes sediment and fish tissue data from state, EPA region, and
other monitoring programs as part of the National Sediment Inventory (NSI). The goals
of the NSI are to survey data regarding sediment quality nationwide, identify locations
that are potentially contaminated, and describe the sources of contaminants responsible
for contamination.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Until 1995, data on sediment contamination were not available on a national basis.
Now environmental managers can use NSI data and assessments to determine the
potential extent and severity of contamination and to identify areas that require closer
inspection for further action.
   Although the NSI currently has data representing over 20,000 locations, the data
                  cover only 11 percent of the nation's waters. An evaluation of the
                  available NSI data has identified 96 watersheds in the United States
                  where sediment contamination is likely. There are 410 major
                  facilities discharging sediment contaminants into these watersheds.
                  EPA will continue to coordinate with the regional offices, states,
                  and others to identify and compile additional data.
                     The 2005 target was chosen because each of EPA's 10 regions
                  can reasonably be expected to evaluate and control point sources in
                  at least one high-priority  watershed by the year 2005. In many
                  cases, controls on the contamination sources will allow clean
                  sediment to "blanket" the contaminated sediment.

                   Tracking Results
                     EPA will report to Congress every 2 years on the condition of
                  the nation's sediments. As the NSI grows to include information on
                  more locations and future measurements, EPA and other stewards
                  of environmental quality  will gain a better idea of the full extent of
                  contaminated sites. In time, NSI data and assessments will reveal
                  trends and help measure progress in minimizing risk.
                            2005
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                        135

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
                        Strategy
                 Costs
     In a 1990 report, Environmental
  Investments:  The Cost of a Clean
  Environment,  EPA estimated that the
  annual public and private costs of
  meeting Superfund requirements were
  approximately $1.7 billion in 1990 and
  would rise to $8.1 billion by 2000 to fully
  meet requirements expected to be in
  place by then (constant 1986 dollars).
  Achievement of the proposed milestones
  might require implementation of some
  programs not anticipated when these
  estimates were prepared, which would
  add to the costs. Over the next few years,
  the costs and benefits associated with
  cleanup programs will  be more fully
  assessed.
    To achieve these milestones and to address the long-range goal of the restoration of
 contaminated sites, EPA will undertake a number of activities outlined below. Each of the
 following programs produces annual reports, strategic plans, and other documents that
 detail the specific actions taken to satisfy the legislative mandates to restore contaminated
 sites.

 Superfund
    To facilitate fairer, faster, more efficient cleanups, EPA will continue to implement
 administrative reforms and to seek responsible reform of the Superfund law. EPA will
 take several actions under the Superfund program, including enforcement of the "polluter
___^______   pays" principle and improvements in site assessment and
                    remediation activities. Achieving milestones 1, 2, and 3 is contin-
                    gent upon passage of a sound Superfund law that protects human
                    health and the environment and compels responsible parties to pay
                    for cleanup. The contribution of EPA's state partners in cleanups
                    would supplement progress toward milestone 2 as more responsi-
                    bilities are delegated to the states. In addition, EPA is working to
                    improve coordination with its federal agency partners. An example
                    is better integration of the  Superfund program with ATSDR's public
                    health assessments, which are more tailored to community needs.
                       Polluter pays. A key feature of hazardous  site cleanup in the
                    United States is that polluters themselves pay for site restoration
                    rather than the public. At Superfund  sites, "responsible parties"
                    currently pay for more than 70 percent of the remedial work and
                    approximately 20-25 percent of the removal work. EPA will seek to
                    maintain  the current level of cleanup by responsible parties, as well
                    as promoting voluntary cleanup. EPA will also work with its state
                    and tribal partners to take all necessary enforcement measures
                    against responsible parties who fail to initiate cleanup activities in a
                    timely manner. Such enforcement measures will ensure reimburse-
                    ment of public funds expended for cleanup as much as possible. At
 the same time, EPA will continue to work to protect parties who have contributed
 insignificant amounts of waste to contaminated sites, and will take steps to reduce private
 sector transaction costs associated with site cleanup.
    Site assessment. By 2005, 99 percent of the universe  of potential Superfund sites
 and 100 percent of all RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities will have had
 an assessment decision made to determine whether the site will require federal
 action. As of February 1996, 27,400 sites had been removed from the master list of
 potential Superfund sites after determination that they did not require action by the
 Superfund program. Approximately 12,800 potential sites remained on the master list.
 These sites are awaiting results of initial assessment of conditions and risks, which helps
 determine what types of programs or activities would best fit the cleanup needs at each
 site. EPA will make these decisions on virtually all the sites over the next 10 years. EPA
 will also make timely decisions on new  sites as they are added to the master Superfund
 list over the next 10 years. To identify risks and to determine whether cleanup is neces-
 sary, initial assessments of all RCRA industrial waste facilities (approximately 5,000)
 must also be made. By the end of 1996,  all RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
 facilities will have been assessed and prioritized.
    Remediation. Once a site has been added to the National Priorities List (NPL),
 remediation work  toward cleanup begins. After conducting a detailed analysis of the
136
                                      GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
contaminants and alternative remedies, EPA publishes a Record of Decision outlining the
action planned at the site. Remedial design and construction can then begin. As of
June 14, 1996, EPA had completed construction at 355 NPL sites. Increased efforts by
EPA, consistent with the President's proposal for accelerating toxic waste cleanups in our
communities, are expected to increase this number to 900 by the year 2000. Construction
is considered complete when the selected remedy is in full operation and its effectiveness
has been tested. Because of the persistent nature of some types of hazardous waste,
remedial actions can take years to adequately clean up a site. For example, a remedy to
clean up ground water contamination can be expected to take more than 30 years to
decontaminate the ground water adequately.
    Brownfields redevelopment. The federal government's Brownfields initiative pro-
motes local cleanup and reuse of contaminated and abandoned urban properties. The
initiative began with the Brownfields Action Agenda in January 1995.  In August 1996
the President announced new support for state and local efforts to revitalize brownfields,
including expansion of EPA grants and support for revolving loans to finance cleanup
efforts at the local level. HUD Economic Development Initiative grants will also be
expanded to leverage private, state, and local funds for redeveloping the cleaned-up sites
and to create jobs for the surrounding communities. EPA will launch new worker
training initiatives for jobs in local remediation projects. These efforts will result in
cleanup at approximately 5,000 sites by 2000. A proposed brownfields tax incentive will
generate more than $10 billion in cleanup and redevelopment at 30,000 sites, including
17,000 sites by 2000. In addition to expanding local economies and improving quality of
life in communities burdened by  brownfields, the initiative will help preserve green open
spaces by reducing the development of pristine or "greenfields" sites across America by
an estimated 25 percent.

Active Industrial Waste Facilities
    EPA will focus on preventing or reducing human health risk and other detrimental
impacts on ground water supplies, ecological systems, and property values at the worst
industrial waste sites. In its RCRA program, the Agency is streamlining the corrective
action process to conduct faster and more appropriate cleanups at the facilities  of highest
risk. In addition, more efficient, common-sense approaches are being adopted for
handling the contaminated materials that must be removed or treated as part of cleanup
activities.

Underground Storage Tanks
    EPA's UST program is encouraging scientifically sound, rapid, and cost-effective
corrective  action at leaking underground storage tank sites through the use of streamlined,
risk-based processes, more effective technologies, and improved cross-program coordina-
tion. EPA will advance the goals  for UST cleanups by working with state partners to
ensure that the requirements for upgrading, replacing, or closing tanks are met. EPA will
provide technical assistance and training to Native American tribes to build strong UST
                                        Radiation Cleanup Rule
      EPA will issue a Radiation Site Cleanup Rule in 1997 to set standards for the remediation of radioactively
  contaminated soil, water, and structures. Because currently there are no consistent nationwide standards for such
  cleanups, costly and time-consuming negotiations now precede each cleanup action. The EPA rule will allow
  release of sites for public use provided the overall protection standards for people and ground water supplies are
  satisfied. The rule does not require total cleanup, but only the level of cleanup required to allow public use. EPA,
  the NRC, and DOE worked in collaboration to develop this rule and to ensure consistency among federal agencies
  across the nation.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          137

-------
      10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
                       programs on tribal lands. The Agency will continue to develop private sector initiatives to
                       ensure good tank management for the future (e.g., working with the banking, real estate,
                       and insurance sectors). The Agency will also pilot private sector programs which will
                       provide services to tank owners and operators (e.g., certifying inspectors to identify leaks
                       or to ensure cleanups have been done properly).

                       Contaminated Radioactive Sites
                           Of the approximately 5,000 sites in the United States identified by EPA that are
                       contaminated with radioactive material, EPA manages cleanup for only the small number
                       of radioactive sites addressed under CERCLA authority. EPA is developing site cleanup
                       standards (see box on page 137) to help facilitate cleanups and to reduce the costs and
                       delays associated with negotiated cleanup levels. The majority of contaminated sites,
                       however, will be cleaned up under programs and schedules administered by DOE, DOD,
                       NRC, and NRC Agreement States. Each of the agencies responsible for radioactive site
                       management maintains its own site remediation schedules.
                           Many remediation projects at the larger, more contaminated sites managed by DOE,
                       NRC, DOD, and EPA will be partially completed over the next 10 years. However, for
                       many of these sites, particularly those with ground water contamination,  remedial
                       activities will continue well beyond 2005.

                       Contaminated Sediments
                           EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy5 presented a plan in 1994 for
                       assessing, preventing, and remediating sediment contamination. These are most effec-
                       tively done on a watershed basis where all contributing sources can be evaluated and
                       managed with equitable, cost-effective controls. The goal of this strategy is to prevent
                       ongoing contamination of sediments that might cause unacceptable risks to human health
                       or ecosystems. The strategy aims to clean up existing sediment contamination when
                       practical, to determine when conditions will enable natural recovery without unaccept-
                       able risk to humans, and to ensure that sediment dredging and disposal of dredged
                       material continue to be managed in an environmentally  sound manner.
                           Milestone 7 in the Clean Waters chapter establishes a target for prevention of future
                       contamination by reducing the discharge of toxic pollutants from industrial facilities.
                       Approximately 23 percent of toxic pollutants released to water can accumulate in
                       sediment.
                           The National Sediment Inventory demonstrates the scope of contaminated sediments
                       nationwide and identifies the watersheds with a high probability of widespread sediment
                       contamination. To target the review of major facilities permits, EPA, states, and local
                       environmental managers will use these data  to evaluate  the adequacy  of pollution
                       prevention or remedial controls to reduce pollution discharges that contribute to contami-
                       nation. In addition, EPA will use the results of the NSI to target chemicals for sediment
                       criteria development based on their geographic distribution and concentration in the
                       sediments.
                        References

                        Text Notes
                          1.    USEPA. 1994-97. Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protec-
                                    tion Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
                          2.    USEPA. 1995. Superfund Administrative Reforms Overview. R-178. Washington,
                                    DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
                                    Emergency Response.

138                                                          GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
  3.    USEPA. 1995. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Implementation Plan,
            FY1996-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  4.    USEPA. 1995. OUST Strategic Framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen-
            tal Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
            Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
  5.    USEPA. 1994. EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. EPA 823-
            R-94-001. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
            of Water.

Milestone Data Sources
  M.I   USEPA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
            Information System (CERCLIS).
  M.2   Ibid.
  M.3   Ibid.
  M.4   USEPA. Corrective Action Program Accomplishment Report. Resource Conser-
            vation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS).
  M.5   USEPA. Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST).
  M.6   USEPA. CERCLIS.
        DOE. Project Tracking System, Performance Measures Databases.
        NRC. Radioactive Material Licenses
  M.7   USEPA. 1996. The National Sediment Quality Survey: A Report to Congress on
            the Extent and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of
            the U.S. Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
            Off ice of Water.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     139

-------
     10. Restoration of Contaminated Sites
140
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                          Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                    11.  Reducing  Global
                             and  Transboundary
                             Environmental  Risks
                             Long-Range Goal
                             The United States and other nations will eliminate
                             significant risks to human health and ecosystems
                             arising from climate change, stratospheric ozone
                             depletion, and other environmental problems of
                             concern at the transboundary and global level.
The Challenge

   The United States is proposing a goal for reducing global and
transboundary environmental risks because these problems affect
the health of the American people as well as our ecosystems, our
economy, and our interests in promoting a stable and prosperous
world. Since many pollutants migrate across continents and oceans,
global and regional environmental problems present transboundary
threats to human health and the environment in the United States
that cannot be solved by domestic action alone. Consequently, we
must engage other nations in collective efforts.
   Secretary of State Warren Christopher recently remarked that
"Our ability to advance our global interests is inextricably linked to
how we manage the earth's natural resources. That is why we are
determined to put environmental issues where they belong: in the
mainstream of American foreign policy. The environment has a
profound impact on our national interests in two ways: first,
environmental forces transcend borders and oceans to threaten
directly the health, prosperity and jobs of American citizens.
Second, addressing natural resource issues is frequently critical to
achieving political and economic stability, and to pursuing our
strategic goals around the world."
   Global problems  such as climate change, stratospheric ozone loss, global circulation
of toxic compounds,  and transboundary pollution pose direct long-term threats to human
health and the environment in the United States and other nations. Pollution of the oceans
and worldwide losses of species and habitats also have widespread and long-term
consequences: they undermine the resource base essential for our well-being and quality
of life, depriving the United States and other nations of commercially viable and poten-
tially lifesaving genetic materials.
   Some problems, such as pollution of the atmosphere and oceans, affect the entire
planet. They require concerted global cooperation. Other problems are regional, crossing
the boundaries between our nation and our neighbors. Some problems occur only in
    International Leadership
   Since the early 1970s the United
States has been  in the forefront of
international cooperation to protect the
environment. Our nation is a world leader
in environmental  technologies and
expertise. Twenty-five years of rigorous
regulations have created an environ-
mental industry in the United States
second to none. EPA will use technical
assistance and training, information
exchange, and technology demonstra-
tions to match environmental problems
overseas with the suppliers of proven and
cost-effective technologies and services
in the United States.  Enlisting the
expertise and resources of the United
States' private sector will greatly expand
the range of environmental protection
options worldwide.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                            141

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
       International Investment

     Strengthening environmental institu-
  tions and human resource capabilities
  abroad helps solve foreign environmental
  problems that have local, regional, and
  global impacts. EPA's international
  technical assistance, training, and other
  capacity-building programs help protect
  and restore environmental quality around
  the world while creating opportunities for
  investment. Encouraging private sector
  involvement  in  the  international
  environmental technologies market also
  results in additional jobs and research
  and development investments in the
  United States.
localities, but their commonality and magnitude may undermine the
security and well-being of thousands of people. In these circum-
stances, U.S. economic, foreign policy, and national security
interests dictate the level of our involvement.
Responsibilities

   The United States pursues international environmental objec-
tives through bilateral consultations with individual countries and
multilateral efforts involving numerous countries at the regional or
global scale. Working through treaties, agreements, international
organizations, and country-to-country consultations, our nation is
engaged in a number of activities designed to improve the environ-
ment here and abroad. To protect the global environment, interna-
tional agreements and treaties build on existing environmental laws
and programs. These agreements give countries certain responsibili-
ties and obligate them to cooperate in achieving mutual goals.
                                          Environmental Milestones

                                             EPA proposes 11 specific milestones that address climate
                                          change, the stratospheric ozone layer, ocean coral reefs, global toxic
                                          risks, and transboundary pollution along our borders with Canada,
                                          Mexico, and Russia. Some of the milestones are measures of U.S.
                                          performance (e.g., 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10). Others measure environmen-
                                          tal results of collective action taken by the United States and other
                                          nations (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11). Although these latter milestones
                                          cannot be achieved by U.S. action alone, EPA is proposing them as
                                          global and transboundary improvement targets that the United
                                          States will use its influence to achieve.
                                           Major Global Environmental Treaties
                         1994   Framework Convention on Climate Change
                         1992   Convention on Biological Diversity
                         1989   Basal Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
                                Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
                         1987   Montreal Protocol
                         1985   Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer
                         1982   United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
                         1979   ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
                         1972   Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
                                Other Matter

                                  Principal North American Environmental Agreements
                         1992   North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
                         1991   Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement
                         1983   Agreement Between the United States and Mexico on Cooperation for the
                                Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area
                         1983   Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment
                                of the Wider Caribbean Region
                         1978   Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
                         1909   Boundary Waters Treaty (United States and Canada)
142
                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I ••••HUH
      MILESTONE
            1
By  2005
and beyond, U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced to levels
consistent with international
commitments agreed upon under the
Framework Convention on Climate
Change, building on  initial efforts
under the Climate Change Action
Plan.
   Greenhouse gas concentrations have grown significantly over the past 200 years,
largely due to human activities. Global climate has changed over the past century, and the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence. Climate is expected to
continue to change in the future, and those changes may be unexpected, large, and rapid.1
   In 1990, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 25 percent greater than in pre-
industrial times (Fig. 1). Atmospheric methane in 1990 was more than double pre-
industrial concentrations. Nitrogen oxide was approximately 8 percent greater. Burning of
coal, oil, and gas is the primary source of emissions. Agricultural activities, landfills, and
changing land-use patterns also contribute. In 1990, carbon dioxide emissions accounted
for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Although the United States
continues to be the largest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil
fuels, the U.S. share of worldwide emissions declined from 44 percent of global emis-
sions in 1950 to 22 percent in 1990 (Fig. 2).
   Over the past century, average global surface temperatures increased between 0.54
and 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (Fig. 3). Recent years have been
among the warmest since detailed temperature records have been
kept. Internationally accepted scientific findings show that increas-
ing concentrations of greenhouse gases will ultimately raise
atmospheric and ocean temperatures, which might alter global
weather patterns. Climate models project that by 2100 the earth's
surface air temperatures might increase by an average of 1.8 to
6.3 °F relative to 1990 temperatures. A general warming is expected
to lead to an increase in the number of extremely hot days in
summer. Further, the average rate of warming would probably be
greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years.
   Scientists also expect evaporation to increase as the climate
warms, leading to an increase in average global precipitation.
Several models indicate an increase in precipitation intensity,
suggesting the possibility for more extreme rainfall events. In some
mid-latitude continental areas, however, decreases in precipitation
and soil moisture are predicted. As oceans warm and expand and as
polar ice and glaciers melt, average sea level is projected to rise by
about 20 inches by the end of the next century.
   Although the precise magnitude, timing, and regional patterns of
climate change are uncertain, they will likely have adverse conse-
quences for human health, ecological systems, and the world
economy and settlement patterns. Climate change will not be
reversed quickly because many greenhouse gases are persistent over
decades, or even centuries, and the climate system is slow to
respond.
                     Federal
                   Reviewers:
                  Please provide
                   other related
                  agency targets
                              M.1—Total U.S. greenhouse gas
                              emissions, 1990.
                                     2000 -i
                                     1500-
                                                                1462
                               si
                               sr   1000-
                               Q) (0
                               I!
                               sl
                                 s
500-
                                      -500
                                                   Gas types

                              CO2 Sinks: Trees and other plants take in carbon
                              dioxide and release oxygen. The uptake of carbon
                              by plants or plant matter in soils and oceans acts
                              like a sink, holding carbon and preventing it from
                              reaching the atmosphere.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                 143

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
                                  What Are Greenhouse Gases?

     Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, chlorofluorocarbons,
  hydrochlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and ozone. Except for the fluorocarbons, these
  gases occur naturally and have always been in the atmosphere. However, since preindustrial times (about 1750),
  human activities have added to the natural greenhouse effect by releasing additional greenhouse gases to the
  atmosphere. Other gases, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and nonmethane volatile organic compounds,
  are not greenhouse gases but contribute indirectly to the greenhouse effect. Sulfur gases, primarily sulfur dioxide,
  are believed to counteract the greenhouse effect. Sulfur dioxide emissions are transformed into sulfate particles,
  which scatter sunlight back to space, thereby reducing the radiation reaching the earth, and they may also affect
  the physical characteristics of clouds.
     Emissions of greenhouse gases are often reported in units of million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE).
  All gases are converted to MMTCE by conversion factors called Global Warming Potentials, which are based on
  the relative ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere.
                                 What Is the Greenhouse Effect?

     The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide and water
  vapor, trap heat from the sun. The sun's rays pass through the atmosphere and warm the surface of the earth,
  which then radiates this energy back into the air. Although some of the energy escapes into space, much of it is
  trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Without this trapped heat, life as we know it could not exist
  on earth. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap enough heat to raise the average temperature of the earth
  from 0 °F (the temperature it would be without these natural greenhouse gases) to about 60 °F, far more comfortable
  for life on earth. Today, however, scientists are concerned that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions
  could further warm the earth and change our climate in an unknown number of ways.
                                  The Greenhouse Effect
                                           Some solar radiation
                                         is reflected by the earth
                                         and the atmosphere
             Some infrared radiation
               passes through the
           atmosphere, and some
                is absorbed and
           re-emitted in all directions
            by greenhouse gases
               Solar radiation
               passes through
            the clear atmosphere
144
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Fig. 1—Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
earth's atmosphere: 1744-1994.
    360-


    340-

    320-
    x'E    300-
          280-
          260
                                    1994/
                1744
            1700
                     1800
                             1900
                                      2000
Fig. 2—Global and U.S. carbon emissions
from fossil fuel burning, cement production,
and gas flaring: 1950-1990.
u
'£
o> o
El
If
II
C o
o|
o
7000-

6000-

5000-

4000-

3000-

2000-

1000-

   0
           1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Notes:  1. Does not include other greenhouse gases.
       2. Does not include sinks (i.e., carbon sequestered
         in forests) and other sources ofCO2.
       3. Does not include emissions from bunker fuel
         used in international transport.


Fig. 3 — Global temperature anomalies: 1880-
1990 (shown relative to 1951-1980 average).

     60.0-

     59.5-
 f
 ^>   59.0-
 S
 |   58.5-
     58.0-
     57.5
 Past Trends and 2000 Target
    Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have
 been increasing since the mid-18th century. To begin the
 process of reversing the rise in greenhouse gas concentra-
 tions, the community of nations developed the historic
 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC),
 which went into force on March 21, 1994. The FCCC
 includes a nonbinding greenhouse gas emission goal for
 the year 2000.2 In 1993, President Clinton committed to
 reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by
 the year 2000.3 To reach this goal, the Administration
 developed the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The
 CCAP predicted U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be
 1,568 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE)
 by the year 2000 if no actions were taken. The CCAP was
 expected to reduce the predicted total to 1,459 MMTCE.
 The United States has not yet set a target beyond 2000.
    Uncertainty accompanies any attempt to project future
 emissions. The 1993 analysis supporting the CCAP
 emission estimates made assumptions about U.S. energy
 resources and use, congressional funding, economic
 factors, market behavior, and technologies. Since the
 projections were prepared, some of these factors have
 changed in ways not anticipated: energy prices have
 declined more rapidly than forecasted, congressional
 funding has been reduced, industrial efficiency has
 increased less than expected, and the economy has grown
 faster than anticipated. As a result, greenhouse gas
 emissions are now higher than those predicted in 1993.
    Many programs have achieved the emission reductions
 described in the CCAP—some even more successfully
 than expected. Volunteer response not accounted for in the
 current CCAP could augment the emission reductions
 from programs that are accounted for. It is not yet possible
 to present modified projections of the effects of the CCAP
 although the United States is working actively on a full
 review of the plan.
    International negotiations are due to conclude in late
 1997, establishing a revised goal for limiting greenhouse
gas emissions in the period after the year 2000.

 Tracking Results
   A key element of the CCAP is a process for monitoring
and biennially evaluating progress by the United States in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. EPA and the U.S.
Department of Energy keep a national inventory of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources, and
removals by greenhouse gas "sinks." This inventory is
routinely updated. EPA and other federal agencies have
established tracking systems to monitor progress of their
activities.
        1860  1880  1900  1920  1940  1960  1980  2000
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                                            145

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
     (••••mini
      MILESTONE
                                 2
By 2005,
ozone concentrations in the
stratosphere will have stopped
declining and will have slowly
begun the process of recovery.
       10-,
  §
  c
      -10-
      -20-
      -30-
 s.
      -40
   The stratospheric ozone layer is a veil of gas 9 to 18 miles above the earth. It protects
living organisms from dangerous solar ultraviolet radiation, known as UV-b radiation.
Depletion of the ozone layer means a greater amount of UV-b radiation is reaching the
earth's surface, which increases human skin cancers and cataracts and impairs human
immune systems. The increase of UV-b radiation also reduces crop yields and threatens
plant and animal life.
   Over the last 20 years, the release of chlorine and bromine atoms from human-made
chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
chloroform, and methyl bromide, has been responsible for depleting ozone in the strato-
sphere. Without action to solve this problem, exposure to greater UV-b radiation would
result in approximately 311 million additional cases of skin cancer in the United States by
2075 and the economic cost to U.S. society from increased health problems, damage to
crops, and lost productivity of ocean fisheries would likely be between $8 trillion and $32
trillion by 2075.

Past Trends and 2005  Target
   Measurements indicate an average  5 percent global loss of ozone since the mid-
1960s. The cumulative loss over the United States and other populated areas has been
about 10 percent in winter and spring and approximately 5 percent in summer and
autumn. Since the late  1970s, the "ozone hole" over Antarctica has continued to increase.
It is now equivalent to North America in size and represents a depletion  of up  to 60
percent of the ozone layer over Antarctica during the southern hemisphere's spring in
September and October. Scientists estimate that without action, the average global loss of
stratospheric ozone would reach 15 percent by 2010.
   The Montreal Protocol calls for the phaseout of CFCs and other major ozone-
                         depleting substances by 1996. However, even with con-
                         certed international action, stratospheric ozone is not
                         expected to return to pre-1980 levels until 2045. This delay
                         in  recovery is largely a result of the lag time between the
                         production and release of ozone-depleting chemicals and
                         the long  atmospheric residence time of CFCs.
M.2—Percent change since 1980 in strato-
spheric ozone.
                                \
                               with 1996 phaseout
                                (see milestone 4)
                No controls
        1985  1995  2005  2015  2025  2035  2045

As of 1995, Earth's stratospheric ozone layer was still in
decline. Column ozone is a measure of total ozone concen-
tration in a vertical column through the earth's atmosphere.
                         Tracking Results
                            Actual measurements of stratospheric ozone will be
                         made by the National Aeronautics and Space
                         Administration's (NASA's) Upper Atmospheric Research
                         Satellite, the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (see
                         milestone 3), and also by the SBUV/2 and TOVS instru-
                         ments on the NOAA POES and subsequent NPOESS. (See
                         Appendix A for more detail on the data sources.) Progress
                         will be measured through the use of atmospheric models,
                         including NASA's Atmospheric Stabilization Framework
                         Model. This model estimates atmospheric concentrations
                         using data from industry reports to EPA.
146
                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
               Good Ozone vs.
                  Bad Ozone

      Ozone is a colorless gas composed entirely of
   oxygen atoms. Depending on where the ozone is
   located and  how it is formed, one of two distinct
   health and environmental effects is associated with
   this gas.

      Good  Ozone-Stratospheric Ozone Layer:
   The naturally occurring ozone layer found in the
   earth's stratosphere  is essential for  life.
   Stratospheric  ozone absorbs much of the
   dangerous ultraviolet (UV-b) radiation coming into
   the atmosphere. The destruction of this ozone layer
   is a serious health and environmental problem.

      Bad Ozone-Ground-Level Ozone Pollution:
   Ozone also is formed through emission of air
   pollutants  such  as nitrogen oxides  (from power
   plants and cars) and hydrocarbons (from cars and
   petroleum-based chemicals). This human-made,
   ground-level ozone is commonly called smog. It is
   a serious air pollutant that damages people's lungs,
   as  well as forests  and crops.  EPA's activities
   associated with reducing  smog are  discussed in
   the Clean Air chapter.
       Where Do Ozone-depleting
         Chemicals Come From?

   Before the  ban in the 1970s,  chlorofluoro-
carbons (CFCs) were commonly found in aerosols.
In the late 1980s, CFCs were used in refrigeration,
foam production,  air-conditioning, and solvents.
Halons were used in fire extinguishers. Carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform were used to
manufacture many other chemicals and products.
Methyl bromide is a common pesticide.

  How Do Ozone-depleting Substances
Destroy the Stratospheric Ozone Layer?

   The stable ozone-depleting substances don't
destroy just one ozone molecule—a chain reaction
occurs. Using CFCs as an example, solar radiation
breaks down the CFCs, which in turn releases
chlorine atoms.  With chlorine acting as a catalyst,
a series of reactions takes place, resulting in the
destruction of ozone and the formation of diatomic
oxygen. The chlorine from the CFCs is available
to begin the ozone destruction cycle again.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                         147

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
          Federal
        Reviewers:
       Please provide
        other related
       agency targets
i ••••inn
 MILESTONE
                                3
By 2005,
                        atmospheric concentrations of the
                        ozone-depleting substances CFC-11
                        and CFC-12 will peak at no more than
                        332.4 and 572.3 parts per trillion,
                        respectively.
                        The previous milestone targets an improvement, or increase, in stratospheric ozone.
                      This milestone to stop the increase in chlorofluorocarbon (CFC-11 and CFC-12) concen-
                      trations will contribute to the improvement in stratospheric ozone concentrations.

                      Pasf Trends and 2005 Target
                        Atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11 grew from approximately 150 parts per
                      trillion by volume (pptv) in 1978 to approximately 270 pptv by 1990 and to 310 pptv by
                      most recent measurements. Concentrations of CFC-12 were approximately 250 pptv in
                      1978, then rose to approximately 450 pptv by 1990, and most recently to 520 pptv. These
                      most recent measurements indicate that the rate of CFC increase has slowed, presumably
                      as a result of reduced emissions. Without controls to limit the production and consump-
                      tion of these substances (see milestone 4), atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11  and
                      CFC-12 would increase at a rate of approximately 10 percent per decade. The 2005 target
                      levels are predicted concentrations based on current controls.

                      Tracking Results
                        Progress toward this milestone will be measured using atmospheric models, including
                      NASA's Atmospheric Stabilization Framework Model. EPA is working with NASA, the
                      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the World Meteorological
                      Organization, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to obtain the
                      most up-to-date data produced from active atmospheric research programs such as the
                      Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite recently launched by NASA's shuttle and the
                      series of Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment projects.
M.3—Atmospheric CFC concentration (mixed ratios).
•=-   2000 -i
    1500-
    1000-
    500-
B
o
      1985
              1995
                      2005
                              2015
                                      2025
Without controls to limit the production and consumption of ozone-
depleting chemicals, the levels of CFC-11 and CFC-12 would rise
about 10% per decade.
148
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                               Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     !••• 1111111
      MILESTONE
           4
Through 2005,
with the exception of HCFCs and
very limited "essential uses," there
will be no U.S. production of ozone-
depleting substances.
  Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Without current controls, production of all ozone-
depleting substances would reach approximately 2.9
million metric tons by 2005. Production of CFC-11 and
CFC-12 would reach 770 and 960 metric tons, respec-
tively.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   Production of ozone-depleting controlled substances
peaked in 1987. That year, global production of CFC-11
and CFC-12 was 460 and 550 metric tons, respectively.
U.S. production of all controlled substances in 1993 was
approximately 350,000 metric tons, while the combined
production  of CFC-11  and CFC-12 was 780 metric tons.
   The 2005 target of zero is consistent with U.S.  commit-
ments under the Montreal Protocol and with Title VI of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which states "the
United States will halt production of ozone-depleting
substances  by January 1, 1996."

Tracking Results
   Progress will be tracked by monitoring industry reports
of compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations. The
Allowance  Tracking System is located in EPA's Strato-
spheric Ozone Protection Program. Results are published
in congressional reports.
                               Title VI of the Clean Air Act
                                 Amendments of 1990
                           Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
                        1990 provides for a phaseout of the production
                        and importation of controlled substances that
                        deplete the ozone layer, refrigerant recycling to
                        avoid emissions, a ban on nonessential products
                        that contain or are manufactured with controlled
                        substances, a safe alternatives program to review
                        replacement chemicals, and a federal procurement
                        program.
                                                   M.4—Production of controlled substances
                                                   (ozone-depleting potential weighted).

                                                        4000 -i
                                                        3000-
                                                    5
                                                    cr
                                                    CD
                                                    £   2000-
                                                    u.
                                                    o
                                                        1000-
                                                               No controls l.
                                                                   	1	
                               u.s.
                               **if~ *'
                               >9S6Pti3seoal ~jf'*.-.
                                                           1985   1990  1995   2000  2005   2010  2015
                                                   The production in the United States of ozone-depleting
                                                   substances as measured by "ozone-depleting potential"
                                                   will be reduced to zero, well ahead of most other countries.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                              149

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
                   i ••••inn
                    MILESTONE
                                 5
                                                    By  2005,
                                             cooperative efforts between the
                                             United States and other countries will
                                             restrict the net loss of coral eco-
                                             systems to no more than 20 percent
                                             of the world's current reef area.
M.5—Projected global coral reef decline.
  0) -O
  E c
        2500 -i
        2000-
1500-
                         Normal circumstances
                         With management intervention
  ££   1000-
  S
  w
         500-
                   1995
                         2005
                                                     The world's oceans are critical to the ecological and
                                                  economic stability of the planet. Coral reefs are an
                                                  excellent indicator of the health of our marine environ-
                                                  ment and exhibit signs of stress related to pollution and
                                                  human activity, due to their proximity to land. The reefs
                                                  serve as the "canary in the coal mine" for a significant
                                                  portion of the world's oceans. Coral reefs are the earth's
                                                  most diverse marine ecosystems and are generally
                                                  recognized as one of the most productive ecosystems in
                                                  the marine environment. As many as 3,000 different
                                                  animal species may be supported by a single reef, and
                                                  many marine species are solely dependent on coral reef
                                                  systems for their survival. Coral reefs also are significant
                                                  economic resources. They provide opportunities for
                                                  recreation, such as fishing and diving, and supply raw
                                                  materials for pharmaceutical drug production.
                                                     The Florida Keys is  one of the three largest barrier
                                                  reef systems in the world and is the most accessible reef
                                                  habitat in the United States. Other reef systems in the
United States and U.S. territories are found in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,  Hawaii, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands,
   Human activities are the primary cause of coral ecosystem degradation. Population growth, increased surface
and ground water pollution, overexploitation of coral resources, and direct physical damage have all contributed to
the rapid deterioration of coral ecosystems. This milestone cannot be achieved through U.S. action alone. Success
will require cooperation and parallel action by other countries. As a result of the policy guidance and assistance
provided by the U.S.-inspired International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), cooperative work has begun.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   The world's coral reef area covers 2,056,666 square kilometers. An estimated 10 percent of these reefs have been
degraded beyond recovery. Without changes in current human behavior and exploitation, an additional 40 percent of
coral reefs will be lost by 2005. Intervention with appropriate ecosystem management, at the current level of U.S.
government expenditure, might slow this loss to 20 percent.

Tracking Results
   Information collected by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be used to track progress. The IUCN and the
International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management are developing capabilities to refine estimates of
total coral acreage. Remote sensing programs are being expanded. These data will be available to EPA and others to
monitor trends. EPA will continue to work with NOAA and other government and nongovernment entities to
develop and transfer technologies for assessment, monitoring, and management of coral ecosystems.
150
                                                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     i HI •••mill
      MILESTONE
           6
By 2005,
the United States and other countries
will reduce the risks to human health
and the environment associated with
aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT,
endrin, heptachlor, toxaphene,
hexachiorobenzene, mirex, PCBs,
and chlorinated dioxins and furans.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a group of toxic chemicals that pose risks to
people and many animals. In addition to being toxic, these compounds degrade very
slowly and tend to accumulate in the body tissues of organisms. Moreover, they tend to
be easily taken up (volatilized) into the atmosphere and transported long distances from
their origin. Once POPs are dispersed to the environment, cleanup is rarely possible.
Because they can volatilize and revolatilize at distant locations, they remain a threat over
long periods of time and distances.
   POPs include a wide variety of chemical compounds, many of which continue to be
used commercially in various parts of the world. They include chlorinated pesticides like
DDT, chlordane, and dieldrin, as well as industrial products like polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs). In addition, certain POPs are also produced as unintended by-products
during production, refining, and combustion processes. These by-products include
substances such as dioxins,  furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the
latter being the product of incomplete combustion. The United States, together with a
number of other countries, is seeking international commitments at the regional and
global levels on aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, dioxins, furans, DDT, endrin, heptachlor,
hexachiorobenzene, mirex, PCBs, and toxaphene.

Past Trends and 2005 Target
   While the use and manufacture of many of these substances have been prohibited or
severely restricted in the United States, Canada, and numerous European countries, many
other countries continue to use them. Continuing use around the globe, combined with
the revolatilization and transport of past emissions, has resulted in increased levels of
many pollutants. Levels of certain pollutants continue to rise in some geographic areas
even though no sources are present. These increasing levels can be traced to pollutants
generated in distant areas that are transported via the atmosphere or ocean currents. The
aim of the United States is to reduce or eliminate emissions and discharges of these
substances to levels that do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environ-
ment throughout the world.

Tracking Results
   Global and transboundary trends will be tracked through a variety of national and
international data sets. At the global  level, the United Nations Environment Programme
tracks air emissions through the Global Environmental Monitoring System  (GEMS) and
the Global Resource Information Database (GRID). Use and production data for some
POPs are also being evaluated to estimate mass loadings to the environment. In North
America, the United States and Canada monitor emissions and discharges through
selected research and monitoring systems.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                151

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
(••••Illl!
 MILESTONE
                                  7
By 2005,
                         global air emissions of mercury will
                         be reduced, in part through a 50
                         percent reduction from 1990 levels in
                         the United States.
                          Severe human health risks from exposure to high levels of mercury are well estab-
                       lished. Mercury is also known for its persistence and ability to migrate long distances in
                       the environment.  Depending on the chemical form of the mercury released, it can be
                       deposited locally  or can enter long-range circulation patterns that are regional and global
                       in scale. Mercury can change its form and toxicity as it moves from one location to
                       another over time. Once in water, mercury can accumulate in fish, which might be eaten
                       by humans and wildlife. Because of mercury's ability to move long distances, emissions
                       in other countries contribute to mercury levels in the U.S. diet, and U.S. emissions
                       contribute to exposures in other countries.
                          The United States is working with Canada, Mexico, and other countries to reduce
                       emissions of mercury and to replace certain mercury-based technologies with more
                       efficient and less  harmful processes. To do this, the United States is working through the
                       Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the North American Commission for Environ-
                       mental Cooperation, and the UN Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on
                       Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. (See also Safe Waste Management milestone 2
                       for mercury emissions from waste-burning facilities.)

                       Past Trends and 2005 Target
                          Domestic mercury consumption in the United States and Europe is decreasing as
                       certain uses are eliminated. However, significant emissions continue as a result of
                       incineration activities, power production, product use, and recirculation of mercury
                       residues in the environment. Although mercury is being eliminated from many product
                       applications (e.g., alkaline battery production), uses in developing countries are growing.
                       The milestone sets an ambitious, but realistic, target for reduction.

                       Tracking Results
                          Through the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the United
                       States, Canada, and Mexico together are outlining steps to better track emissions,
                       discharges, use, and recirculation of mercury in the North American environment. U.S.
                       efforts with Canada to protect the  Great Lakes will improve monitoring efforts critical to
                       achieving agreed-upon reductions in the Great Lakes watershed. At the global level,
                       national data and international trends are consolidated by the  International Program on
                       Chemical Safety and the United Nations Environment Programme. It is important to
                       recognize that tracking emissions  of mercury  is complicated by the diversity of sources,
                       significant natural emissions, and  the recirculation of past emissions.
152
                               GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
      MILESTONE
                ••	     By  2005,
           8
                               with U.S. leadership and cooperation,
                               many nations will have phased out the
                               use of lead in gasoline, and worldwide
                               use of lead in gasoline will  be below
                               1993 levels.
   Lead exposures can pose serious human health risks. Infants and children up to age 6
are especially susceptible to low doses of lead from many sources and can  suffer brain
damage and hearing and growth deficits as a result (see Safe Homes, Schools, and
Workplaces, milestone 1). In adults, lead in the blood can affect hearing, increase blood
pressure, and, at high levels, cause kidney damage and anemia. The principal short-term
exposure route is through inhalation; longer-term exposure arises from ingestion of dust,
soil, water, and foods that contain lead.  Exposure can come from a variety  of common
products, such as gasoline, pottery glaze, house paint, toys, water pipes, and crystal, and
from certain industrial processes.
   In areas where motor vehicle traffic is densely concentrated and there are no large
industrial sources (e.g., smelters), changes in total airborne lead concentrations  correlate
closely with changes in the use of leaded gasoline. There is also strong correlation
between the use  of leaded gasoline and  blood lead levels in the population. Because lead
accumulates in the environment and cannot be detoxified, current lead levels in products
we use will expose people for decades to come.

Past Trends  and 2005 Target
   U.S. consumption of lead in gasoline declined from over 269,000 tons in  1971 (when
the United States accounted for roughly 75 percent of global use of lead in gasoline) to
5.1 tons in 1991  and to essentially zero  in 1995. In the early 1960s children in the United
States averaged more than 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. This level has
dropped considerably as leaded gasoline has been phased out. By 1988-91, NHANES III
data indicated that only 8.9 percent of young children had blood lead levels above 10
micrograms per deciliter.4
   With the elimination of leaded gasoline in the United States, Canada, Japan, South
Korea, some Western European nations, Brazil, and Columbia, plus the reduction of lead
content in gasoline in some other countries, global use of lead in gasoline fell from about
380,000 tons in the early 1970s to about 70,000 tons in 1993. Even so, gasoline still
accounts for about 50 percent of exposure to lead in developed countries. Moreover, most
countries still use lead in gasoline, and use could increase dramatically given increases in
population and economic activity. This is particularly  a concern for densely populated,
high-growth countries such as China and India. They could drive global consumption of
leaded gasolines to ever higher levels despite phaseouts in many developed countries.
   The World Bank has projected that by 2030 global emissions of lead from motor
vehicles could increase to over five times the levels in 1990. Factors such as the phaseout
of leaded gasolines and increased fuel efficiency, however, could result in lower growth
of lead use, thereby counteracting higher consumption. Concerted international  action
should substantially reduce global use of lead in gasoline to below  1993 levels.  While the
United States might influence policies abroad, achievement of this  target will depend on
the actions of numerous countries to reduce lead use in gasoline.

Tracking Results
   Progress will be measured using data on country-by-country use of lead in gasoline,
collected annually by Octel and the International Lead Zinc Group.
                                                                                           Federal
                                                                                         Reviewers:
                                                                                        Please provide
                                                                                         other related
                                                                                        agency targets
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                                                 153

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
i ••••mm
 MILESTONE
                                9
By 2005,
                        all seven nonattainment areas along
                        the United States/Mexico border will
                        have met ambient air quality health
                        standards for participate matter,
                        sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
                        ozone during the preceding 4 years.
                         The U.S.-Mexican border region has, in recent years, supported a growing interna-
                      tional economy that is expected to increase due to the implementation of NAFTA. A
                      serious consequence of this growth has been sustained deterioration of the environment,
                      especially air quality. The United States and Mexico each have air quality standards.
                      Sources along the U.S.-Mexican border contribute to air pollution on both sides. Efforts
                      are required by both countries to achieve clean air goals in the region. Federal, state, and
                      local governments are working cooperatively to identify areas where air quality has
                      become a problem, identify pollution sources, and develop cost-effective techniques to
                      improve air quality.

                      Past Trends and 2005 Target
                         In the border region, seven areas are in nonattainment for one or more of the U.S.
                      standards for particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO),
                      and ozone. There are limited trend data for all seven nonattainment areas; most of the
                      information is based on data from 1984 through 1993. The nonattainment U.S. cities in
                      the border area have shown a decrease in PM-10 over time, and cooperative efforts
                      between the United States and Mexico have led to a general decrease in sulfur dioxide
                      and carbon monoxide levels. Ozone problems vary by locality in the border area. Achiev-
                      ing this milestone will depend in part on the ability of Mexican border states to reduce
                      emissions.
                         This milestone is consistent with the attainment schedule set forth in the U.S. 1990
                      Clean Air Act Amendments.

                      Tracking Results
                         Air quality monitoring, as reported to EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval
                      System (AIRS database), will track progress in attainment of air quality goals. Results
                      from a number of monitoring networks in Mexico are also reported to AIRS.

                                M.9—U.S. border cities currently in nonattainment with
                                air quality standards (1995).
                                Border Nonattainment Areas
                                PM-10   SO,
                      CO   Ozone
El Paso, TX
Dona Ana County, NM
Imperial County, CA
San Diego, CA
Douglas, AZ
Nogales, AZ
Yuma, AZ
X
X
X

X
X
X
X X
X
_a _b
X X
X


                                * Currently designated as "unclassifiable/attainment"; in 1995 there
                                   were 11 violations.
                                b County currently designated as "transitional" nonattainment for ozone.
154
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     (••••Illllll

      MILESTONE
         10
By 2005,
the United States and Canada will
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emissions that cause acid rain.
U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions will be
reduced by nearly 10 million tons and
nitrogen oxide emissions by more
than 2 million tons from 1980 levels.
           Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
   The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 allowed
the United States to make a number of bilateral commit-
ments with Canada, including the United States-Canada
Air Quality Agreement of 1991. The Air Quality Agree-
ment contains precise commitments for both countries,
consistent with national policies to reduce nitrogen oxide
and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and
industry. The Air Quality Agreement serves as an effective
framework for jointly addressing the protection and
improvement of North American air quality and the
protection of human health and ecosystems from the
adverse effects of air pollution. The milestone reductions
are expected to result in a significant improvement in
North American air quality.

Past Trends and 2005 Target

   U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions in 1980 were 23.2
million tons. The United States' target to reduce its
nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 2 million tons
represents a nearly 10 percent decrease from 1980 levels.
U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions in 1980 were 25.9 million
tons. The United States' target to reduce its sulfur dioxide
emissions by nearly 10 million tons by 2005 represents a
40 percent decrease from 1980 levels. (Also see milestone
5 under Clean Air.) Between 1979 and 1992, sulfate wet
deposition over eastern North America declined by 20
percent in parallel with a decrease in emissions.

Tracking Results

   Progress toward these targets will be reported in EPA's
Acid Rain Emissions Tracking System. Under the Air
Quality Agreement, the United States and Canada cooper-
ate in tracking nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions.
Since 1992 they have jointly published Air Quality
Agreement Progress Reports every two years.
                         M.10—Canada-United States SO2 and
                         NOX emission reduction goals.
                            Canada
                         SO2 emission
                         reduction in seven
                         easternmost prov-
                         inces to 2.5 million
                         tons by 1994

                         Maintenance of 2.5
                         million ton annual
                         cap on SO2for
                         eastern Canada
                         through December
                         1999

                         Permanent national
                         cap on S02 emis-
                         sions of 3.52 million
                         tons by the year
                         2000

                         NOx emissions
                         reduced 110,000 tons
                         below forecasted
                         levels by the year
                         2000
 United States

SO2 emission
reduction of 10
million tons from
1980 levels by the
year 2000*

Permanent national
cap of 8.95 million
tons of SO2 emis-
sions for electric
utilities by the year
2010

National cap of 5.6
million tons for
industrial source
emissions beginning
in 1995

NOx emission
reduction of more
than 2 million tons
from 1980 levels by
the year 2000
                        * With the exception of sources repowering with a
                          qualifying clean coal technology, sources receiving
                          bonus allowances, and sources using allowances
                          earned for early reduction efforts earned prior to
                          the year 2000.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                               155

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
    Federal
  Reviewers:  (j,
 Please provide
  other related
 agency targets
       •§•••111111
       MILESTONE
                                11
                     By  2005,
                               existing sources of high-level
                               radioactivity in northwest Russia with
                               the potential for near-term release
                               into the arctic environment will be
                               reduced by 25 percent.
M. 11—Estimated number of sources
of high-level radioactivity in the
Russian Arctic.
                          The arctic marine environment is an extremely fragile ecosystem where small
                       changes in contaminant levels can have significant and far-reaching impacts. Releases
                       into the Arctic are quickly dispersed over long distances. The State of Alaska is particu-
                       larly vulnerable to the release of high-level radioactive contaminants in any of the arctic
                       seas due to the open circulation patterns found within the Arctic Basin. Additionally, any
                       perceived increases in radionuclide levels in edible seafoods could have serious impacts
                       on U.S. and international fisheries, and on indigenous populations in the region.

                       Past Trends and 2005 Target
                          The Cold War left as a legacy a large inventory of radioactive wastes in the Russian
                       Federation that were inadequately managed. Long-term storage and disposal is not yet
                       assured. Most of these sources are land-based or are contained in floating storage vessels
                       that include reactor cores and damaged fuel from decommissioned submarines. These
                       sources are found along coastal areas of the Kola Peninsula in the Russian Arctic. While
                       the full magnitude of the problem is still under study, at least 350 high-level waste
                       sources in the Russian Arctic are known to be at risk of releasing radioactive materials
                       into the arctic environment. Solutions to these problems are technology-dependent and
                       require substantial front-end investment followed by rapid remedial efforts to achieve the
                       25 percent reduction target for high-risk sources. The United States, working with
                       Norway as well as other countries and international organizations, will help Russia
                       relocate those sources which pose the greatest risk of failure and place them in stable
                       storage. These cooperative efforts should lead to removal of at least 25 percent of the
                      .^__    known high-level sources by 2005.
    400-,
            350
                      330
                    Tracking Results
                      The status of high-level sources will be tracked through a simple
                    inventory system based on Russian and international efforts to
                    identify, characterize, and remove the sources. The structural
                    integrity of these sources will be verified through environmental
                    monitoring programs in the Russian Arctic.
            1996
2000
2005
156
                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Strategy

    The U.S. approach to reducing global environmental risks
depends on the nature of the problem, the environmental risks, and
U.S. interests. Working with other countries to reduce the risks
requires intensive negotiations on the nature of the problem, as
well as agreement on solutions and obligations. Projects often aim
at enhancing the ability of other countries to improve their institu-
tional and technical capacity to control pollution. Efforts between
the United States and other countries seeking solutions to shared
problems can lead to greater efficiencies in solving problems at
home through joint research, technology development, policy
development, and compliance and enforcement strategies.

Reducing Climate Change Risks
    EPA has a key role in the Clinton Administration's broad
strategy to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
emission levels by 2000. Federal programs to accomplish this near-
term goal are based on the recognition that many profitable actions
can and should be taken to make the economy more productive
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The strategy calls for a
research effort to increase knowledge of climate, to develop and
examine approaches for reducing or adapting to climate change, and
to estimate current greenhouse gas emission rates and project future
emission levels.
   The United States is working with other nations on a collective
approach to climate change and is helping other countries develop
their own climate change programs. The Clinton Administration is
beginning  negotiations with other countries on a mutual objective
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2000. This negotiation
process should be completed in 2 to 3 years. Collectively, these
activities will increase the understanding and action throughout the
world to address climate change.
   The most visible commitment of the federal government to
address climate change is the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP),
published in October  1993. The CCAP is designed for rapid
implementation, building on existing programs, technologies, and
voluntary efforts to deliver cost-effective results. Calling for
innovative public and private partnerships to attain environmental
objectives, the CCAP targets all greenhouse gases and all sectors of
the economy through nearly 50 actions. (See Toxic-Free Communi-
ties, milestone 4.)
   The CCAP is a coordinated response involving several federal
agencies including EPA and the Departments of Energy, Transporta-
tion, Agriculture, and State. New working relationships between
federal officials and state government agencies have been devel-
oped to facilitate implementation. Finally, the CCAP encourages
international greenhouse gas emission reductions through the U.S.
Initiative on Joint Implementation.
   The heart of the plan is its reliance on voluntary programs. In
EPA's voluntary programs, participants commit to profitable
pollution prevention activities and EPA provides them with state-of-
     Exchange of Innovative
       Ideas in Management
   Although the United States has often
been at the forefront of incentive-based
regulatory and enforcement approaches,
it can  also benefit from innovation
elsewhere. The United States is learning
about Germany's effluent fee systems
while the Germans  are learning about
U.S. experience with "emission trading,"
which lets companies buy and sell rights
to emit pollution,  and the "bubble"
concept, which gives companies greater
flexibility in cleaning up pollution sources.
The Netherlands and Sweden have also
been sources of advanced concepts of
"user-friendly" regulation.
               Costs
   The milestones for Reducing Global
and Transboundary Environmental Risks
will have significant costs and benefits.
The U.S. Climate Change Action Plan
estimates that $60  billion invested in
greenhouse gas emission reductions
during  1994-2000 would result in more
than $60 billion in energy cost savings
over that period and an additional $207
billion  in energy cost savings  during
2001-2010  (all estimates  in  undis-
counted, constant 1991 dollars).  The
cost to industry for substituting non-
ozone-depleting chemicals is estimated
to be $1 billion per year for 10 years, or
$56 billion through 2075.  The benefits
of full recovery of the ozone layer are
estimated at $8 trillion to $32 trillion from
now until 2075. U.S. costs of reducing
acid-rain-causing emissions and attaining
air quality standards along the Mexican
border are absorbed in the Clean Air
costs (see page 20). Firm estimates have
not yet been prepared for  the other
milestones; over the next few years, the
costs and benefits associated with global
and  transboundary  environmental
improvement programs will be more fully
assessed.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                  157

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
                Green Lights—Partnerships in Energy Efficiency and Conservation

     Green Lights, EPA's flagship voluntary program, encourages commercial businesses and government agencies
  to reduce their lighting energy consumption by introducing them to the economic and environmental benefits of
  investing in energy-efficient lighting technologies. Participants in Green Lights agree to survey the lighting in their
  domestic facilities, upgrade their lighting systems where profitable, and complete these upgrades within 5 years.
  EPA assists participants with a wide range of technical information and recognition opportunities, which did not
  exist prior to the program.
     In 1995, Green Lights met its program target, having already reduced 3.5 billion pounds of carbon dioxide. The
  program is on course for its 1995 through 2000 program targets. It has:
      •  Signed up more than 2,000 participants committed to upgrading the lighting in over 5 billion square feet of
         commercial, manufacturing, retail, and government facilities nationwide (the equivalent of 1 out of every
         14 commercial buildings).
      •  Produced over one billion square feet in lighting upgrades, saving Green Lights participants more than
         $190 million annually while reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen  oxide.
     Green Lights successfully demonstrates that substantial pollution can be prevented profitably and other benefits
  can be realized through nonregulatory approaches that lead to financial gains for U.S. businesses and federal
  agencies as well as the public.
  "Energy efficiency in the 1970s, under the term 'conservation,' was immediately associated with the discomfort
  resulting from problems such as restricted lighting levels. The Green Lights program broke this perception for
  Warner-Lambert by promoting energy-efficient technologies which provide superior lighting quality."
                                            — Daniel P. Patterson, Director, Energy and Environmental
                                               Compliance, Warner-Lambert Company
  "Through a cooperative agreement with Baltimore Gas & Electric, Baltimore County has implemented energy
  reduction programs such as Green Lights, which will save taxpayers over $500,000 annually."
                                            — Douglas Johnson, Green Lights Implementation Director,
                                               Baltimore County, Maryland
  "The money we have saved from upgrading our existing lighting systems has prevented additional budget cuts
  around the university. By upgrading over 40,000 fixtures we are realizing an annual energy savings of over $900,000."
                                            — Cliff Slaughter III, Manager of Special Projects,
                                               University of Cincinnati
  "We approached Green Lights with some concerns and preconceived ideas. We did not think that moderate power
  reduction at $0.05/kWh justified any major project activity. However, after demonstration areas were assessed for
  benefits and employee acceptance, we were pleasantly surprised to find that we had a win-win situation on our
  hands."
                                            — Ron Reid, Energy Conservation Officer,
                                               Balder Electric Company
                        the-art technical and financial information. EPA also publicly recognizes the participants'
                        contributions to protecting the environment. A hallmark of the CCAP is the up-front
                        involvement of businesses in constructing programs. EPA sets program objectives and
                        requirements that enable businesses to be creative and flexible in taking actions tailored
                        to their individual circumstances. Consequently, a large number of both large and small
                        companies have joined at least one of these programs.
                           The programs are aimed at reducing barriers that prevent businesses from taking
                        advantage of more efficient and cost-effective manufacturing processes. These barriers
                        include the lack of knowledge about new cost-effective technologies, the inability to
                        evaluate more efficient business operations, and the initial equipment cost of efficiency
                        improvements, which is often higher than the cost of commonly used technologies. EPA
                        has worked with many kinds of organizations to overcome these problems since the
                        inception of its voluntary programs in 1991.
                           In addition to working with states, tribes, and industry to reduce greenhouse gas
                        emissions, EPA will use its environmental review authorities under the Clean Air Act and
158                                                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
the National Environmental Policy Act to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emis-
sions in actions undertaken by the federal government.
    EPA also leads several aspects of climate change research. It participates in the broad
research efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. EPA has the lead role
in assessing the problems posed by methane and hydrofluorocarbons, as well as develop-
ing approaches to address them nationally and internationally. With the U.S. Department
of Energy, EPA leads government efforts to inventory domestic levels and sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and helps developing countries to inventory their emission
levels and sources of greenhouse  gas emissions through the United States Country
Studies program.
    EPA has a critical role in efforts to quantify the damaging effects that greenhouse gas
emissions will have and to consider market-based ways to increase energy efficiency in
the transportation sector. EPA is heavily involved in an effort to work with automobile
manufacturers to produce a much more efficient car by early next century.

Restoring the Stratospheric  Ozone Layer
    The dangers of ozone depletion for human health and the environment led 27 coun-
tries to sign the Montreal Protocol in 1987, agreeing to limit their production and
consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals. The United States played a central role in this
process, encouraging international support for the Protocol in recognition of the global
nature of this problem.
    Since the signing of the Montreal Protocol, new research has indicated that the impact
on the stratosphere is more severe than initially thought. In 1990 and  1992, the Protocol
was significantly amended to hasten the phaseout of controlled substances, and additional
chemicals were added to the list. The Protocol signatories (now more than 150 countries)
agreed that industrialized countries would phase out production and consumption  of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other major ozone-depleting substances by 1996. (The
production of halons stopped at the end of 1993.) Furthermore, the Protocol limits the
long-term production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are
the interim substitutes for CFCs. Methyl bromide was added to the list of ozone-depleting
substances in 1992, and the 1990  Clean Air Act Amendments mandated that methyl
bromide production will stop by 2001.
    A cornerstone of the U.S. Stratospheric Protection Program is a market-based permit
program that limits the production and importation of controlled substances and promotes
flexibility in making the transition to chemicals and technologies that are safe for  the
stratospheric ozone layer. Central to the program is a group of permits or allowances that
restrict the supply of ozone-destroying chemicals. These permits are allocated annually
by EPA and can be traded both domestically and internationally.
    The market-based permit program has already surpassed all expectations, and EPA
anticipates that success will continue into the future. Market innovation will continue
toward the development of alternative chemicals and processes for refrigeration, air-
conditioning, solvents, foam-blowing agents, fire suppressants, and other industrial
processes. By pursuing this market-based approach, EPA will minimize and avoid costs
commonly associated with a more traditional command and control regulatory approach.
    Another component cf the Stratospheric Protection Program is pollution prevention.
Regulations mandate a refrigerant recycling program. Through this  program, refrigeration
and air-conditioning technicians will ensure the reuse of existing refrigerants, thereby
providing economic benefits and avoiding  the production of additional quantities of
ozone-depleting chemicals. In addition, EPA will review all substitutes for controlled
substances through the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to make
sure substitutes do not pose unacceptable health or environmental hazards.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          159

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
     International Cooperative for
       Ozone Layer Protection
     In the  1980s, American companies
  were using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
  to manufacture more than $100 billion in
  products each year. At the end of 1995,
  the production of CFCs was banned in
  the United States as well as in the rest of
  the industrialized world. The transition to
  ozone-safe substances in such a short
  period is  a remarkable story,  and a
  significant  role in that story belongs to the
  International Cooperative for Ozone
  Layer Protection (ICOLP).
     At the  invitation of AT&T and Nortel
  (at that time Northern Telecom), 14
  companies attended a meeting in
  Washington, D.C., to discuss the
  possibility of forming  an  organization
  devoted to exchanging information on
  alternatives to ozone-depleting solvents.
  Four days later, on October 10, 1989,
  ICOLP was officially announced. As one
  founding member put it, ICOLP was "an
  industry initiative with government
  participation," not a government initiative
  with industry participation.
     Members agree that in its 5-year
  existence, ICOLP has achieved an
  "unprecedented show of cooperation
  among government,  industry,  and
  nongovernmental organizations." Digital
  Equipment Corporation developed an
  aqueous cleaning process and donated
  it  to ICOLP. Japanese corporations
  contributed ultrasonic metal forming,
  which  was then perfected by ICOLP
  engineers. Today,  seven EPA/ICOLP
  manuals on alternatives are distributed
  around the world. Many developing
  countries  have profited from ICOLP
  technical assistance projects.
     Member companies credit ICOLP
  with  helping  them  achieve  their
  phaseouts ahead of schedule—in some
  cases up to 4  years ahead of the
  international treaty  schedule.  The
  substitutes have often turned out to be
  more economical than the technologies
  they replaced.
   EPA is fostering U.S. industry leadership in stratospheric ozone
protection through the formation of industry-government partner-
ships. For example, the International Cooperative for Ozone Layer
Protection brings together U.S. and international companies to find
alternatives to controlled substances, and provides technology
transfer to other companies and countries. EPA will also continue
working with the Halon Alternatives Research Center to provide
similar services for the users of halons and to coordinate recovery
and storage (banking) of existing halons.
   Finally, the United States will remain actively involved in
implementing the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. The Multi-
lateral Fund, a component of the Protocol, provides capital to
developing countries for the transition to alternatives. U.S. efforts to
foster ozone-friendly technologies and substitute chemicals began
in 1987, prior to establishment of the Multilateral Fund, with a
budget of less than $100,000. Between 1994 and 1997, the United
States' contribution to the Multilateral Fund will be approximately
$72 million. The United States will continue to be a major contribu-
tor and will continue to encourage a shift to new technologies and
chemicals. The use of the Fund, as well as U.S. industry coopera-
tion in technology transfer to developing countries under the
Montreal Protocol, is instrumental in the success of restoring the
stratospheric ozone layer. If, however, some countries decide not to
follow the controls agreed to under the Montreal Protocol, the
predicted improvements in levels of stratospheric ozone could be
negated.
   To assist with the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, EPA
will work with the United States Customs Service and Interpol to
prevent international trafficking in banned ozone-depleting sub-
stances. In addition, EPA will continue its efforts to develop
international enforcement and compliance assurance networks and
will provide international enforcement training at international
conferences and in other appropriate venues.

Protecting Oceans
   The United States works through numerous treaties at the global
and regional levels to give greater effect to domestic laws and
regulations relating to protection of the marine environment. The
United States also works through numerous nonbinding programs
and technical assistance projects to improve marine environment
protection in other countries. For example, to help arrest the rate of
coral reef decline in the United States and worldwide, the United
States initiated the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). The
ICRI is a partnership between the United States, Australia, Japan,
and other countries to improve the preservation and management of
coral reef ecosystems. The United  States works to help other
countries develop their own capacity to oversee and manage
systems to control pollution sources that damage marine waters,
corals reefs, and marine living resources. The United States also
works through the Agency for International Development, selected
United Nations organizations, and a variety of other media to
implement specific projects in support of U.S. environmental
interests.
160
                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
Reducing the Risks of Global Toxics
   Reducing risks associated with persistent toxics will require concerted international
actions to reduce total emissions and discharges. Depending on the substance and the
conditions under which it is being used, the approaches by which these emissions will be
controlled and reduced will vary. These approaches include bans on use or production,
limitations on certain uses, requirments for best use of available technology, improved
waste management and disposal requirements, public reporting of pollutant releases,
pollution prevention programs, voluntary compliance programs, public education, and
economic incentives designed to minimize releases or promote the use of safe, environ-
mentally benign products or processes.
   International cooperation leading to meaningful action by governments requires
action on two levels. On the policy level, global and multi-lateral agreements are needed
to obtain the commitments of governments to reduce releases of specific persistent toxic
compounds. Such agreements, aside from their environmental benefits, ensure that all
governments share in the cost of establishing international norms and help to level the
playing field from a U.S. trade perspective. On the technical level, many governments
need technical assistance to build the capacity  necessary to enable them to meet their
commitments.
   While the United States is pursuing action on reducing selected toxic contaminants
both here and abroad, EPA's international toxics reduction strategy is focused on four
major initiatives: (1) the United States-Canada Virtual Elimination Strategy for Persistent
Toxics in the Great Lakes, (2) trilateral programs under the North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation, (3) the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and (4) global efforts
coordinated through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Inter-
governmental Forum on Chemical Safety.

Reducing Transboundary Pollution
   The United States is working through a variety of agreements and less formal
mechanisms to help prevent the  migration of pollution across our borders. While certain
approaches are common to all transboundary work, the strategy summarizes four geo-
graphic initiatives:
   •  Canada. Bilateral agreements between the United States and Canada serve as the
      basis for an ongoing set of programs designed to improve environmental quality
      along the U.S.-Canadian  border.
   •  Mexico. EPA's cooperative programs with Mexico, as well
      as the Agency's role in negotiating the Environmental Side
      Agreement to NAFTA, produced a series of bilateral and
      trilateral programs that will improve environmental
      conditions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
   •  Caribbean. Cooperative efforts in the Wider Caribbean5
      region focus on reducing coastal pollution in the Gulf of
      Mexico, the Straights of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
      Virgin Islands.
   •  Arctic. EPA and other federal agencies, as well as various
      universities and nongovernment interests, are engaged in
      efforts to protect the fragile arctic environment. The United
      States is working with the eight arctic nations in a compre-
      hensive assessment of environmental conditions in the
      Arctic as well as an examination of relevant sources of
      pollution within and outside the Arctic. To protect the
      Arctic from radioactive pollution, EPA and other agencies
    U.SVCanada Agreements
   While striving to further reduce
current and future pollutants, the United
States and Canada have already made
significant progress in reducing pollution
in areas of shared responsibility. Through
the  Great  Lakes  Water  Quality
Agreement and other cooperative
agreements, mercury levels in fish  in
Lakes Michigan,  Huron, and Erie have
dropped by more than 75 percent since
1970. Phosphorus loadings into Lake
Erie decreased by more than 50 percent
over the same time period, thereby
improving water quality and raising fish
stocks.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                   161

-------
      11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
                             are working to expand Russia's capability to process high-level nuclear waste. The
                             project will prevent dumping of such wastes in the Arctic and Pacific oceans, and
                             will help Russia decommission part of its nuclear submarine fleet in accordance
                             with U.S.-Russian arms-control agreements.
                       References

                       Text Notes
                         1.      The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment
                                Report. Volume 1: The Science of Climate Change. Forthcoming.
                         2.      The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNEP/WMO
                                Information Unit on Climate Change (IUCC), Geneva, Switzerland.
                         3.      The White House. 1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, DC.
                         4.      Childhood Lead Poisoning in 1994. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical
                                Association 272(4), (July 27, 1994).
                         5.      The Wider Caribbean includes all of the Caribbean Island states and territories,
                                Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua,
                                Honduras, Guatemala, Belize,  Mexico; the U.S. Gulf states of Texas, Louisi-
                                ana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida; and Puerto Rico and the Virgin
                                Islands.

                       Milestone Data Sources
                         M.I    The White House. 1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, DC.
                         M.2    NASA/GSFC. 1988. NASA's Atmospheric Stabilization Framework Model.
                                   94N17827. Greenbelt, MD: National Aeronantics and Space Administra-
                                   tion.
                         M.3    Ibid.
                         M.4    Ibid.
                         M.5    C.R. Wilkinson. 1993. Global Task Team on Coral Reefs in Climate Change,
                                   United Nations Program. Nairobi, Kenya.
                                IUCN. 1993. Reefs at Risk. Gland, Switzerland: The International Union for
                                   the Conservation of Nature.
                         M.8    Childhood Lead Poisoning in 1994. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical
                                   Association 272(4), (July 27, 1994).
                         M.9    USEPAAerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
                         M.10   United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement. 1994 Progress Report.
                         M.ll   Nilsen and  Bohmer. 1994. Sources of Radioactive Contamination in
                                   Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, Bellona Report, Volume I. Oslo, Norway.
                                Nilsen, Kudrik, and Nikitin. 1995. Zapadnaya Litsa Bellona Working Paper.
                                   Oslo, Norway.

                       Figure Data Sources
                         1.     C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf. 1994. Atmospheric C02 records from sites in the
                                 SIO air sampling network. In T.A. Boden, D.P. Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and
                                 F.W. Stoss (eds.), Trends '93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change,
                                 pp. 16-26. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information
                                 Analysis  Center, Oak Ridge  National Laboratory.
                         2.     G. Marland, R.J. Andres, and T.A. Boden. 1994. Global, Regional, and National
                                 CO2Emissions. In T.A. Boden, D.P. Kaiser,  R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss
                                 (eds.), Trends '93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. ORNL/
                                 CDIAC-65. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,
                                 Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

162                                                       GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
  3.    H. Wilson and J. Hansen. 1994. Global Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies
           from Instrumental Surface Air Temperature Records. In T.A. Boden, D.P.
           Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss (eds.), Trends '93: A Compendium of
           Data on Global Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon
           Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     163

-------
     11. Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks
164
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                      Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                  12.    Empowering  People
                           with Information and
                            Education  and
                            Expanding Their
                            Right  to  Know
                           Long-Range Goal
                           Americans will be empowered to make informed
                           environmental decisions and participate in setting
                           local and national priorities.
The Challenge

  The challenge of this goal is to provide all sectors of the public with better environ-
mental information and education. Informed decision making is essential for achieving
the environmental goals in this report. Improved understanding of the environment
empowers citizens and communities to make responsible decisions on ways to address
environmental problems. This goal has two premises:
  1.  U.S. citizens have a right to know, which guarantees access to information about
     pollutants in their communities. This information includes:
      • the condition of the air they breathe and the water they drink and use;
      • easily available data on sources of pollution;
      • health-related information about foods, products, and chemicals they use.
  2.  Education programs can help citizens make informed decisions, resulting in
     improved environmental quality.
  Information and education are an essential part of a comprehensive approach to
environmental protection. Informed citizens can better understand the relative severity of
environmental risks, the opportunities for preventing pollution, and the uncertainties that
underlie many environmental decisions. People armed with information and education
understand that pollution solutions for one part of the environment, such as water, can
sometimes harm another part, such as air. For example, although a sewage treatment plant
cleans up wastewater, it does so at the expense of generating solid waste and, in some
cases, causing air pollution. Improved access to information and education aids in the
public analysis of complex issues and enables people, individually and collectively, to
communicate with each other, to become informed decision makers, and to find creative
ways to improve environmental protection.
  The principles of environmental justice will guide EPA's efforts to enhance the
public's understanding of environmental issues. Environmental justice means that all
people have the opportunity to live in a healthy environment and that environmental laws
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
165

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
    Toxics Release Inventory
   Spurs Emission Reductions
   Based on an analysis of information
from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),
residents in Northfield, Minnesota, found
that a plant they had thought was "clean"
(because it produced no obvious smoke
or odors) released nearly 800,000
pounds a year of methylene chloride, a
probable  human carcinogen. The public
outcry quickly led the facility to volunteer
a 90 percent emission reduction by 1993
and elimination of emissions by 2000.
Local community groups  called for
tougher state regulation of the facility,
leading the state to include in the facility's
proposed emission permit a requirement
that the facility reduce methylene chloride
emissions 93 percent by 1995.
   According to a chemical industry
executive, right-to-know requirements
have had a powerful impact on industry
and in a relatively short time have
resulted  in  a major  reduction in
emissions.  For example, the chemical
industry, which leads all other industries
in emissions, reduced its TRI emissions
by 41 percent from 1988 to 1991, even
though chemical production grew about
11 percent in that period.
                       apply without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, culture, or economic status.2 Part
                       of the challenge, therefore, will be to promote increased and improved access to informa-
                       tion, education programs, and communication among historically under-served constitu-
                       encies, such as poor persons, immigrants, and ethnic and racial minorities.

                       Access to Information
                          EPA must meet the challenge of improving access to environmental data for citizens
                       and local governments. Part of this challenge will be improving the ways in which EPA
                       fulfills the public's right to know. The term right to know is based on the concept that
                       people have a fundamental right to know what types of industrial chemicals are present in
                       their communities. It ensures that the public is provided with access to information about
                       pollutant releases, transfers, exposures, and risks.
                          Government agencies use scientific data on environmental trends and conditions to
                       define environmental risks and help set priorities for communities and the nation. Data
                       are helpful only if they are easily accessible to people. Hundreds of existing databases
                       contain "raw" data on environmental trends and pollutant releases from industrial
                       facilities, as well as data that have been interpreted for both technical and nontechnical
                       audiences. Improved coordination of data collection, better coordination among database
                       managers, and improvements in electronic and other communications technologies will
                       make data more accessible by users. To further enhance the usefulness of its data, EPA
                       must also characterize the quality of the data it provides, including the limits to its use.

                                          Communication
                                             EPA must meet the challenge of improving communication
                                          among citizens, scientists, community and environmental groups,
                                          industries, and policy makers. Open communication helps diverse
                                          groups of people find common ground when seeking consensus on
                                          local, national, and international environmental issues. Communica-
                                          tion involves an exchange of information and discussion among
                                          stakeholders so that all groups gain a better understanding of other
                                          perspectives, issues, concerns, and values. Having public discussion
                                          about national environmental goals is one step  in EPA's effort to
                                          improve communication.
                                          Education
                                             EPA must help improve environmental education so that people
                                          can analyze complex environmental issues and make well-informed
                                          decisions. Many groups—from individual schools and government
                                          agencies to nonprofit organizations and businesses—are involved in
                                          developing and delivering environmental education programs.
                                          Although outstanding education takes place in schools, colleges,
                                          universities,  museums, and  nature centers, and through broadcast
                                          and print media, these efforts are highly fragmented; there are
                                          excellent programs in some areas of the country and few in others.
                                          The quality of programs varies in part because of limited access to
                                          educational materials and resources for teacher training, as well as a
                                          lack of standards for high-quality environmental education.
                                          Responsibilities
                                             Responsibility for improving environmental education, informa-
                                          tion, and access to information is located at all levels of govern-
166
                                                          GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
ment. Providing environmental education and information is also a core responsibility of
many nonprofit organizations.
   Governments are responsible for offering opportunities to participate in local and
national decision-making processes. Federal agencies provide nationwide public forums
to identify and frame environmental issues so that they are addressed consistently across
the nation. In setting national policies and standards, the government attempts to build
consensus around national priorities by sharing information and giving people a chance to
communicate their ideas and concerns. The federal government also supports information
and education programs by developing and distributing materials and providing funds.
   Many states, tribes, and local governments support educational programs in schools
and public forums to explain natural processes, pollution sources, and pollution preven-
tion. They support the educational efforts of museums, nature centers, the news media,
nonprofit organizations, and others. In addition, states and local governments receive and
disseminate information on hazardous chemicals at facilities and in communities.
   Most major federal environmental statutes have provisions for information gathering
and dissemination. Some provisions focus on a single medium (air databases, for ex-
ample), whereas others look broadly across all media (test submissions under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, for example). The federal government is responsible for coordi-
nating the flow of information among all of its databases, sharing data with states and the
public, and making nonconfidential data more accessible through electronic and other
means. The federal government also shares data and information with foreign govern-
ments to support international environmental programs.
Information and Education Milestones for 2005

   The milestones in this chapter represent some interrelated steps toward improving
understanding of the environment through better information and education and increased
access to information and education. They measure progress in providing:
   •  Access to information on environmental conditions.
   •  Information on the pollution sources affecting communities.
   •  Information about the toxic effects of the products and chemicals people use.
   •  Electronic access to information, including one-stop access to and reporting of
      facility information.
   •  Support for environmental education programs.
   •  International collaboration to share information about releases, transfers, and
      movement  of hazardous and toxic materials.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                         167

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
• •••Hill
MILESTONE
                                  1
By 2005,
                        current, accurate, and easily
                        accessible information on
                        environmental conditions will be
                        available for at least 75 of the
                        largest metropolitan areas.
                         Americans have a right to know the environmental conditions in the places where
                      they live, work, and play.  For environmental information to be useful in decision
                      making, up-to-date data from government and private sources needs to be pulled together
                      and made easily available.
                         Similar to weather reports, "environmental reports" will provide Americans with the
                      information they need to make decisions related to the quality of their air, water, and
                      land. This information will be useful in a variety of ways. It might affect decisions on
                      economic activities, such as agriculture and industry, or decisions on recreational
                      activities like swimming and fishing. It might be useful as a guide for everyday activities.
                      For example, Americans need to know what is in their drinking water so they can take
                      appropriate action to protect their families. Residents of urban areas need to know the
                      quality of the air they breathe, especially as it might affect the health of children and
                      older persons. Timely air quality information can mean the difference between hospital-
                      ization and a healthy day for an asthmatic child. (Asthma is now the leading cause of
                      hospitalization for young children in the United States.) Providing reliable and up-to-
                      date environmental information will expand the ability of families, businesses, and
                      communities to assess significant environmental problems and make better choices for
                      themselves.
                         A national right-to-know network of key indicators on the environmental conditions
                      of communities and ecosystems will be available in 75 of the largest metropolitan areas.
                      It will include information from EPA, states, local sources, and other federal agencies.
                      This information will be accessible through a comprehensive computer system with links
                      to schools, libraries, community centers, and homes.

                       Tracking Results
                         Progress will be measured by periodic evaluations of customers' use of local and
                      regional environmental reports.
168
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     I ••••Illl
      MILESTONE
            2
By  2005,
the public's right to know what
materials are released in their
communities will be more fully
addressed by the collection and
publication of more comprehensive
measures of the pollution sources.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Americans should have accurate, easily accessible information about major sources of
pollution. They should be able to find out which facilities are contributing significantly to
surface water and beach contamination, smog, acid rain, and other contamination.
Pollution sources include routine releases from facilities, sudden (or emergency) releases,
and nonpoint source releases. Important emissions data for many chemicals and facili-
ties—covering emissions to air, land, and water—are already available to communities
through EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Federal and state governments collect
other kinds of source-specific data. EPA provides facility information through data
collections in the air, water, and accidental release programs. For example, facilities that
discharge into rivers and streams report routine discharge information.
   EPA is working to expand its data on chemical releases as part of its efforts to support
the public's right to know. TRI, which contains facility-specific data on releases and the
management of hundreds of toxic chemicals across the nation, will be expanded to
provide a more comprehensive picture of toxic chemical releases in the United States.
EPA recently added 286 reportable chemicals and has proposed expansion of TRI to
include additional industries such as  the coal- and oil-burning utilities, metal mining, and
chemical processors. EPA is also  considering the addition of chemical use information.
The intention of Congress was for TRI to provide information to local communities in
order to improve understanding of the impacts of releases at the local level and estimate
local risks. TRI is a cornerstone of local empowerment in that it has helped communities
determine which risks are acceptable. Expanded TRI reports, together with information
collections in air, water, and waste programs, will provide critical parts of the comprehen-
sive picture of facility releases.
   As part of its Community  Right-To-Know initiative to increase the availability of
chemical use information, EPA is considering the collection of "materials accounting"
data. This type of information would inform the public of the amount of a toxic chemical
coming into a facility, the amount transformed into products or waste, and the resulting
amount leaving the facility. Materials accounting would provide a more detailed and
accurate picture of environmental performance and toxic materials.

Tracking Results
   EPA will complete its rulemaking on expanding TRI to include additional industries
and will provide periodic reports  on the source-specific data that are available to the
public.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                 169

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
• •••INI
MILESTONE
                                 3
By 2005,
                       Americans will have improved
                       environmental information about the
                       products and chemicals they use,
                       including data on toxic effects such
                       as hormonal, reproductive, growth,
                       and developmental risks.
                         Consumers have a right to know about the potential effects of the food, products, and
                      chemicals they use. Everyone needs better information as a tool for better decision
                      making. EPA will build on the success of existing right-to-know programs to provide
                      information that can assist governments and citizens in assessing and avoiding environ-
                      mental and health risks.
                         Environmental and health data are not available for many commonly used chemicals.
                      In particular, there is not sufficient knowledge of the effects of cumulative and simulta-
                      neous exposures from different chemicals. More information needs to be made available
                      about the risks to children from environmental pollution. Children are more sensitive to
                      many pollutants, and the way they play exposes them to added environmental hazards.
                         For people to understand the risk of a product or chemical, they need to know the
                      potential toxic effects of exposure. Industry and government must develop this informa-
                      tion and provide clear and publicly available results of toxicity studies.
                         Government and industry will develop toxicological information on  the most widely
                      used chemicals and pesticides, including endocrine disrupters, where there is a potentially
                      significant risk of exposures  for families, workers, and the environment. As part of the
                      Food Quality Protection Act, EPA will develop right-to-know provisions for increased
                      public information concerning the risks of pesticides on foods. EPA will ensure that
                      pesticide use is safe for workers and consumers, with particular attention to children. EPA
                      will coordinate with other agencies (such as OSHA, NIOSH, and HHS)  that  have
                      responsibility in these areas.

                      Tracking Results
                         EPA will produce reports on its progress in making health-related information
                      available. Chemical Fact Sheets available to the public will be listed and published in full
                      on the Internet.
170
                            GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                 Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
       • •••III)
       MILESTONE
           4
By 2005,
more information on environmental
programs will be publicly available,
including one-stop access to and
reporting of this information. EPA
will make 90 per cent of its data-
bases with raw environmental data
and 100 percent of its major reports,
policy statements, and Federal Reg-
ister notices available electronically.
   An important facet of right to know is that data are easily accessible. Currently,
environmental data on industrial facilities and other pollution sources are collected under
a patchwork of regulatory and statutory authorities at the federal, state, and local levels.
This approach is sometimes unnecessarily duplicative for industries reporting the data
and can make it difficult for people to use the information. Consolidating, streamlining,
and integrating reporting and  access mechanisms will help make the information more
understandable, usable, and consistent across environmental areas of concern. Consoli-
dating the information required by EPA can empower individuals and organizations to
address environmental problems at the local level.
   EPA is developing a "one-stop" system for both easy public access to environmental
information in a timely manner and routine reporting of pollutant emissions by the
regulated community. "One-stop" means easy public access to multi-agency pollution
information at a facility and community level. "One-stop" also means that a regulated
entity will submit only one set of environmental data to one location. These new ap-
proaches and information systems will reduce duplicative reporting for industry, foster
multimedia and geographic strategies for solving environmental problems, and provide
the public with meaningful, timely access to environmental data.
   EPA will upgrade its communication of nonconfidential environmental information
through electronic media. EPA will build partnerships with states to coordinate national
and state environmental data in a single framework. Partnerships will ensure that the
information is widely disseminated and available at reasonable cost by enhancing
electronic access both directly and through third parties (e.g., universities, nonprofit
organizations). EPA will expand and improve its system for identifying and locating
information across the Agency. Greater availability will also include expanding public
access to analytical tools (e.g., risk assessment and hazard evaluation models) that
individuals and organizations  can use to interpret environmental data.

Tracking Results
   States and EPA will give every major industrial and other type of facility that gener-
ates, stores, or disposes of hazardous and toxic wastes a unique identifying number and
will use this number to link all environmental information related to the facility.  EPA
will track progress toward assigning these identifying numbers and consolidating
requirements into a single system, reported on an annual basis.
   EPA will also track progress in making its nonconfidential environmental databases
with facility information available electronically and progress in publishing the Agency's
notices, policies, and major reports electronically. EPA will provide software to search
all of its major databases in electronic format.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                 171

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
          Federal
         Reviewers:
        Please provide
         other related
        agency targets
••••inn
MILESTONE
                                 5
By 2005,
                       there will be substantial growth in the
                       number and quality of environmental
                       education programs in schools,
                       colleges, and communities.
                         Environmental education programs can help people become more active and effective
                      participants in environmental decision making by increasing their knowledge, skills, and
                      abilities and helping them make informed decisions that affect the environment. Cur-
                      rently, however, environmental education efforts are highly fragmented, with quality and
                      funding varying from program to program. EPA will strive to improve communication
                      and coordination among environmental programs within EPA and other federal agencies
                      and between the federal government and other key players such as states, nonprofit
                      organizations, and the private sector.
                         EPA will encourage public and private partnerships to leverage scarce resources. The
                      Agency will also support efforts by the environmental education community to better
                      define goals and priorities and to complete the development of standards to ensure
                      quality. EPA will continue to support quality environmental education programs by
                      awarding grants to schools, states, and nonprofit organizations to help them implement
                      and improve educational programs. Special emphasis will be placed on interdisciplinary
                      program development and the delivery of training programs to teachers and other
                      education professionals.

                      Tracking Results
                         EPA's National Environmental Education Advisory Council will continue to assess
                      the status of environmental education nationally and report the results of its assessment  to
                      Congress. This assessment will measure state progress in implementing programs in
                      grades K to 12 and progress by universities and colleges in offering environmental
                      degrees and incorporating environmental education throughout various disciplines. The
                      assessment will also measure efforts by federal and state agencies and nonprofit organiza-
                      tions to provide teacher training, improve access to education materials, and target
                      nontraditional audiences such as culturally diverse, low-income, and adult populations.
                      EPA will develop additional measures in the next 2 years to further assess progress
                      toward this milestone.
172
                             GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
     ill •••mil
      MILESTONE
           6
By 2005,
nations will be better able to share
information on the transport of
pollutants and the movement of
hazardous and toxic materials across
borders.
   Federal
 Reviewers:
Please provide
 other related
agency targets
   Chemicals move across international borders through releases of pollutants and
through the shipping of commercial chemicals and hazardous wastes. Toxic and hazard-
ous shipments are of concern because of their potential risk to people and the environ-
ment if not handled properly. The movement of these shipments has gained wide atten-
tion over the past decade. For example, the Montreal Protocol, signed by more than 20
countries, asserts the willingness of the signatories to share information about the
production of certain ozone-depleting chemicals and the effects of global pollution.
Another step toward information sharing is the implementation of hazardous waste
manifests that help track the movement of wastes across the Mexican border. Work has
also proceeded on other international issues such as ocean dumping, disposal, and
pollution releases.
   The United States' Toxics Release Inventory has gained interest from other nations as
a means to track a broad range of pollutants. In 1992, the United Nations' Conference on
Environment and Development urged nations to establish pollutant release  tracking
systems to enhance environmental planning and citizens' right to know. Further, the U.N.
Organization  of Economic Cooperation and Development recommended establishing
such tracking systems in member countries. These data will enable nations  to track
progress on reducing toxics and strengthen their ability to determine where international
toxics reduction agreements are needed. EPA will continue to work with other countries
to provide a more comprehensive picture of both pollutant releases and the  movement of
hazardous and toxic materials.

Tracking Results
   The United States will report progress on its work with other North American nations
to help develop and expand right-to-know  programs and to exchange information. The
United States will help develop international information systems on pollutant transport.
EPA will track the development of right-to-know programs in other nations and the
establishment of international data sources leading to the successful exchange of informa-
tion among nations. Additional measures will be developed over the next 2 years.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
                                                                173

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
                        Strategy

                           Levels of public empowerment are not easily defined or measured, but we can
                        evaluate what is communicated or disseminated. It is possible to establish some surrogate
                        measures; for example, the quality and availability of data, the quality and availability of
                        explanatory information for a variety of audiences, and the delivery mechanisms for
                        educating policy makers and the public. And it might become possible to establish
                        measures for the nation's progress in awareness of environmental issues.
                           The strategy for achieving this goal focuses on improving information, providing
                        better public access to it, improving the consistency of the information across national
                        and international environmental programs, and helping to educate to improve our ability
                        to use this information.
                           To achieve the milestones, EPA will use a variety of strategies focused on three areas:
                        improving and increasing educational opportunities; improving information about
                        environmental sources, conditions, and effects; and increasing access to this information.
                        Critical to the success of these strategies will be cooperation and collaboration with all
                        potential partners, including federal, state, tribal, and local governments, educational
                        institutions, nonprofit organizations, and businesses.

                        Improving and Increasing Educational Opportunities
                           EPA's environmental education activities will support public understanding of the
                        importance of active participation in efforts to achieve a healthier environment. To
                        achieve milestone 5, EPA will support and encourage the interdisciplinary environmental
                        education programs of state and local governments, schools and universities, and non-
                        profit organizations through grants, teacher training, internships, and national recognition
                        for outstanding efforts and model programs. EPA will build stronger partnerships with
                        other governmental organizations and with the private sector to improve public under-
                        standing of the role of science in environmental decision making. EPA will also cooper-
                        ate with its counterparts in other countries and with international organizations to
                        advance common goals for environmental education.
                           EPA will promote increased coordination of federal and nonfederal efforts and will
                        help its state, local, and tribal partners develop their environmental management, compli-
                        ance, and enforcement skills. Through the National Enforcement Training Institute, EPA
                        will develop and deliver courses to provide increased understanding of the principles and
                        methods of preventing, investigating, and resolving violations of environmental laws.

                        Improving and Increasing Environmental Information
                           Expanding the coverage of pollution sources.  The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is
                        one of EPA's best known environmental information reports. It is an annual accounting of
                        toxic chemical releases, transfers, and waste generated by industrial facilities in commu-
                        nities across the country. EPA will increase the number of chemicals and the kinds  of
                        facilities covered in the TRI to make it a more comprehensive tool. EPA will develop a
                        program to foster facility risk management planning under the 1990 Clean Air Act, which
                        will make additional information available to the public. These actions will give the
                        nation a more representative picture of toxic chemical releases, transfers, and manage-
                        ment and will facilitate progress toward milestone 2.
                           Providing additional information about local and regional conditions. As a major
                        element in progress toward milestone 1, EPA's Office of Water will expand the Internet
                        "Surf Your Watershed" program,  linking it to other environmental data of interest to
                        citizens such as data related to air, pesticides, and hazardous waste sites. Surf Your
                        Watershed will include the capability to search environmental information in large
                        metropolitan areas. There will be a special effort to ensure that the information for  the
174                                                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                    Environmental Goals, Milestones, and Strategies
                        largest city in each state is added to the Surf program, which will include links to local
                        data sources. In addition to the largest metropolitan areas in each state, Surf will also
                        cover 25 other large cities. EPA will also continue to issue a national report through the
                        National Watershed Assessment Program (NWAP) that will characterize the overall
                        health of watersheds throughout the nation based on a number of key environmental
                        indicators.
                            Expanding information about the health effects of products and chemicals. EPA will
                        make increasing amounts of information about risks of pesticides on foods available to
                        the public. EPA will reassess 33  percent of all pesticide tolerances and 100 percent of all
                        tolerances established for foods commonly consumed by infants and children by 2005.
                        EPA will reregister pesticides every 15 years. Pesticides, paint strippers, and other
                        potentially toxic materials will be labeled with updated safety, use, and disposal informa-
                        tion, presented in easily understood terms. EPA will develop a Toxics Agenda to set
                        priorities for addressing chemicals based on risk. EPA will continue to aggressively
                        pursue the Screening Information Data Sets (SIDS) program, an international initiative to
                        gather, summarize, and share data on major chemicals in commerce, and to establish
                        minimum standards for necessary information about critical chemicals. This industry-
                        supported effort has evaluated nearly 70 chemicals and is planning to evaluate over 200
                        more in the next several years. EPA and  the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
                        Registry will continue to publish chemical fact sheets summarizing in nontechnical
                        language what is known about widely used chemicals.  These efforts will help achieve
                        milestone 3.
                            Integrating environmental data interpretation and statistics. Improved information
                        collection and access to information make it more important than ever for EPA to provide
                        sound statistical interpretation of this information. EPA is committed to increasing public
                        access to quality information and statistics on environmental conditions and trends. EPA
                        also will provide specialized assistance and analytic tools to communities so that they can
                        address local problems. Emphasis will be placed on integrating data collected by national
                        and local entities, rather than attempting to collect primary data.

                        Improving and Increasing Access to Information
                            Consolidating information and reducing duplication. A key component of improving
                        public access is the consolidation of information provided to EPA under a variety of
                        statutory and regulatory authorities. The current approach is burdensome to industry and
                        makes it difficult for everyone to use the data. EPA's one-stop access and reporting
                        initiative, a major element of milestone 4, strives to fashion an unambiguous way to
                        identify facilities; consolidate the EPA information collections on environmental releases,
                        transfers, and emissions as much as possible; and otherwise reengineer the way in which
                        reporting is accomplished. At the same time, EPA is working to create a single, clear, and
                        easy-to-use point of public access to the  Agency's environmental data holdings.
                            Achieving milestone 4 requires both  a fundamental reengineering of how EPA, the
                        states, and the regulated community manage information, and a sensitivity on the part of
                        those who collect and manage data to the information needs of communities. EPA and the
                        states will adopt a consistent approach to the identification of regulated facilities. Specific
                        changes in reporting requirements in the state/EPA data management system will be
                        pilot-tested and in place by 2000. In 1997, Arizona (under a grant from EPA) will initiate
                        a pilot project to design and implement a comprehensive, uniform emergency response
                        plan, which will consolidate more than a half-dozen environmental and health/safety
                        plans. Arizona will make the consolidated plan available to the public on the Internet and
                        through other means in real time. Eventually, these new systems will create a common set
                        of basic information for all programs, starting with unified facility identification informa-
                        tion and common chemical nomenclature.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                          175

-------
      12. Empowering People with Information and Education and Expanding Their Right To Know
                           Improving electronic access. EPA will build partnerships with state, tribal, and local
                        governments and nongovernmental organizations to ensure that environmental informa-
                        tion is widely available. EPA's Community-Based Environmental Protection Initiative
                        (for all Agency programs) is one mechanism to achieve milestone 4. EPA will upgrade
                        the electronic communication of environmental information by significantly expanding
                        the type and amount of information on the Internet, and by providing easy access to data
                        on major facilities and releases from them. Integrated public access to facility data will be
                        available via the Internet within 2 years. An environmental "data warehouse" will be
                        available containing easily accessed environmental information. Governmental environ-
                        mental information will be fully indexed for easy retrieval of all EPA information
                        resources.
                           EPA will continue to oversee the appropriate use of confidentiality claims to increase
                        information available to the public. EPA will also establish an electronic interface for the
                        data collections it makes and will strive to consolidate the periodic site- or region-specific
                        reports submitted to EPA and the states.
                           Expanding international collaboration on pollutant transport and chemical ship-
                        ments. To achieve milestone 6, EPA will continue to work with other nations to expand
                        technical and administrative means for sharing information on the transport of pollutants
                        and the shipment of chemical and hazardous materials across borders. The United States
                        continues to participate in the Montreal Protocol to track and reduce ozone-depleting
                        substances. Through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its
                        environmental side agreement, the United States will work with other North American
                        nations to ensure sound management of chemicals across the continent. Through United
                        Nations committees, the United States is addressing land-based sources of marine
                        pollution and long-range air transport issues; particular attention is being given to
                        persistent organic pollutants. EPA is responding to requests from other governments as
                        they design and implement their own TRI programs, known internationally as PRTRs
                        (Pollution Release and Transfer Registries). Several other nations will soon initiate such
                        programs. In addition, EPA will continue to develop and  offer international courses and
                        conferences designed to assist foreign governments in developing their environmental
                        programs and capacities, including economics, standard setting, evaluation, and enforce-
                        ment and compliance assurance programs concerning transboundary issues.
                        References

                        Text Notes
                          1.      USEPA. 1994. The Environmental Justice Hotline 1-800-962-6215. EPA-200-
                                    F-83-004. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
                                    of Environmental Justice.
                          2.      USEPA. 1994. Serving a Diverse Society: EPA's Role in Environmental
                                    Justice. EPA-200-F-93-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protec-
                                    tion Agency, Office of Environmental Justice.
176                                                         GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                             Appendix A: Goals, Milestones, and Data
                  APPENDIX A:
        GOALS, MILESTONES, AND DATA
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------


                     £  .22   £•
                     2ES3

                                                                                        u
                                                                                    eo
                                                                                                         2 -
                                                                                                         U  en
                                                                                                             C
                                                                                                         60
co  S
                                           ^  x**v "**H
                                          I  £9
& is «
Q S 3
= en O
CU u "O
fi S -
UH O — -
t .^5 l^H
to <*-
lis
&il
« = s
S fi '«
•s*l
Ill
en w ^
(U IM JH
•^ en O
« 8 :s
\o \G >
^ oQ
13 -" S3
•4- < .2
^2
c? P
'S "S eg .
^3 >
t> CO -°
ffi-S
S 3 2
n S 0
cd u "O
. DH  ^«t
r2 1> t-i 4>
S S O >
« § S-^f
4) C CX Q
S U S
a .3 M ^
o28
t; en -w w
1| 2 1
« S 1 1
" a s «3
« 2 5 o.
The milestones
Type" column cha
environmental infc
for Economic Coo
en C F
3 60 _T u
en B 2 0
•§£ 8 «
o s a|
WH **H _^ Cy
s-o0- i
1 8 S|
M U 3 "S
CU T3 W CU
« 1 'S -s
§ . > 'S
ii K|
«lil
S t § t

> °:«.l
« j= I S- M
a 2 2 S
^1 §1
cu ^3 O sfl
» |3-l
1 1 ^-s
s-sig
« -S <-s .2
a 2 c, ts
5.1 s^
An indicator is
conditions (which
environment; and/
obtained from obsi












Indicator Types:
es
c
                                                                                    en   CU
iet
le
tak
ctiv
                                                                                                                                I
                                                               a     CL<
S

-------
t
i
     I
     1

                          11
                      GO
                      S3
  g    s

fll   |

III   ^
3^2   T3
fi; ^ *^   a
•s ? f   a
< o\ c   s^
!0 tf T3   a
O\ fc *3   •*«
2 | S   fe

H 1 '?   1
                        S^§
                        !i£
     •S B
     
-------
   H
   w
CT PE

A OF
3
w
u
S

g
Q
Q


UJ


UJ
ft

h-

Ul



E



1
(5
       <* —.

       '« -o

       ™ 2
       *o E
       .00 S

       S 1
       a ° «
       cr -g g

       ill
       § 8
       •as

       1°.
       S <
       1 §
       Ov
           tfl
                              §
                     (3
                     e ^--,
                     E
                     a •?
                     w
                     £ _ E
                     S ~ o
                     > s §.
                     •31s

                     I
                         £
                     (S-lll
                                                                                               §
                                                                                               8.

                                                                                              I
                                                                                              1
                                                                                                     2


                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                     u
                                                                                                     •S

                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                     G
                                                                                                     
-------

t

Q

|

CC

111
s
CC
                 o
                 8
1
              I
               £
                      1
                      It
                       o
                       !
                  Q B i  i I
                  on a Bo  to B
                  ED -5 <  Q Z
                          § l§  &
                          ifiJi*.&*Js**lS5
                          liliililllilltil
                                                   o
                                                   I
                                                   I
                                                   .a


                   o
                   8
                                                   i
                                                   I
                                                   <4-l
                                                   O
                                     CO
                                     1

-------
       w
       u
EPA Ol
                  §
                  o
          &>
          s

   §
  8
o

S9
         §
E
DATA SO
         HS
             >
         II!
                  i

CD
t
<
oc
UJ
oc
111



oc
UJ
o
            -
                        QE
CO c
                                                                       §
di

li
                                                                       I

                         * cs
                         Is
                         73 P~

                         s§
                         f «

                         Ii
                         E3 ~
fice of
                                                                       o

                                                                       g
                                                                       1
                                                                       S
                                                                       •s

                                                                       1
                                                      "3
                                                      2
                                                             I
                                                             en
                         a,§
                         o u
                         .C «H
                                  o\

                                  >n
                         >.

                         CQ
                            «
                            a

-------
    g-.
CE
DATA SO
t

£
Q
oc



Ul



oc
Ul
o

a
3


   2 >,
                            iilll
                         '''
                         3
                          s  1
               s
               o

                                     i
                          s
                                     2
                                                        1
                                                        8
                                                        ce
                               <-f||

                               III!
                   3 an
                   1111
        111
        5. o "
                           " .a
                           *
        « E 3 a a



        1!!!!
        o £? 2 u »

        » -S 5 'S f
         O •« S ^1

-------
 8
 VI
1
00
   M •*•*
  t « sn
  ; ^ E
    I?  Ill
I
II
    o
    8

-------
a


I

DC
s
                       8
I
M-i
o

8
                              « B.I S
i
o
                                                               fi  I

-------
si
 fe.
              12 § i -a o  •
              .° "3, " 2 'S M
            f jr |j S •§ !g gs
            u<£o.S§3.Ci/)
         still
         .S ^ .? g CO
         •g 8 > a 1

         $111 -3
         •^ *» "*i 	. S
          * o
                         >  S

                         !  i -
                         «8  o  y

11 -a 1 Q ,
p^ ft. i»« C3 C3 '
   H G O I

   "!-
   « S5*<
      *l
ii bo «j 5 a •?
cfl g *O W fit -fr


Cu S "3 «3 Oi S S2
H b -S S M £ i



I 8 a J i 11

     a W Q u
-Tfr


rf^

!"J Qu
   .»111
                            pa
                                £
                            I
                            «
                         1112
                            **
                                      !
                                      S
                                      o
I
.9
£
                                                              £
                                      «


                                      a
                                                              5
                                                              s
                                      S

                                      I
                                      •8
                                      §
                                      •a
                                      CO
                                      !

-------
i
1
           I
          I
tz
^
a
s
cc
UJ
a
                                    CO
                                                                                          -a
                                                                                        -i
                                                                                        O

                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                                                                            +•

                                                                                                                                                            <
                                                                                                                                                             .a
                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                    CO

                                                                                                                                 -a
                                                                                                                              4)
                                                                                                                                                             I

                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                             •s
                                                                                                                                                  Cfl
                                                                                                                                                             Cfl
                                                                                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                       .S  g  J
                                                                                                                    ».  >  «  **
                                                                                                                    «  S •§  .5

-------

ABOUT THE DATA
a!
3
H**
bd
je
g w
O o

CONTACT PERI
AND EPA OFFI






u
u
«
a
DATA So







1

R



T3
Credible, verifiable data on the nature an
cause of poisonings is difficult to obtain
and report on a consistent basis over the
years. A data set, national in scope, is
under development.


u
s
1/5
e .3
c (S O *

ii lii
11 *-Sl
JS o « 'o w
** II
| S
0 g I
tJ g *">
a u §
^ "Q 'C. m
"* £ | ~
1 U "^ ""
5 rj 33
O S
VJ co •*-* j&
»A o o *j
"Hi
« o u "^
** « rrt >.
!>
*-• TO ^ ^*
- *.„ >> K fi
S e * -S 3
® 'u ^ '§ S
^ fa 3 to B,
i- 3 a u 2P
co si o a, K
rf

Better data are needed for non-crop use
pesticides and their use. Same issue as
described in Food # 2 apply.

u
VI
s
a
u
06
c .3
a ,-0 o *
o ^ so
1? i5§
|S £8.1
< « <- s ^
§0? ° T3 3
_ o U 'u !/3
O (X
"«3 Qj
_ CO
u 2
0 Q 3 -0 .u ^
^2 S 'M '^ o ^
(S go w §, ^(§
« a. C .S u
|O .u ;g > S
wj ^5* R, ^ tj /R
22 o . S B
oj! '53 ^ o *+-i ^
|S |||l
•a .S to w § "5
 ^~* *3 u
O 0.

tj I
1 1 "I £
UK < .2 2
|5 JS S g
T' O r^ ^ c
I'i ijH

fl C^ S W
•^ C § r-H
8 g> S ^ "
o | 1 £ g
1 § ll g
Ih IP
o co v — -2 ^
3ll 111
^c
u >-,
c 1 1 iJ
'S "s w !e-
•3 i "° £
S <= « r.
O g ^
o '§ u S3
e J" | ^
•S 2^ * ^
" -a ^2 "§•
sill
 1 1 1
o S 
-------
    I
    I
o
I
(C

I
oc
I

                   §
                                                              CM
         o
     .. . ^ 1-i C
     M 5 — o
     <  > >, a
«c5.2.so«S
».g > :*, E ^ «C
||||.| .- «fe


ilfil
                     9
                                                               o
                                                               I
                                                               I
                                                               c
                                        a
                                        I
                                            II
                                            £
                                        "I  ,81
 i  8

 i  I
 O r* OO
 |||
   a ^
 III

 16§
                                        •a
 .s a <
 13!
•lil
 5^8
                                          SSa
                                                               g,
                                                               s
                                                               1
                                                              I
                     00

                     1
                     V)
                                                               o
                                                               8

-------
I

       11
       38 2
       J °
               §° *
               .2 x-. 'g
               53 f> °
               jR 8

                  |

DATA SO


       B
       5

       1
t
£
Q
OC



I

OC
o
1 -  o« H3
1 i-IUIl

lislli|l

-------
         B

         I

         I
E

I-


IU
oc
u
o
                                                                                                                                        <*

                                                                                                                                        T

-------
    I
t

£
Q
DC
UJ
              s Vt  **• a „
              00 S  T3 O 8


              i*  HI
                ££

3                               o
                               r-

-------
 Ed
I


i/J
CE
CE
DATA SO
cc
Q
UJ

OC




UJ
OC

S!
o
                                      .«         0
                      -
                     00  8
CQ  S  5 =5
Brian Littleton

(202) 233-9216
fice of Air

Radiation
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                                                                a
                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                1
                                                                                                                                                                V
                                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                o

                                                                                                                                                                §
                                                                                                                                                                •a


                                                                                                                                                                1

                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                2
                                                                                                                                                                GO




                                                                                                                                                                1
                                                                                                                                                                CA
                                                                                                                                                                I
                                                                                                                                                                 S
                                                                                                                                                                 §

-------
I
 0
         r
t
£
Q
DC


U
                                  I
 8 2
•SS
*§ ^
*y w5
X-< fO

•e rf
 cd O
Qtt
                                                                        "3
                                                                        "§

Z
                                                                         a
                                                                           .s
                                                            .
                                                            CO
                                                                                              8
                                                                                              CO
                                                                                                                                     r-
                                                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                              £•8

-------
8
I
oc
Q
UJ
OC
UJ

S


OC
Ul
o



ABOUT THE DATA
!«
d i
^^ r!_]
Z H
O y

£ O
BSS
g|
o 2
u <




DATA SOURCE






w

?r
^

J
g






I
1
u
1
•> ? > o1
« g ? fc1 g
§ ° 2 6 |
3g |« 3
c. ,s §
o
•o
* G
e _S .
c» t3 C S
USEPA. 1994. Corrective Action Progran
Accomplishment Report. Resource Conserv
Recovery Information System (RCRIS).
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Prol
Agency, Office of Underground Storage T£
^^§a ^,^s
^i^^cg'pg
c o *rt * J^ >.Sr73
Sae?t«o'§
i~? *s TV, ^ > tn ^
°e^-ij5§'S-^
o R c q> '-3 hi A
.0 '1 & 'M f- .§ J '5
cd -JH g .5 v c ^H pt
•*"" 5 o^ ^S'cS ^

-gcuo,(U§oS
S 8'^,2'fog'^ ci
lllllllll
OQ So ? ex ^S tu ifl 2 u


£! an _
Variability exists in the quality and the
availability of data across states due to
inconsistencies in data assessment and
reporting procedures.
Although state data vary in quality, Ol
strives to improve the quality of its
performance measure data by reviewin,
and verifying the data at the regional
offices and Heaquarters. An improved
data management system, UST Access,
being developed for the states.
u
s

&
B
„ 8 .
oo »™ >•»
•^ * ^ e
s ^ ^ s> I
|§ * 1 1
g  1 ~ &
8° 8 1
s"*' S
0
H
3
«« O
fi r > o -
Sp/ (•* ^)
D is Q § £
USEPA. Administrative Tracking System.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office c
Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, '.
Data from the UST Activity Report (someti
referred to as STARS measures), compiled
on a semi-annual basis.
73
"E.T3 2
E S o
O § 4-
flj bfi ^
•° «3 §
"— ' «a *•*
^ c o
is § 7
u> Ml |

~* !C B

8 jj v>
"" S S
cs O ed tj
5^^ O §)




Tracking will require collecting and
making consistent information from thi
sources/agencies.
o
1
&
._ -a
e *2 c
o S ts
is i|
"i CO ^- W
"-1 cs o ^
1§ I'2
%— •* o

0
s
Is
Qi >< ?i
Database: Comprehensive Environmental 1
Compensation, and Liability Information S
(CERCLIS).
DOE. Project Tracking System, Performani
Measures Databases.
NRC. Radioactive Material Licenses.
g
«i
u S.

t-H *•*
'5 -^
^> ^
!|3
«3 e c
§ 8 |

^ o S >,
1 §• § •?
in u 'S
|| S |
vd

.£3 .
•*-• t/5 rf.
NSI data represents only 1 1 percent of
nation's waterbodies and river segment
The relationship between point source
discharges and sediment quality will
require significant site-specific analysis
1
1
&

bO oo ^>
*3 in rt
i| 1
™ > — ' O


CO S
^i »> r! ^
"2 »? .Q ^ t4-1
USEPA. 1996. The National Sediment Qua
Survey: A Report to Congress on the Exten,
Severity of Sediment Contamination in SurJ
Waters of the United States. Washington, E
Environmental Protection Agency, Office c
C 4J
T3 ^ ^
P-H ^ *O
1 -3 S 2
n_ C U 43 73
O O -C — U
s ° g § .s

S a ? -S .22
O '^^ C O
5/3 |£ ^ § *o
S C *" Q C

^ ' « •« ° •» "S
Ill-Ill
£? O O o 3 '5
Cu o -^ S o 5

-------
      1
                     u 23
!
if*
     I'
     U
     !
     i
DC


111
DC
UJ

§

                  ,
                  CO
I
o
                     o a
                    a 2
                    II

                    li
                                8
                                           C/5

           <*-< ,&

           o «
                                           I   I
                                           .9   JJ
                                                                                O>
                                                 g^ Cd
                                                 o «

-------
I
 OS
 o
 CO
 I/I

 i
 1
 O
 1
 g
cc
a


u


UJ
DC
UJ
CC
Ul

o



<
|
i
!


!«
u &
Jr
18
NTACT PERS
D EPA OFFI
o z
u 3





i
D
£
S
Q









MILESTONE

_ e o
^* O *^ aj
C\ bo ^ C!
 -3 U g
P .a -a & e e
3

£

•a 2 *
Ci §

C ^

.O ^5 'C
S § g | C/j "§•
§ c3 1 £ el
« .o g a " ^;
.H C g E s fr
S .§ jB g oo g
/? ^ ra bo Sll
u § f! §•! Jj ^
| •< 1 | | |
1 ^-^ 1 " P §
u -^ § . . I ft ;s
rt^^~oS o'a.^
ON^^'^^ S3CQ
2 1 1, 1 1 ^ 1 1
r5 ^ « *3 S ^* *^ O
^SytuS ^c®
Z^Q^IO ^J? fti P i
C t«
5 -a
Through 2005, with the excepti
HCFCs and very limited "essen
uses," there will be no U.S.
production of ozone-depleting
substances.
Tf









a
2
V)
c8 *a
o oo o 'a
eC O\ .. OO 2 CO
p \O g t— g O
•a 6 .. p 6 S S
o \o s Pu vo c >
p is ° B (s HH a
> ^ S ^v "4-0
!> ts 3 ts o <;
c O w O eu
a Q, CJ. y

CO O
"3 1
o 2 «-
U M 0
fa 1 1
(» a i§O
ll l|
13 'S -So
° . t§ *6*
rS l5" ^ JU
^ W) G fti
• c o
JT} ro 'S co
^ J- ^ C^
°^ U »-J Q\
r; a , i 'i
7; e >> § Z
U. Jj § 'i U -d
p u ^. § c- ^
c •" S c o o
a -8 .§ « a .s
^ 1> cd _fl cfl &
($ oi Z H Z to
CO
U
•C eg

By 2005, cooperative efforts
between the U.S. and other coui
will restrict the net loss of coral
ecosystems to no more than 20
percent of the world's current re
area.
«









3
VI
1
m o
c w -a
U v^ Cy ...
•5 .-^ <41 O
/^\ O o
CJ- —

O

















•§ ^
4^ C « Ul
O o U Q 0
By 2005, the United States and
countries will reduce the risks t<
human health and the environm
associated with aldrin, chlordan
dieldrin, DDT, endrin, heptachl
toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene,
mirex, PCBs, and chlorinated
dioxins and furans.
*
.W
S a
B , O
c o .2 -s S
3 g p .S to
"S S « S"8
a, -2 & 8 •-
fan '^ ,, . fli 
g " " 'S
^ ts o <;
f*"} Q
"^ JG
0

&•*
t3
g
1
o
•a
o
1
•o
§
1
£
CH
(Ll
§
3
g
g.
GO
13
g
4-i ttj
By 2005, global air emissions o
mercury will be reduced, in pan
through a 50 percent reduction i
1990 levels in the United States
-
                                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                                    CM
 o


 c
XI
 U
 t/1

 I
•S
"a

5
                                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                                     c
                                                                                                                                                                     U
                                                                                                                                                                     g
                                                                                                                                                                     •3
                                                                                                                                                                    1
                                                                                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                                                                                    00

                                                                                                                                                                     S
                                                                                                                                                                     3
 o
 u
 O



=3

 §

•3

 §
 3
 CO



£

-------
 I
I
CC

O
UJ

CC




UJ
o
o


^
•<
Q
S
O
^




at
i~«
ia
z «
O y
M4 ^r
£2
1§5
1 Q
O £
u 3



DATA SOURCE




MILESTONE


H
l1"S J
•g o.£? 9
C 3 o Jj
d O "§ «>
*1 3 t
•s 3 1 §
8^88
S 1 B >?
3 O tt JO

jg ea 2 p c
<( £ -a c •§
OH rt 5 e3
U £ 0 8 BO

3
W)
1
BO *O O
S 00 P 0
o ^ aj *a
ss ai
e ^--v <+- o
J3 cs O •<
•r* O O
^ fs^ y
^-^ IQ
O

1 . ?s
^ . I •= s
ternational Workshop on Phasing Oul
isoline: A Status Report, March 1995
Lead Poisoning in 1994. JAMA - Joi*
rican Medical Association. 272(4). Jl
r Disease Control and Prevention,
health and Nutrition Examination Sur
~o 1 1 5 ^-30;
Ss 1 ll~ Hi
P J Uo*o» U^'-'
n\ "M
By 2005, with U.S. leadership and
cooperation many nations will have
phased out the use of lead in
gasoline, and worldwide use of leai
in gasoline will be below 1993
levels.

06
1.
1 *
£$

§ 1
is
It
1 £
G -c
.a B •
a | S
SiS

s
00
0 So '3
pC O^ 2
•A o ^ -i^
ll l<
§ cs o
&* £
ffl O

fll
CA K .
Aerometric Information Retrieval Sy
.S. Environmental Protection Agency
n, DC (National Ambient Air Quality
H B
S 
Z O 05 Z CQ

By 2005, existing sources of high-
level radioactivity in northwest
Russia with the potential for near-
term release into the arctic
environment will be reduced by 25
percent.
*
~
                                                                                                                                                      c
                                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                                     •a
I
c


'i
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                                                                     B
                                                                                                                                                     u


                                                                                                                                                     I

                                                                                                                                                     13

                                                                                                                                                     g
                                                                                                                                                     •s
                                                                                                                                                     00


                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     o

                                                                                                                                                     §

-------
i
I
I
I
Q
5
CC



UJ
O

O
I
      1

      1
I
                   x
                   =2

                   s
                           I
a
ss
tt!
                                          §
                                                                                    I

                                                                                    .8
I
                                                                                          I
                                                                  I
                                                                  m
                                                          s
                                                          9
                                                          s
                      §1

                      If
                      £ a
                      <«•* O
                      O 73
                      .8 a
                                                                                          8

                                                                                          1
                                                                                    O


                                                                                    g
                                                                                    •a
                                                                                          .2

-------
H
Q
P
ABOUT i
ICATOR
YPE1
Q H
5
CONTACT PERSON
AND EPA OFFICE
w
0
3
O
CO
fS
Q
MILESTONE




i
u
OJ
Kathleen MacKinnon
(202) 260-4951
Office of
Communications,
Education, and Public
Affairs







By 2005, there will be substantial
growth in the number and quality of
environmental education programs in
schools, colleges, and communities.
vi



1
*
Bryan Wood-Thomas
(202) 260-6983
Office of International
Activities







By 2005, nations will be better able
to share information on the transport
of pollutants and the movement of
hazardous and toxic materials across
borders.
*
-C


 a


 3
J=.

 s

 C
 u
 c
 u
 o

 o

'•3



I

 %
 to

 SJ
 M)

 C





1

-------
                   Appendix B: Goals in the Major Laws Administered by EPA
                 APPENDIX B:

         GOALS IN THE MAJOR LAWS
            ADMINISTERED BY EPA
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                       Appendix B; Goals in the Major Laws Administered by EPA
                  GOALS IN THE MAJOR LAWS ADMINISTERED BY EPA

Seventeen statutes form the legal basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. Several of
them contain explicit environmental goals, but for the  most part EPA's work is driven by statutory and
regulatory action requirements rather than by environmental results requirements. Measurable environmental
targets will help provide a focus for planning and evaluating the Agency's actions. Following is a summary of
the goals or goal-like language in the statutes.

1.    The Pollution Prevention Act states that it is the policy of the United States that "pollution should be
     prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that  cannot be prevented should be
     recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or
     recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other
     release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should  be  conducted in an
     environmentally safe manner." No explicit environmental targets.

2.    The Clean Air Act gives states specific deadlines for meeting the air quality standard (up to 20 years (or
     2010) for ozone in Los Angeles) and requires states and the federal government to make constant progress
     in reducing emissions. It requires technology controls on air toxics  to be achieved within 10 years of
     enactment (2000). It requires a permanent 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from 1980
     levels and a 2 million ton reduction in nitrogen oxides from 1980 levels. It establishes dates for phasing
     out ozone-depleting substances.

3.    The Clean Water Act. "The objective of this Act is  to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
     biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective ...

     a.   It is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by
         1985;

     b.   It is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for
         the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
         the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;

     c.   It is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited ..."

     /These national clean water goals have yet to be achieved.]

4.    The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act) declares that "it is the
     policy of the United States to regulate the dumping of all types  of materials into ocean waters and to
     prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material which would  adversely affect
     human health, welfare,  or amenities,  or the marine environment,  ecological systems,  or economic
     potentialities." No explicit environmental targets.

5.    The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 requires coastal states with approved
     coastal zone management programs to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs ... "to restore
     and protect coastal waters ..."  No explicit environmental targets.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     B-1

-------
Appendix B: Goals in the Major Laws Administered by EPA
6.   The Safe Drinking Water Act directs EPA to develop national drinking water regulations for public
    water systems, regulations for state underground injection control programs, and additional protective
    measures for critical aquifers. It also directs states to establish programs that protect areas around
    wellheads. The 1996 amendments establish a strong new emphasis on source water protection and
    enhanced water system management. No explicit environmental targets.

1.   The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. "The Congress hereby declares it to be the national
    policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or
    eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored,
    or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment." No
    explicit environmental targets.

8.   The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,  and Liability Act (Superfund)
    provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released
    into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. The 1986 amendments
    to the Superfund law required EPA to begin physical, on-site cleanup of at least 175 new (after 1986)
    sites by 1989, and of another 200 sites within the following 2 years. There are no deadlines for finishing
    this work. No explicit environmental targets.

9.   The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires local planning to cope with
    chemical emergencies and ensures that responsible officials are provided with information from local
    businesses about their activities involving hazardous chemicals. The act mandates the development of a
    national inventory of releases of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities, which is called the Toxics
    Release Inventory (TRI). The purpose of the TRI is to provide information to the general public about
    chemicals to which they may be exposed. There are no explicit environmental targets, although EPA uses
    the TRI to implement its "33/50 Program," in which industry is challenged to voluntarily reduce releases
    and transfers of 17 high-priority chemicals by 33 percent by 1992 and by 50 percent by 1995.

10. The Toxic Substances Control Act states that "authority over chemical substances and mixtures should
    be exercised in such a manner as not to impede  unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to
    technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that such innovation
    and commerce in  such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury
    to health or the environment." No explicit environmental targets.

11. The Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act directs EPA to regulate pesticides in a
    manner which does not pose unreasonable health or environmental risks. This act was amended by the
    Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 which directs EPA to promote  the registration of safer pesticides
    and provides continued funding for pesticide re-registrations. No explicit environmental targets.

12. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act  establishes the standard to be used for setting pesticide
    residue levels in  foods. This act was amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 which
    establishes a uniform, health-based standard for pesticide residues  in raw and processed foods.  No
    explicit environmental targets.

13. The Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act authorizes all
    EPA's research and development programs. No explicit environmental targets.
B-2                                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                       Appendix B: Goals in the Major Laws Administered by EPA
14. The National Environmental Education Act. The stated policy is "to establish and support a program
    of education on the environment... through activities in schools, institutions of higher education and
    related educational activities, and to encourage postsecondary students to pursue careers related to the
    environment." No explicit environmental targets.

15. The Atomic Energy Act was enacted to administer research and development on both peaceful and
    military applications of nuclear energy. It transferred to EPA the functions of establishing generally
    applicable environmental standards [for radiation protection] and the authority to provide guidance to
    federal agencies. No explicit environmental targets.

16. The purpose of the Pollution Prosecution Act is "to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with
    resources needed to enforce our environmental laws and to ensure that those involved in enforcement
    receive consistent and excellent training." No explicit environmental targets.

17. The National Environmental Policy Act. The purposes are "To declare a national policy which will
    encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts
    which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate  the health and
    welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to
    the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality... It is the continuing responsibility of
    the Federal Government... to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources
    to the end that the Nation may —

    a.   Fulfill  the  responsibilities  of each generation as trustee of the  environment for succeeding
         generations;

    b.   Assure for all  Americans safe, healthful, productive,  and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
         surroundings;

    c.   Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or
         safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

    d.   Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage,  and maintain,
         wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;

    e.   Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living
         and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and,

    f.   Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the  maximum attainable recycling of
         depletable resources."
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                      B-3

-------
            Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development
                 APPENDIX C:

     GOALS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL
        ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                      Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development
           GOALS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In the course of developing the proposed environmental goals contained in this report, EPA examined
health and environmental goals already set by federal agencies, states, and other countries. As a member
of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), the EPA Administrator took part in
developing the recently published national goals for sustainable development. The PCSD's goals for
sustainable development and EPA's proposed goals for the environment complement each other.

The set of goals contained in this appendix emerged from the PCSD's vision. These goals express in
concrete terms the elements of sustainability. The goals express the shared aspirations of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development. They are truly interdependent and flow from the Council's
understanding that it is essential to seek economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity
together. The  achievement of any one goal is not enough to ensure that future generations will have at least
the same opportunities to live and prosper that this generation enjoys: all are needed.

Accompanying the goals are indicators of progress, yardsticks to measure progress toward each  goal. These
indicators of progress suggest what information to look at to determine the progress that the country is
making toward achieving the goals. They are not intended to be mandates for specific actions or policies,
and they may  change over time as the country moves toward these goals and leams more about the science
and policy options underlying them.  In some cases, the suggested indicators are concepts that are not now
easily measured and will require more work before they can be used as true yardsticks.

GOAL 1 - HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    Ensure that every person enjoys the benefits of clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment
    at home, at work, and at play.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    Clean air, clean water, and reduced exposure to toxics are basic indicators. Beyond that, other
    environmental exposures (such as to lead and tobacco smoke) can also contribute directly and
    indirectly to health problems. Where causal links can be identified, additional indicators  should be
    used.

    Clean Air
    Decreased number of people living in areas that fail to meet air quality standards.

    Drinking Water
    Decreased number of people whose drinking water fails to meet national safe drinking water
    standards.

    Toxic Exposures
    Reduced  releases that contribute to human exposure to toxic materials.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                    C-1

-------
Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development	

    Diseases and Mortality
    Decrease in diseases and deaths from environmental exposures, including occupationally related
    illnesses.

GOAL 2 - ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

    Sustain a healthy U.S. economy that grows sufficiently to create meaningful jobs, reduce poverty,
    and provide the opportunity for a high quality of life for all in an increasingly competitive world.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    The traditional measures of economic activity include gross domestic product (GDP), net domestic
    product (NDP), and the unemployment rate. These measures, however, do not take into account
    negative environmental impacts of production and consumption or gauge the incidence of poverty.
    The Council agreed that additional yardsticks are needed for adequately gauging economic progress in
    the broadest sense.

    Economic Performance
    Increases in per capita GDP and NDP.

    Employment
    Increases in the number, wage level, and quality of jobs (as measured, for example, by the percentage
    of jobs at or below minimum wage).

    Poverty
    Decreased number of people living below the poverty line.

    Savings and Investment Rates
    Higher per capita savings and investment rates.

    Natural Resources and Environmental Accounting
    Development and use of new economic measures or satellite accounts that reflect resource depletion
    and environmental costs.

    Productivity
    Increased per capita production per hour worked.

GOAL 3 - EQUITY

    Ensure that all Americans are afforded justice and have the opportunity to achieve economic,
    environmental, and social well-being.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    The Council believes that equity is such an important goal that it has worked to weave this priority
    into each element of this report. However, measuring fairness and equality of opportunity throughout
    a population is complex. It requires measuring differences between rich and poor in a number of ways
C-2                                                   GOVERNMENT RE VIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development

     and involves yardsticks not yet available. Such measures should be developed to show whether the
     nation is progressing toward greater equity by reducing disparities in risks and access to benefits.

     Income Trends
     Increase in the average income of the bottom 20 percent compared with that of the top 20 percent of
     the U.S. population.

     Environmental Equity
     Development of measures of any disproportionate environmental burdens (such as exposure to air,
     water, and toxic pollution) borne by different economic and social groups.

     Social Equity
     Development of measures of access to critical services (such as education, health care, and
     community services), and opportunities to participate in decision making by different economic and
     social groups, such as the percentage of these populations attending college.

GOAL 4 - CONSERVATION OF NATURE

     Use, conserve, protect, and restore natural resources — land, air, water, and biodiversity — in
     ways that help ensure long-term social, economic, and environmental benefits for ourselves and
    future generations.

     INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

     Measuring the health and extent of natural systems is difficult because they are complex; vary over
     time and space; and have effects that can be local, regional, and/or global. Most of the following
     indicators focus on local and regional systems, reflecting the Council's work on watersheds and
     communities. Additional indicators are needed to reflect how well the nation is contributing to the
     protection of natural systems worldwide.

     Ecosystems
     Increase in the health of ecosystems, including forests, grasslands, wetlands, surface waters, and
     coastal lands:

     •       Decreased soil loss and associated productivity loss due to erosion and chemical or biological changes
            in natural systems and other lands such as agricultural lands.
     •       Increased number of acres of healthy wetlands.
     •       Increased percentage of forests managed to reach full maturity and diversity.
     •       Development of indicators to measure water bodies with healthy biological communities.
     •       Increased number of acres of healthy native grasslands.

     Habitat Loss
     Development of measures of threats to habitat loss and the extent of habitat conversion,
     such as the rate of wetlands loss.

     Threatened and Endangered Species
     Decreased number of threatened and endangered species.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     C-3

-------
Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development	

    Nutrients and Toxics
    Decreased releases that contribute to the exposure of natural systems to toxics and excess nutrients.

    Exotic Species
    Reduced ecological impacts caused by the introduction and spread of exotic species.

    Global Environmental Change
    Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and of compounds that damage the ozone layer.

GOAL 5 - STEWARDSHIP

    Create a widely held ethic of stewardship that strongly encourages individuals, institutions, and
    corporations to take full responsibility for the economic, environmental, and social
    consequences of their actions.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    Stewardship is an ethic or value; quantitative measures of it are difficult and need further work. What
    can be readily measured is the use of natural resources within the United States ~ efficient use and
    wise management are key to ensuring that such resources will be available for future generations.

    Materials Consumption
    Increased efficiency of materials use, such as materials intensity measured per capita or per unit of
    output.

    Waste Reduction
    Increased source reduction, reuse, recovery, and recycling.

    Energy Efficiency
    Reduced energy intensity (energy per unit output).

    Renewable Resource Use
    Decreased rate of harvest or use compared to rate of regeneration in fisheries, forests, soil, and
    groundwater.

GOAL 6 - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

    Encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural and historic
    resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained,  neighborhoods are secure,
    education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have
    opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    Local values and priorities shape the characteristics that contribute to strong and stable communities.
    However, thriving communities across the nation share many common traits as do threatened
    communities. Indicators need to allow for diversity among communities while recognizing national
    priorities.
 C-4                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix C; Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development

     Community Economic Viability
     Increased local per capita income and employment in urban, suburban, and rural communities.

     Safe Neighborhoods
     Decrease in violent crime rates.

     Public Parks
     Increase in urban green space, park space, and recreational areas.

     Investment in Future Generations
     Increase in the amount of public and private resources dedicated to children, including health care,
     maternal care, childhood development, and education and training.

     Transportation Patterns
     Decrease in measures of traffic congestion; increase in the use of public and alternative transportation
     systems.

     Community Access to Information
     Increase in library use and the percentage of schools and libraries with access to the Internet and
     National Information Infrastructure.

     Shelter
     Decreased number of homeless people by community.

     Metropolitan Income Patterns
     Reduced disparity in per capita income between urban areas and their suburbs.

     Infant Mortality
     Decrease in infant mortality rates by economic and social group.

GOAL 7 - Civic ENGAGEMENT

     Create full opportunity for citizens, businesses, and communities to participate in and influence
     the natural resource, environmental, and economic decisions that affect them.

     INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

     Democratic societies rely on an engaged population of diverse individuals and institutions. Additional
     measures are needed to track participation and gauge the effectiveness of policies that strengthen
     cooperative decision making while still allowing for individual leadership and creativity. Effective
     yardsticks may come from studying successful efforts to build community values, public trust, and
     government responsiveness.

     Public Participation
     Increase in the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in national, state, and local elections.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     C-5

-------
Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development	

    New indicators must be developed to measure:

    Social Capital
    Increase in citizen engagement and public trust, such as the willingness of people in a community to
    cooperate for their mutual benefit.

    Citizen Participation
    Increase in community participation in such civic activities as professional and service organizations,
    parent-teacher associations, sporting leagues, and volunteer work.

    Collaborations
    Increased use of successful civic collaborations such as public-private partnerships, community-based
    planning and goal-setting projects, and consensus-building efforts.

GOAL 8 - POPULATION

    Move toward stabilization of U.S. population.

    INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

    Together with the more traditional population measurements, such as estimates of growth, trends and
    measures of the social and economic status of women within society are also important. Evidence has
    shown that as the health and status of women improve, population pressures become more
    manageable.

    Population Growth
    Reduced rate of population growth in the United States and the world.

    Status of Women
    Increased educational opportunity for women; increased income equality for equivalent work.

    Unintended Pregnancies
    Decreased number of unintended pregnancies in the United States.

    Teen Pregnancies
    Decreased number of teenage pregnancies in the United States.

    Immigration
    Decreased number of illegal immigrants.

GOAL 9 - INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

    Take a leadership role in the development and implementation of global sustainable development
    policies, standards of conduct, and trade and foreign policies, that further the achievement of
    sustainability.
 C-6                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development

     INDICATORS OF PROGRESS

     The actions taken by the United States have a significant effect on the world's environment, economy,
     and cultures. This nation has a tradition of global leadership and responsibility. It is important to
     continue this tradition. While indicators of global leadership apply to all sectors,  the following ones
     focus on the role of the federal government.

     International Assistance
     Increased level of U.S. international assistance for sustainable development, including official
     development assistance (federal money dedicated to international aid for developing nations).

     Environmental Assistance
     Increase in the U.S. contribution to the Global Environmental Facility and other environmentally
     targeted development aid.

     Assessment of Progress
     Development and use of new measures for assessing progress toward sustainable development in
     countries receiving U.S. assistance.

     Environmental Technology Exports
     Increased U.S. exports or transfers of cost-effective and environmentally sound technologies to
     developing countries.

     Research Leadership
     Increased levels of U.S. research on global environmental problems.

GOAL 10 - EDUCATION

     Ensure that all Americans have equal access to education and lifelong learning opportunities that
     will prepare them for meaningful work, a high quality of life, and an  understanding of the
     concepts involved in sustainable development.

     Indicators of Progress
     Education for sustainable development should be lifelong through integration into formal and
     nonformal education settings, including teacher education, continuing education, curriculum
     development, and worker training.

     Information Access
     Increased number of communities with infrastructure in place that allows easy access  to government
     information, public and private research, and community right-to-know  documents.

     Curriculum Development
     Increased number of curricula, materials, and training opportunities that teach the principles of
     sustainable development.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     C-7

-------
Appendix C: Goals of the President's Council on Sustainable Development	

    National Standards
    Increased number of school systems that have adopted K-12 voluntary standards for learning about
    sustainable development similar to the standards developed under the National Goals 2000 initiative.

    Community Participation
    Increased number of school systems and communities with programs for lifelong learning through
    both formal and nonformal learning institutions.

    National Achievement
    Improved skill performance of U.S. students as measured by standardized achievement tests.

    Graduation Rates
    Increased high school graduation rates and number of students going on to college or vocational
    training.
 C-8                                                  GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
           Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review
                 APPENDIX D:

     SOME FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS
        FROM A PRELIMINARY REVIEW
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                       Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review
                SOME FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS FROM A PRELIMINARY REVIEW
This report was given a limited federal review during the summer of 1996. As a result of that review, EPA
corrected inaccuracies and made other revisions. Because EPA did not want to delay getting comments
from its other government partners, it has moved ahead with the present draft without responding fully to
all of the federal comments. EPA is currently working to resolve these issues. Similar comments have
been combined in the interest of brevity. EPA agrees with some of these comments and does not agree
with others.  EPA offers these comments in order to stimulate a full discussion with the reviewers.
      GENERAL
       Additional milestones should be added for federal facilities. The aggregate impact of all federal
       facilities is significant.

       The draft includes a goal for terrestrial ecosystems, but comparatively little attention is devoted to
       coastal and marine ecosystems. Among the milestones that could be included are the disposal of
       harbor and dredged materials and industrial and municipal discharges.  We recommend adding a
       separate goal and milestones for healthy estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystems.

       The document emphasizes "standards" and does not adequately acknowledge source and exposure
       information.  The relationship between the sources of emissions and resulting levels of exposures
       should be clear.

       There may be insufficient funds available to meet all expectations.  Should there be an attempt to
       rank the milestones, if not individually, at least by groups?

       It would be difficult and costly to develop and field the necessary data collection systems in a
       timely manner to monitor progress.

       The report would be improved if it included more information that indicates the type and
       magnitude of real world problem that each milestone addresses, the specific  kinds of actions
       which might have to be taken, the likely kinds and levels of costs, the probable types and levels of
       benefits, and  the availability of alternatives that might produce equal benefits at lower costs.

       These are some generic problems in several of the milestones: the statistical measures used in the
       milestones need to be restated in terms of the desirable outcome or condition sought, outcome
       measures should be stated in absolute terms rather than percentages change,
       justification/explanation for the selection of the specific baseline years and targets is needed, and
       milestones that would merely establish more regulations should be revised to reflect outcome
       performance rather than [outputs].

       The differences between the  EPA milestones and the Healthy People 2000 objectives could be
       confusing to state and local governments and the public.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     D-1

-------
Appendix D; Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	

9.     Should the relationships between the milestones and research needs be called out in the report?
       The milestones should provide the strong policy direction needed to set federal monitoring and
       research and development priorities for the environment.

10.    The draft report is unusually ambitious: (1) the likely costs and benefits of attaining the goals are often
       unclear and in some instances unknown; (2) some goals and milestones are difficult to commit to
       without risking premature judgements (i.e., they commit EPA to regulatory decisions that have not been
       proposed or are currently subject to public comment), while others merely reflect the expected results of
       actions already completed; (3) in some instances, the basis for the factual claims and the resulting
       implications of those claims are undocumented; and (4) in general, the report could be taken to imply a
       need for massive federal effort.

11.    Some reviewers thought the report overly long and the language too vague for its apparent
       purpose. "Milestones" were considered particularly weak where they rely on language such as
       "substantial improvement" and "substantial growth." Quantifications were preferred by these
       reviewers. Other reviewers preferred nonquantitative measures or omitting the milestone when the
       baselines could not be well established.

12.    Many goals are presented as specific numerical targets; in many cases they appear arbitrary.

13.    The various milestones specify percentage reductions from 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995 levels, etc.
       Where possible, use of a consistent base year of 1990 would be preferable.

14.    While applauding EPA's effort to establish environmental quality goals, the draft needs to be more
       inclusive of other agencies in tone and in aims, or it should limit its scope to the EPA's domain.

15.    The successes of conservation programs are based on the voluntary efforts of private landowners.
       The involvement of these groups early in the process of identifying goals and setting priorities will
       be very important.

16.    The milestones should be shown  on maps to help readers understand where the problems are
       located.  Many of the indicators used as milestones are mappable.
      CLEAN Am

General

1.       There should be some milestones for reducing toxic air pollutants besides VOCs.

2.       We suggest that EPA add a 7th milestone for Clean Air—that the levels of soil and water
        nitrification will improve 10 percent because of the improvements in control strategies and market
        approaches to reducing NOx that is a precursor to ozone.

Milestone 1

3.       Milestone  1 commits to reducing to 6 the number of cities that do not meet all National Ambient
        Air Quality Standards. This will be very difficult to do, particularly if EPA tightens its ozone and
        particulate matter standards.

5^2                                                      GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review

4.      This milestone would be more meaningful if it were based on direct measures of air quality, rather
        than on attainment of current national standards.

5.      The Healthy People 2000 Objective 11.05 and this EPA milestone are very similar, with the EPA
        goal being very aggressive. While the EPA goal is for cities and the Healthy People 2000 for
        people, limitation in the measurement system precludes an exact measure of those individuals
        experiencing poorer air quality. The wording of the EPA milestone implies that for those areas
        where the air quality may improve but fail to meet the EPA's standards, their air will not be safer to
        breathe. If the air quality improves, even if it does not achieve EPA standards, the air is safer to
        breathe. The standards are in a sense arbitrary and can be changed in the future.
        Recommendation: Revise the EPA target to reflect the concerns cited above and consider adding  a
        target that tracks U.S. population living in areas that have not exceeded any EPA standard for  air
        quality.

Milestone 2

6.      Spell out the characteristics of the "typical vehicle" used to track automobile emission
        improvements. Is this truly representative of the fleet?

7.      We are concerned that the emphasis is on cars and not on  motor vehicles. The milestone should
        also treat off-road vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, etc. We also suggest that reference to the past be
        changed to 1970. Since 1970, there has been a 95 percent decrease in per car VOC emissions.

Milestone 3

8.      Milestone 3 discusses "economic incentives, education, and incentives for smart land use'" as the
        means by which to get people to drive their cars less to, among other things, reduce greenhouse
        gas emissions. This issue is sufficiently contentious that the year-long "Car Talk" advisory
        committee could not reach consensus on ways to achieve such reductions.

9.      This milestone sets a vague target. How would we measure success? In the context of attainment,
        etc., it specifies a partial "means" to an outcome. Given these problems, the milestone should not
        be  included.

10.     This milestone should be carefully considered. Since EPA cannot change the tax code or lobby for
        such a change, the most direct methods to change driving  are out of scope. If clean air is the goal,
        is this milestone on a method necessary?

Milestone 4

11.     As milestone 4 does not bear any relation to health or environmental outcomes, it should not be
        included.

12.     Change milestone to read:  "By 2005 all 4-74 categories of major industrial facilities will  meet toxic
        air emission standards, reducing toxic air emissions by XXX tons per year."

Milestone 6

13.     The achievement and quantification of visibility could be difficult.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                      D-3

-------
Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review
Strategy

14.     To reduce emissions from motor vehicles, a strategy worth considering is the removal of the 10
        percent highest emitters (these may account for almost 50 percent of the toxic vehicle emissions).

15.     The strategy of making "flexible inspection and maintenance programs more effective" should be
        described more fully.
CLEAN WATERS
     General

\.       Extrapolated water quality trends based on anticipated pollution controls is problematical for
        determining targets. Suggest adding qualifying text to the effect that complete achievement of the
        projected levels of control may not be possible, and that therefore the quantified milestones may be
        optimistic.

2.       Milestones 2, 3, and 4 rely on data sources that are not comparable over time and space.
        Moreover, they are all arbitrary. As stated in the milestones, statistically valid national-level trend
        data do not exist on waters safe for aquatic life or for recreation, and on fish and shellfish harvest
        areas that are closed. Thus we do not know whether such data, when it is collected, would indicate
        that the milestone is attainable, unattainable, or perhaps is already being met.

Milestone 1

3.       Questioned ability to set target due to inadequate baseline data on wetland loss trends.

4.       Need to clarify the basis of the figure of 100,000 acres of net annual increase in wetlands in 2005
        and yearly thereafter.

5.       Would a more realistic target be zero net loss by 2005?

6.       What is meant by increasing wetland acreage? Does improving the quality of an existing wetland
        count toward the milestone or must a wetland be newly created from non-wetland terrain?

Milestone 2

7.       305(b) studies only look at designated use attainment.  This could be inconsistent with the
        waterbody's ability to support a healthy aquatic community, (i.e. it could support a different
        community than what it "should" support). Need to define what constitutes a healthy aquatic
        community and what monitoring methods would be used.

8.      Advanced monitoring might lead to apparent declines  in conditions due to improved detection of
        impacts.

9.      Since the milestone itself indicates that there is not a common measure of healthy aquatic


CM                                                     GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review

        communities, the baseline percentages given in figure M2 could be subject to doubt and the target
        of 80 percent could be considered conjecture at best.

Milestone 3

10.     While this milestone may be achievable, the remaining percentages will be difficult to clean up
        because toxics, emitted as air pollution over the last 50-100 year, have caused a build-up of these
        chemicals in sediments. The air toxics milestone needs to be more specific about which toxics
        build up, and should also address as a minimum which of the unhealthful rivers, lakes, etc. can
        repair themselves and over what time frame.

11.     Milestone 3 is more ambitious than the HP 2000 target. The reason for the more ambitious target
        should be discussed. If the target was broken down by type of waterbody, EPA would track the
        same data and match the methods used by HP 2000.

Milestone 4

12.     The target for Milestone 4 is more ambitious than the HP 2000 target. A discussion should be
        included that explains the reason for the more ambitious target. If the target was broken down by
        type of waterbody, EPA would track the  same data and match the methods used by HP 2000. In
        addition, if secondary contact recreation was eliminated or broken down into primary and
        secondary activities, the EPA and DHHS targets would be more closely aligned.

Milestone 5

13.     Difficulties in interpreting results of past ground water studies preclude the ability to propose a
        specific target for this milestone. Suggest specifying the target as a percentage based on SDWIS
        data as it becomes available—annual reduction in the number of people served by wells containing
        high levels of nitrate.

Milestone 7

14.     Due to differences in environmental effects, it does not make sense to lump pounds of TSS with
        pounds of mercury when estimating total loads. EPA's effluent guidelines program uses a
        multiplier (toxic weighting factor) to account for the differing impacts. Suggest using pound
        equivalents.
      HEALTHY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

General

1.      Based on the milestones, a goal of conserving biological diversity would be more appropriate. No
       milestones relate to ecosystem processes; instead they are targeted at population and species and
       habitat size.

2.      While the 3 milestones may cover certain aspects of ecosystem health, the extent of that coverage
       is unclear. Similarly unclear is the national data, available or expected to be available, that will
       allow tracking of the goals at a known level of accuracy or precision.

GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                     CMS

-------
Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	

3.      The distinction between the ability of ecosystems to recover from natural versus human-induced
        stresses is not so clear-cut, particularly if humans are considered part of ecosystems.

4.      These milestones—to eliminate the loss of endangered or threatened ecosystem types and to
        restore ecosystem conditions and functions—are laudable, but achieving them by the year 2005 is
        unrealistic.

Milestone 1

5.      Data for tracking progress must be obtained through a deliberate, premeditated, and systematic
        process if they are to provide meaningful information.

6.      Progress toward this milestone will be measured in part using data from the NBS's Gap Analysis
        Program.  Funding for this NBS program has been in question.  Does EPA have an alternative
        funding source?

7.      Based upon total losses of biological systems since the earliest settlements, a relative ranking of
        endangerment was calculated by EPA. Missing from this analysis is the amount of those remaining
        fragments that are currently protected by law directly by inclusion in parks, preserves, or as
        designated wilderness at the federal, state, and local level.

Milestone 2

8.      Change in population densities of listed species may indicate little about ecosystem health. Is
        there a statistical relationship between the number of species listed and the actual number of
        species endangered or threatened? The indicator may be more indicative of the success of recovery
        programs.

9.      The tracking of results in this goal should use objective measurements of resource  abundance and
        quality rather than enrollment in conservation programs.

10.     Missing from this milestone is a description of work being done now to address condition of the
        land.

11.     The call for protection of representative types of ecosystems.."[that] once dominated the
        landscape..." indicates that there is a notion behind this milestone that it is possible to protect
        ecosystems from change and to also restore them to some pre-Columbian condition. Ecosystems
        change through time in response to biotic and abiotic factors. This milestone should be reevaluated
        in light of this. We suggest that more flexible goals that would allow the system to function within
        its normal parameters be established.
       SAFE DRINKING WATER
 u*
Milestone 1

1.       Current milestone only includes Community Water Systems (CWS) that report maximum
        contaminant level (MCL) violations and, as a result, underestimates the population receiving water

                                                        GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review

        that is in violation of SDWA regulations. It is also important to include CWS that fail to
        monitor/report. EPA target should address all persons served by public water supplies. EPA should
        use 186 million, not 243 million, as figure for the population receiving water from CWS for which
        they have information on violations.

2.      This milestone only concerns the population served by CWS that are in violation of standards and
        has little relationship to risk reduction.

3.      All water systems that exceeded a single MCL at least once during a year are treated the same,
        irrespective of the magnitude of an exceedance or its number or duration.

4.      Achievement of the milestone will be complicated by difficulties associated with costly
        forthcoming EPA rules on groundwater disinfection, disinfection by products, enhanced surface
        water treatment, radionuclides, and arsenic.

5.      Recommend that the milestone be expressed in terms of measurable improvements  in public health
        (e.g., outbreaks of waterborne disease). Change the milestone statement to read "By 2005, the
        population affected by water-borne disease outbreaks among community water systems will be
        reduced by XX percent"

Milestone 2

6.      The criteria for defining inadequately protected surface sources of drinking water is not clear. It
        could be better to adequately protect the supply than to rely upon filtration to treat the condition.

Milestone 4

1.      Many Public Water Systems (PWSs) have already invested heavily in filtration and disinfection
        and are meeting requirements and will be reluctant to invest additional resources in source water
        protection. The 60 percent target might be difficult to achieve without a statutory or regulatory
        mandate.

8.      This milestone is  arbitrary in that source water protection programs (SWPPs) correlate poorly with
        risk reduction. Specifically, many CWS are in full compliance with existing requirements without
        SWPPs. Thus, SWPPs at CWS would neither improve public health nor reduce costs. 60 percent
        target has no basis.  Given these problems, the milestone should not be included.
      SAFE FOOD
General

1.       The disjuncture between the listed milestones and actual attainment of the goal is striking. There
        are many contaminants more important than pesticide residues that cause food-related illness.

Milestone 1

2.       The goal for pesticide residues in imported food could be equal to that of domestic food,  A clear

GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
Appendix D; Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	

       strategy for maintaining or reducing the frequency of illegal pesticide residues in imported food is
       not presented.

3.     The goal for the frequency of unauthorized chemical pesticide residues in food should be zero.

Milestone 2

4.     What is the expected impact of EPA's new cancer guidelines on reducing the use of cancer causing
       pesticides?

5.     The milestone does not accurately indicate the difference between potential to cause cancer and the
       risk posed by a particular use. The milestone should be, "....a significant reduction in the highest
       cancer risks posed by the use of pesticides in food production."

Milestone 3

6.     The baseline appears to be unclear. As of 1995, how many of the 453 active ingredients
       have been evaluated?

7.     The narrative clearly describes, in a way that the milestone does not, the process of completing the
       analysis and actions to eliminate reference dose (RfD) exceeders by the year 2005, which is in
       accordance with the completion of re-registration.
      SAFE HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND WORKPLACES


General

1.      This chapter actually says almost nothing about schools.

Milestone 1

2.      The extrapolations for the year 2005, in most instances, were based upon published data from
        1984, and more recently, upon NHANES III data. However, it should be noted that for the year
        1984, there were no published data on children 1  through 5 years of age in the U.S. population
        with blood lead levels greater than or equal to 10  ug/dl.  Further, there were no HHS objectives for
        the year 2000 for children 1 through 5 years of age in the U.S. population with blood lead levels
        greater than or equal to 10 ug/dl. It appears that EPA milestones for the Year 2005 were based on
        a goal of a 43 percent reduction of the prevalence reported by NHANES III.

3.      For children with blood lead levels of greater than or equal to 15 ug/dl, the milestone for children
        1 through 5 years of age in the U.S. population was based on a 50 percent reduction of the
        prevalence reported by NHANES III, and for inner-city, low-income, African-American children 1
        through 5 years of age, the milestone was based on a 47 reduction.  No reason could be discerned
        for the differences in the percent factors used for  the projections.

4.      The HHS year 2000 objective states that no children 1 through 5 years of age in the U.S.
        population will have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 25 ug/dl.  EPA should report the
        same milestone for the year 2005.

5^8                                                    GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review

Milestone 2

5.      The target for Healthy People 2000 Objective 11.06 was chosen during the late 1980s, before
        monitoring had begun. Recent data show that achievement of the target of 40 percent reduction is
        unlikely. The EPA target for this milestone is more realistic.

Milestone 3

6.      EPA also may want to consider addressing ETS exposure of children in child care centers and
        schools. Healthy People 2000 objectives cover both of these areas.

Milestone 5

1.      This milestone stipulating a doubling of use of "safe" biopesticides is unrelated to risk. As doubling
        will in fact increase risk if there is any environmental risk from the use of such pesticides, this
        milestone should not be included.

8.      Consider replacing this milestone with monitoring data on concentrations of synthetic pesticides in
        surface water or in fish. Fish tissue concentrations were well-characterized in EPA's National
        Study on Chemical Residue in Fish tissue.

Milestone 6

9.      The review of high-production volume chemicals and product stewardship programs of the
        chemical industry promote protection of workers exposed to chemicals but they do not assure it.
        Reviews are limited by current science and implementation of preventive measures is neither
        universal nor perfect.  The milestone text could be revised as follows: "By 2005, the number of
        existing industrial high-production-volume chemicals evaluated for safe use in the workplace will
        nearly triple."

10.     Milestone is redundant with Toxic-Free  milestone 3.

Milestone 7

11.     This appears to be a "design-type" milestone.  As it is not clear how this milestone is related to
        health/environment end-points, it should not be included.

Strategy

12.     The Strategy says,  "By 2005, 3000 or more schools or commercial buildings will have indoor air
        quality management plans that are in keeping with..." This is a tiny percentage considering the
        numbers of schools and commercial buildings.

13.     Regarding the strategy for understanding indoor air quality, couldn't this include a proportion of
        schools consistent with population occupancy norms for all buildings?
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                      D-9

-------
Appendix D; Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	


      TOXIC-FREE COMMUNITIES


General

1.      The title, "Toxic-Free Communities" is misleading.

2.      Many milestones are presented as specific numerical targets. The discussion could be improved if
       EPA included the rationale for selecting these milestones; in many cases they appear arbitrary.

Milestone 1

3.      It is not clear why a 25 percent reduction in release of toxic chemicals was selected.

4.      The paragraph on past trends notes that quantities of toxic chemicals in production related wastes
       are projected to decrease; however, graph M.I shows no decline or a slight increase between 1994
       and 1995. Why was there no decrease in 1995? Is the projection for 2005 realistic?

5.      EPA's targeted reductions apply to all substances tracked in the Toxic Release Inventory. The
       Healthy People 2000's target attempts to isolate those substances most hazardous to public health.
       By doing so, it tends to eliminate some of the substances less hazardous to humans which may
       skew the data, especially if the substances are heavier by weight (more dense) or more widely
       used. Subsets should be created in the EPA milestone which isolate and replicate the two Healthy
       People lists as targets.

Milestone 2

6.      In this milestone, the phrase "will have  been used safely" is determined by whether a new
       chemical will later require additional controls on its production or use. In milestone 3, the term
       "used safely" is more appropriately determined by the adequacy of available toxicity information
       to estimate health and environmental impacts. The inconsistency between these milestones  in
       defining "safety" is awkward. Milestone 2 does not provide a true assurance of safety for
       chemicals in production or use that lack sufficient toxicity information. What are EPA's criteria for
       predicting that the estimated 10,000 additional new chemicals will be safe for their intended uses?

7.      Breakdown or byproducts should also be addressed in judgments of safety.

Milestone 4

8.      This milesone should not be included unless EPA can provide estimates or a description of
       improvements to human health and/or the environment.
D-10                                                    GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
      	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review


       PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL RELEASES


General

1.       Not clear why this isn't part of the Toxic-Free Communities chapter.

2.       A milestone should be added to Chapter 8: "By 2005, there will be a 50 percent increase in
        training and educational materials made available to emergency responders and health care
        providers."

Milestone 1

3.       This milestone is aimed at reducing the number of accidental releases of oil. We believe that
        preferred measures are reductions in the amount of chemicals spilled, and in the number of spills
        over a certain size (e.g. over 10,000 gallons).


Milestone 2

4.       A 50 percent increase over 1993 levels in the number of industrial facilities in high-risk areas
        appears to be arbitrary. The discussion indicates that there is no data on past trends. Apparently,
        there also is no data on current baseline. The discussion proposes a baseline study that would
        presumably be used to identify a baseline and allow tracking of the goal. But the current goal of a
        50 percent increase appears to have been chosen in the absence of such information.

5.       The existence of hazardous substance inventories is two steps removed from risk. Inventories must lead
        to accidental releases. Releases must be of a sufficient duration, frequency and magnitude to pose risk.
        A milestone based on the existence of an inventory in an undefined high-risk area is an exceptionally
        poor proxy for risk. Even fully-recycled systems with no release and no emissions would be covered.
        Again, the measure of interest is a reduction in accidental releases (milestone 1); this milestone  is a
        "design-type" milestone and should not be included.


      SAFE WASTE MANAGEMENT
General

1.       Since direct impacts of RCRA on emissions are not tracked, most indicators of progress in this
        section will be indirect and merely track government efforts to improve waste management.

2,       This chapter should include a concern for the effects on human health of incineration and smelting
        of materials.  Operating smelters have been shown to be sources of particulate releases that cause
        respiratory health problems, particularly in young children.  Older municipal incinerators have
        unknown human health implications, but merit attention. Therefore, a milestone should be added
        to Chapter 9: "By 2005 at least 25 percent of the nation's operating incinerators and smelters will
        have been characterized as to human health risk."


GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	

Milestone 1

3.     Many goals/milestones appear arbitrary. Some have no documented supporting analysis. Others
       lack measurability.  Example: Milestone 1 commits to a 98 percent reduction in dioxin/furan
       emissions from 1994 levels.  This is the "combustion MACT" NPRM currently out for public
       comment.

Milestone 2

4.     Assumptions about mercury emissions are similar to those in the Hg reports; little consideration is
       given to potential recycling of Hg through sedimentation or erosion (possibly more of a problem)
       or the tracking of other metals, such as arsenic, which could pose additional health risks.

5.     Milestone statement is not consistent with description below. Change milestone statement to read:
       "By 2005, emissions of heavy metals from waste-burning facilities will be reduced from 1994
       levels:"

6.     One reviewer commented that this milestone should not be included.
Milestone 5

7.      Milestone is misleading. There is no waste now disposed of that is out of compliance    with
        EPA disposal standards. DOE measures progress by (increasing) the amount disposed of.

8.      The overall goal that by 2005, 10 percent of the spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and
        transuranic radioactive waste currently stored across the nation, shall be disposed of in accordance
        with EPA disposal standards, is not achievable for spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste.  2005
        would be the earliest date for DOE's receiving a construction permit for a high-level waste
        repository. Thus zero percent of the spent fuel and high-level waste will be disposed of by that
        date. If the goal is only for transuranic waste, then only transuranic waste should be mentioned.

9.      It is incorrectly stated that development of regulations or guidance for "other" waste types will
        facilitate disposal. All waste types currently have adequate regulatory requirements except for
        NORM/NARM.

10.     One reviewer commented that this milestone should not be included.

Strategy

\ 1.     First paragraph under Radioactive Wastes Strategy, last sentence. This sentence should be deleted.
        There have been no "recent improvements" in methods for evaluation exposure from disposal of
        radioactive wastes.

12.     Last paragraph under Strategy. The statement that by 2005 a regulatory framework for all three
        major waste types will be in place is meaningless and misleading. A complete regulatory
        framework exists now.
D-12                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                       Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review
       RESTORATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES
Challenge

1.       This section makes assumptions about progress based on the current number of sites on the list,
        "program trends and administrative reforms", and reauthorization of CERCLA—none of which can
        be assured.

2.       Targets seem very ambitious and rather selective.

3.       This chapter contains mention of ATSDR and some of its health findings in communities around
        Superfund sites. Unfortunately, it focuses only on cleanup of hazardous waste sites, to the extent
        that the effects on human health are lost.  In particular, this chapter needs to have more of a public
        health perspective, given the health findings reported on Superfund sites. Therefore, a milestone
        should be added to Chapter 10: "By 2005 all communities meeting medical monitoring criteria
        established by ATSDR will be incorporated into an appropriate program of medical monitoring
        and surveillance.

4.       Milestones 1 - 3 aimed at hazardous waste site remediation appear to conflict with Chapter 3
        milestones 1, 2, and especially 3 related to ecosystem maintenance and enhancement.

Milestone 1

5.       Milestones 1 and 2 under "Restoration  of Contaminated Sites" references HHS Healthy People
        2000 goals to "eliminate significant health risks" at hazardous waste sites. The EPA milestones do
        not limit the cleanup objective to "significant" health risks at sites that have been assessed for such
        risks, but state that cleanups will be achieved without regard to whether a health risk is present.
        We recommend that the HHS distinction between significant and other types of risks should be
        preserved since most of these sites are believed to present no consequential health risk of any kind.

6.       It is not clear what outcome would represent a successful achievement of this milestone. Is the
        "[95] percent" target intended to apply  to both "elimination of health threats" and "cleanup
        completed" or to either/or? The assumption for the HP 2000 Objective is that we are trying to
        eliminate 100 percent of the immediate and significant health threats. In addition, a definition of
        what EPA considers to be long-term health threats and a description of how they plan to measure
        the elimination of these long-term health hazards is not included. Recommendation: Further
        clarification is needed concerning how  the target will be derived.

Milestone 5

7.       Clean-up of radioactivity-contaminated areas can be contentious since the radioactivity can be
        bound to soil matrices and be relatively benign until disturbed. Each situation must be evaluated
        based on the specific circumstances.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                    D-13

-------
Appendix D; Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review	

Milestone 7

8.     Requirement for point source control in 10 percent of watersheds appears to be arbitrarily set. The
       current baseline is not established. The NSI data base covers only eleven percent of the nation's
       waterbodies and rivers. An evaluation of this database identified 96 watersheds with likely
       widespread contamination. It was considered reasonable that each region would complete the task
       in one high priority watershed. However, with expansion of NSI there could be many more
       watersheds with sediment problems and doing ten watersheds would achieve control on only [a
       small] percent of the watersheds. The measure here is also tenuously linked to environmental
       improvement.  Given these problems, this milestone should not be included.

Strategy

9.     In the box titled "Radiation Cleanup Rule", the date of 1997 is overly optimistic.
      REDUCING GLOBAL AND TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Milestone 5

1.     A very large fraction of the world's coral reefs lie outside of the U.S. and its protectorates.
       Therefore, we will have little direct control of these unique ecosystems and their protection.

2.     One reviewer commented that this milestone should not be included.
Milestone 7

3.      EPA's Utility and Mercury reports have been delayed because of data problems.  It is not
        appropriate to base goals on studies which have not been approved for release.

4.      Milestone 7 indicates that a 50 percent reduction of mercury emissions in the United States will
        reduce global air emissions of this element. However, if U.S. anthropogenic emissions of mercury
        account for only 5 percent of global anthropogenic emissions, wouldn't a 50 percent reduction in
        the U.S. produce only a 2.5 percent global reduction? China and India might well be targeted for
        special attention here, as their increased future emissions could swamp any U.S. reductions.

5.      One reviewer commented that this milestone should not be included.

Milestone 9

6.      One reviewer commented that this milestone should not be included.

Milestone 11

1.      Milestone to reduce the potential for radioactive release into the arctic from sources in Northwest
        Russia by 25 percent should be dropped. This milestone seems to be outside of EPA's jurisdiction.
 D-14                                                   GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
      	Appendix D: Some Federal Agency Comments From A Preliminary Review

       EMPOWERING PEOPLE WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
       AND EXPANDING THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW
General

1.      Several of the milestones are not specific and should be consolidated or not included, unless
       specifics are added.

Milestone 4

2.      The narrative does not sufficiently discuss the need for federal agencies to work together.
       Further, it goes beyond providing multi-agency data to "one-stop" submission of data for
       regulated entities, a concept likely to be plagued with problems.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                 D-15

-------
                            Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations
                  APPENDIX E:
       ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                  Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations
                          ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

         ACP           Agricultural Conservation Program
         AEA           Atomic Energy Act
         AIRS          Aerometric Information Retrieval System
         AMWA        Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
         ATSDR        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
         AWWA        American Water Works Association
         BASE          Building Assessment Survey
         BLM           Bureau of Land Management
         BMPs          Best Management Practices
         BOD           Biochemical Oxygen Demand
         CAA           Clean Air Act
         CAAA         Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
         CABO         Council of American Building Officials
         CCAP          Climate Change Action Plan
         CDC           Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
         CERCLA       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
                        and Liability Act
         CERCLIS       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
                        Liability Information System
         CERFA        Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
         CFCs          Chlorofluorocarbons
         CFR           Code of Federal Regulations
         CITES         Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
                        of Wild Fauna and Flora
         CMA          Chemical Manufacturers Association
         CT            Chronic Toxicity
         CPSC          Consumer Product Safety Commission
         CRCPD        Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors
         CSO           Combined Sewer Overflow
         CWA          Clean Water Act
         DDT           Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane
         DEC           Department of Environmental Conservation
         DfE            Design for the Environment
         DHHS          Department of Health and Human Services
         DOD           Department of Defense
         DOE           Department of Energy
         DOI            Department of Interior
         DOS           Department of State
         DOT           Department of Transportation
         ORES          Dietary Risk Evaluation System
         EMAP         Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
         EPA            Environmental Protection Agency
         EPCRA        Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
         ETS            Environmental Tobacco Smoke
         EU            European Union
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
E-1

-------
Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations
         FCCC         Framework Convention on Climate Change
         FDA           Food and Drug Administration
         FEMAT        Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
         FFCA         Federal Facility Compliance Act
         FFDCA        Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
         FIFRA         Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
         FIP            Forestry Incentives Program
         FREDS        Findings and Required Elements Data System
         FUSRAP       Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
         FWS           Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
         GEMS         Global Environmental Monitoring System
         GHGs         Greenhouse gases
         GIS            Geographic Information System
         GNP           Gross National Product
         GPRA         Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
         GRID         Global Resource Information Database
         HCFCs        Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
         HFCs         Hydrofluorocarbons
         HPV           High-Production Volume
         HSWA        Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of RCRA
         IAG           Interagency Agreement
         ICOLP         International Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection
         ICRI           International Coral Reef Initiative
         IMPROVE     Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
         IPCC          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
         IPM           Integrated Pest Management
         ISO            International Standardization Organization
         ITFM         Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
         IUCN         International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
         LEPC         Local Emergency Planning Committees
         MACT         Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
         MCLs         Maximum Contaminant Levels
         MMTCE       Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
         MSHA         Mine Safety and Health Administration
         MSW         Municipal Solid Waste
         NAFTA        North American Free Trade Agreement
         NASA         National Aeronautics and Space Administration
         NBS           National Biological Service
         NEPA         National Environmental Policy Act
         NHANES      National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
         NIOSH        National Institute of Occupational Safety and Healthy
         NMVOC       Nonmethane Volatile Organic Compounds
         NOAA        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
         NPDES        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
         NPL           National Priorities List
         NRC          Nuclear Regulatory Commission
         NRCS         Natural Resources Conservation Service
E-2
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                   Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations
         NRI            National Resources Inventory
         NSI            National Sediment Inventory
         ODP           Ozone-Depleting Potential
         OECD          Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
         OSHA          Occupational Safety and Health Administration
         OSWER        Office of Solid Waste and Emergence Response (EPA)
         PAHs           Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
         PCBs           Polychlorinated Biphenyls
         PCS            Permit Compliance System
         PCSD           President's Council on Sustainable Development
         PESP           Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
         PFCs           Perfluorocarbons
         PHS            Public Health Service
         POPs           Persistent Organic Pollutants
         PPA            Pollution Prevention Act
         PRTRs          Pollution Release and Transfer Registries
         RCRA          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
         RCRIS          Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
         RfD            Reference Dose
         RMP           Risk Management Plan
         ROD           Record of Decision
         SACM          Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
         SARA          Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
         SDWA          Safe Drinking Water Act
         SDWIS          Safe Drinking Water Information System
         SIC            Standard Industrial Categories
         SIDS           Screening Information Data Set
         SIP             Stewardship Incentives Program
         SNAP           Significant New Alternatives Policy
         SNPRM         Supplemental Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking
         SSOs           Sanitary Sewer Overflows
         STORE!        Storage and Retrieval of Water Quality Information Data Base
         SWTR          Surface Water Treatment Rule
         TEQ            Toxic Equivalency Factor
         TMDLs         Total Maximum Daily Loads
         TOMS          Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer
         TRI            Toxics Release Inventory
         TRU            Transuranic Waste
         TSCA           Toxic Substance Control Act
         TSR            Total Reduced Sulfur
         UIC            Underground Injection Control
         UNEP           United Nations Environment Programme
         USCG           U.S. Coast Guard
         USD A          United States Department of Agriculture
         USEPA          United States Environmental Protection Agency
         USFWS         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
         USTs           Underground Storage Tanks
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96
E-3

-------
Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations
         UV-b          Ultraviolet Radiation
         VOCs          Volatile Organic Compounds
         WIN           Waste Information Needs
         WIPP          Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
         WMO          World Meteorological Organization
         WPA          Watershed Protection Approach
         WRDA        Water Resources Development Act
         WPS           Worker Protection Standard
          XL            Project XL - excellence and Leadership
E-4                                                 GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                              Contributors
                  CONTRIBUTORS
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                                                Contributors
                                      CONTRIBUTORS

            This report is the product of three years of fact-finding, analysis, negotiation, and writing by
     over 100 EPA career managers and staff. EPA's Assistant and Regional Administrators played key
     roles in formulating the goals and milestones. The following individuals were instrumental in crafting
     and providing data for the document.

                                               David Gardiner
                                               Assistant Administrator
                                               Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation

     Project Leader and Staff

     •      Frederick Allen (Project Director) - Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental
            Data, OPPE
     •      Peter Truitt (Project Manager) - Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE
     •      Judith Koontz (Outreach Director) - Office of the Assistant Administrator, OARM
     •      Carole Cook (Assistant Project Manager until June 1996) - Office of Strategic Planning and
            Environmental Data, OPPE
    Clean Air

            Margo Oge - Director, Office of Mobile Sources, OAR
            Torn Eagles - Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Assistant Administrator, OAR
            Alex Wolfe - Planning Team Leader, Office of the Assistant Administrator, OAR
            Laszlo Bockh - Associate Director, Planning, Budget and Policy Division, OMS, OAR
            Barbara Parzygnat - Statistician, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, OAR
            Larry Montgomery - Assistant to the Director, Acid Rain Division, OAR
            Michael Hadrick - Special Assistant, Office of the Assistant Administrator, OAR
            Mike Glikes - Program Analyst,Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

    Clean Waters & Safe Drinking Water

    •      Mike Cook - Director, Office of Wastewater Management, OW
    •      Jim Home - Special Assistant, Office of Wastewater Management, OW
    •      Elizabeth Fellows - Chief, Monitoring Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
            OW
    •      Wendy Blake-Coleman - Senior Management Analyst, Policy and Resources
            Management Office, OW
    •      Carl Reeverts - Acting Chief, Data Management and Support Branch, Office of Ground
            Water and Drinking Water, OW
    •      Marjorie Pitts - Staff Assistant to Division Director, Standards and Applied Sciences
            Division, OW
    •      Roger Anzzolin - Hydrologist, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, OW
    •      Doreen Robb - Wetlands Ecologist, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, OW
    •      Wayne Davis - Environmental Scientist, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental
            Data, OPPE
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                                           Contributors
Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems

•      Wendy Cleland-Hamnett - Director, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
       Communities, OPPE
•      Jay Benforado - Director, EPA Regulatory Reinvention Team
•      Brad Crowder - Economist, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, OPPE
•      Maurice LeFranc - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Strategic Planning and
       Environmental Data, OPPE
•      Richard Sanderson - Director, Office of Federal Activities, OECA
•      Abby Pirnie - Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, OA
•      Tom Marshall - Attorney-Advisor, Cross-Cutting Issues Division, OGC
•      Tom Born - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
       Communities, OPPE
•      Molly Whitworth - Senior Staff Ecologist, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
       Communities, OPPE
•      Charles Spooner - Leader, Watersheds, Lakes, and Ecosystems Team, OW
•      David Davis - Deputy Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, OW
•      Michael Slimak - Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Processes and
       Effects Research, ORD
•      Jim Serfis - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities, OECA
•      Douglas Norton - Senior Environmental Scientist, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
       and Watersheds, OW
•      Gabriella Lombardi - Program Analyst, Regional and State Planning Division, OPPE

Safe Food

       Allan Abramson - Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator, OPPTS
       Arnold Aspelin - Senior Economic Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs,  OPPTS
       Dan Barolo - Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, OPPTS
       Bill Hanson - Special Assistant, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
       Tina Levine - Chief, Precautionary Review Section, Office of Pesticides Programs, OPPTS
       Tom Hooven - Special Assistant, Office of Pesticide Programs, OPPTS
       Tracy Perry - Office of Pesticide Programs, OPPTS
       Carole Cooke - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data,
       OPPE
•      Julie Spyres - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces

       Bob Axelrad - Senior Policy Advisor, Indoor Environments Division, OAR
       Joe Carra - Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
       David Mudarri - Economist, Indoor Environments Division, OAR
       Dan Barolo - Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, OPPTS
       Allan Abramson - Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator, OPPTS
       Arnold Aspelin - Senior Economic Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs,  OPPTS
       Tina Levine - Chief, Precautionary Review Section, Office of Pesticides Programs, OPPTS
       Joseph Schechter - Environmental Protection Specialist, Chemical Control Division, OPPTS
       Bill Hanson - Special Assistant, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
                                                 GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                                               Contributors
    •      Doreen Cautor - Chief, Program Development Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and
           Toxics, OPPTS
    •      Carole Cooke - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data,
           OPPE
    •      Julie Spyres - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

    Restoration of Contaminated Sites

    •      Walter Kovalick - Director, Technology Innovation Office, OSWER
    •      David Nicholas - Program Analyst, Office of Program Management, OSWER
    •      Jim Fary - Program Analyst, Human and Organizational Support Center, Office of
           Emergency and Remedial Response, OSWER
    •      Edward Ziomkoski - Program Analyst, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
           OSWER
    •      Sue Parker - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
    •      David Evans - Director, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center,  OERR, OSWER
    •      Tom Armitage - Chief, Risk Assessment and Management Branch, OW
    •      Margaret Saxton - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data,
           OPPE

    Preventing Accidental Releases

    •      Walter Kovalick - Director, Technology Innovation Office, OSWER
    •      David Nicholas - Program Analyst, Office of Program Management, OSWER
    •      Elaine Davies - Deputy Director, Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
           Prevention, OSWER
    •      Sherry Fielding - Program Analyst, Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
           Prevention, OSWER
    •      Margaret Saxton - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data,
           OPPE

    Toxic-Free Communities

    •      Joe Carra - Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
    •      Allan Abramson, Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator, OPPTS
    •      Susie Hazen, Director, Environmental Assistance Division, OPPTS
    •      Bill Hanson - Special Assistant, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
    •      Charles Auer - Director,  Chemical Control Division, OPPTS
    •      Joseph Schechter - Environmental Protection Specialist, Chemical Control Division,
           OPPTS
    •      Eun-sook Goidel - Environmental Protection Specialist, Pollution Prevention Division,
           OPPTS
    •      Chris Tirpak - Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental Assistance Division,
           OPPTS
    •      Angela Cracchiolo - Special Assistant, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
    •      Tracy Atagi - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
    •      Lillian Bagus - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
    •      Michael Burns - Program Analyst, Environmental Assistance Division, OPPTS
    •      Julie Spyres - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96                                                      3

-------
                                                                           Contributors
Safe Waste Management

       Elizabeth Cotsworth - Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
       Angela Cracchiolo - Special Assistant, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
       Tracy Atagi - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
       Harriet Hubbard - Program Analyst, Underground Injection Control Branch, OW
       Lillian Bagus - Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER
       David Wiley - Environmental Engineer, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, OSWER
       Fred Porter - Environmental Engineer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, OAR
       John Foster - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE
       Brian Littleton - Program Analyst, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, OAR

Reducing Global and Transboundary Environmental Risks

       Paul Stolpman - Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, OAR
       Alan Sielen - Deputy Assistant Administrator,  OIA
       Bryan Wood-Thomas - Senior Policy Advisor,  OIA
       Tom Land - Policy Analyst, Office of Atmospheric Programs, OAR
       Sam Napolitano - Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Atmospheric Programs, OAR
       Joel Scheraga  - Director, Climate Change and Policy Assessment Division, OPPE
       Anne Grambsch - Team Leader, Climate and Policy Assessment Division, OPPE
       Paul Cough - Director, Office of International Environmental Policy,  OIA
       Don Brown - International Activities Specialist, OIA
       Carole Cook - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

Empowering People With Information and Education and Expanding Their Right to Know

•      Joe Carra - Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
•      Allan Abramson - Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator, OPPTS
•      Odelia Funke - Chief, Information Access Branch,  Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
       OPPTS
•      John Cross - Deputy Director, Pollution Prevention Division, OPPTS
•      Kathleen MacKinnon - Environmental Education Specialist, Environmental Education
       Division, OCEPA
•      Bill Hanson - Special Assistant, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
•      Susie Hazen -  Director, Environmental Assistance Division, OPPTS
•      John Foster - Program Analyst, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, OPPE

Other EPA Headquarters Staff

Dan Abbasi, Susan Auby, Paulette Ballard, Nancy Beach, Barry Burgan, Howard Cantor, Ellen
Cassedy, Darlene Cockfield, Barbara Elkus, Tom Gillis, Denise Graveline, Otto Gutenson, Elaine
Haemisegger, Janette Hansen, Dona Harris, Charles Job, Ginger Keho, Elisabeth LaRoe, Patrick
McCabe, Charles Minor, Richard Morgenstern, Jeff Morin, Joyce Morrison, Bill O'Neil, Barry
Nussbaum, Alan Perrin, David Plagge, Peter Preuss, Sue Priftis, Joe Reinert, Ronald Shafer, Brett
Snyder, Tim Stuart, Theresa Trainor, Martin Topper, Bill White,  Rob Wolcott and Shiree Womack.
                                                 GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------
                                                                              Contributors
    EPA Regional Coordinators

    Region 1       Katrina Kipp, Brooke Chamberlain Cook
    Region 2       Anita Street, Barbara Pastalove
    Region 3       Henry Brubaker, Don Welsh
    Region 4       Bob Cooper, Annette Hill
    Region 5       Al Fenedick, Lee Gorsky, Cyndy Colantoni, Robert Springer, Janet Mason
    Region 6       Diane Taheri, Steve Mouck, Beverly Negri, Donna Tisdall
    Region 7       Mary Carter, Richard Sumpter, Stacy McVicker
    Region 8       Nola Cooke, Bill Murray
    Region 9       Jean  Circiello, Janis Gomes
    Region 10     George Abel, Joyce Kelly, Arvella Weir, Susan Morales

    Contractor Acknowledgment

    Technical and editorial support was provided under USEPA contract numbers 68-C3-0303 and 68-
    W4-0041  with Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. Sue Laufer directed the project for Tetra Tech and was
    assisted by Elaine Bloom, Paul Gunning, Marti Martin, Abby Markowitz, and Jonathan Simpson.
GOVERNMENT REVIEW DRAFT 12/20/96

-------