United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy Planning
a,nd Evaluation (PM-2.19)
Washington DC 20460
August f988
EPA-230-07-88-033
PxEPA
Environmental Progress
and Challenges:
EPA's Update
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRESS
AND CHALLENGES
EPA's UPDATE
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
August 1988
-------
Photographic Credits
United States Department of Agriculture
Jessie Cohen, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution
Steve Delaney
Rick Newton
Cover Illustration
Bobbi Tull
For additional copies of this
report, contact the Public
Information Center, USEPA,
(PM211B), 401 MSt. S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
CONTENTS
1 Preface
3 ADMINISTRATOR'S OVERVIEW
12 AIR
13 An Overview
18 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
21 Airborne Particulates
23 Airborne Toxics
26 Sulfur Dioxide
28 Acid Deposition
32 Indoor Air Pollution
35 Radon
38 Global Atmospheric Changes '
44 WATER
45 An Overview
52 Drinking Water
52 Ground Water Protection
57 Drinking Water at the Tap
60 Critical Aquatic Habitats
60 Wetlands
65 Near Coastal Waters and the Great Lakes '
68 The Ocean
70 Surface Waters
78 LAND
79 An Overview
85 Preventing Future Contamination from Improper Waste Disposal
93 Cleaning up Releases of Hazardous Substances
102 Tackling Pollution from Underground Storage Tanks
106 Chemical Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
112 TOXIC CHEMICALS
113 An Overview
120 Existing Chemicals
126 New Chemicals
128 Pesticides: Human Health Concerns
134 Pesticides: Fish and Wildlife Concerns
137 Biotechnology
-------
-------
PREFACE
Every so often we need to
inform the public about
the work of the
Environmental Protection
Agency and the
environmental challenges we
face. This report presents
EPA's assessment of the
progress we have made as a
nation in improving the
quality of the air we breathe,
the water we depend on, and
the land where we live. It
presents EPA's agenda for
restoring and protecting these
resources from past and
future environmental.
hazards.
This report is largely an
update of our 1984 report
titled, Environmental
Progress and Challenges: An
EPA Perspective. Over the
past four years EPA has
progressed and made many
changes. New programs have
been created, such as wetlands
and marine and estuarine
protection. New legislation
and reauthorizations of acts
have created many changes
in existing programs. Several
important examples include:
the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Act. Many new and emerging
environmental problems,
including indoor air
pollution, radon, global
warming, and stratospheric
ozone depletion are receiving
increased EPA attention.
The report begins with an
overview outlining the
Agency's major priorities.
These priorities, such as
responding to risk,
encouraging public
involvement, and preventing
future environmental
problems are emphasized
throughout the report. The
overview is followed by
chapters on Air, Water, Land,
and Toxics. Each chapter is
divided into sections that
focus on the most important
environmental issues.
The Environmental Results
Branch of the Office of
Policy, Planning and
Evaluation prepared this
report with the assistance of
virtually every office in EPA.
We gratefully appreciate the
valuable contributions that
our colleagues throughout
EPA have given us in
preparing and critiquing this
update.
-------
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S
OVERVIEW
i-^;?'""i:,-1*siS'
,/*'*
£"—•:'•! =(.': ~^i-litC^<
;^'''SiP?:
For the past 20 years, the
American people have
been involved in a great
social movement known
broadly as
"environmentalism." We
have been concerned with
the quality of the air we
breathe, the water we drink,
and the land on which we
live and work. This concern
has focused on the wise use
of our natural resources and
the preservation of natural
and historical treasures. It
has addressed the survival of
endangered plants and
animals, and the health of
the global ecology. In short,
environmentalism has sought
to improve the quality of life
in this country and around
the world. In so doing, it has
changed many of the
fundamental assumptions
that help to define our
national well-being.
It was not long ago that the
quality of life in America was
measured almost exclusively
in terms of economic growth
and prosperity. Calvin
Coolidge immortalized this
focus when he observed that
the "business" of America .
was just that — business.
Our nation was blessed with
seemingly endless resources,
hard-working people, and
unlimited opportunity. '
Our natural resources were
exploited indiscriminately.
Waterways served as
industrial pollution sinks; :
skies dispersed smoke from
factories and powerplants,-
and the land proved to be a
cheap and convenient place
to dump industrial and urban
wastes. Industrial growth
during the period following
World War II was
unparalleled in the history of
the nation. We enjoyed a
prosperity never before
known. Unfortunately, we
also were accumulating an
environmental debt of
staggering proportions.
By the late 1960s,
Americans began to recognize
an emerging crisis. We had
witnessed serious
environmental degradation in
every medium. The air in
many industrial cities was
deemed unhealthy; Lake Erie
lay on its deathbed; the
Cuyahoga River erupted in
flames; pesticides like DDT
took their toll on wildlife. In
response to the
environmental crisis, the
Environmental Protection
Agency was created in 1970.
Over the next decade and a
half Congress passed a series
of far-reaching laws that
prescribed needed changes in
the way the nation conducted
its business. Slowly, a
process was built that today
incorporates environmental
considerations into the basic
decisionmaking of
government and industry.
Our society is now more
aware of the environment
and the need to protect it.
While economic growth and
prosperity are still important
goals, opinion polls show
overwhelming public support
for pollution controls and a
pronounced willingness to
pay for them. This latter
point, perhaps the ultimate
measure of commitment, has
been borne out over the last
two decades as Americans
spent billions of dollars for
cleaner air, water, and land.
What have we gotten for
these expenditures? Our
accomplishments are
impressive. There is no
question that the air in most
of our cities today is far
cleaner and healthier than it
was in the 1960s. Thousands
of miles of rivers and
streams, and thousands of
acres of lakes, have been
restored and protected for
-------
fishing and swimming. In
addition, we have taken
extraordinary steps to
improve the management of
hazardous wastes, toxic
chemicals, and pesticides.
Consider a few examples:
• Lead levels in urban air are
down 87 percent from 1977.
Sulfur dioxide levels have
been reduced 37 percent and
particulates are lower by 23
percent. Even the more
intractable pollutants like
ozone and carbon monoxide
have been reduced by 13
percent and 32 percent,
respectively.
• We have dramatically
improved municipal sewage
treatment. Today, more than
127 million Americans are
served by adequate public
sewage treatment systems, a
significant increase from the
85 million people served in
1972.
• Comprehensive hazardous
waste management
regulations are in place.
Many untreated wastes are
being banned from land
disposal and thousands of
potentially hazardous sites
around the country have been
identified and are being
evaluated to determine
.whether federal actions are
Necessary. We have begun
over 1000 short term actions
to address immediate threats,
and we have initiated
response activities at more
than 700 sites on the
National Priorities List.
• Before 1980, we neglected
some of our most productive
and valuable ecosystems—the
Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf
coastal waters. During the
past eight years, EPA has
been working with Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania and
the District of Columbia to
begin the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay. Now we are
applying the experience we
gained from this project-to
other estuaries, including
Puget Sound,
Albemarle-Pamlico Sound,
Buzzards Bay, Narragansett
Bay, Long Island Sound and
San Francisco Bay—and we
will be adding more coastal
waters to our National
Estuaries Program this year.
• Prior to 1972, severely
degraded conditions were
evident in the Great Lakes.
Cooperative efforts between
the U.S. and Canada have
resulted in a major recovery
in the Lakes' condition
through construction of new
sewage treatment facilities,
phosphate bans in some areas
and strict industrial
wastewater controls.
• The use of many pesticides
has been cancelled,
suspended or restricted. Some
pesticides have been replaced
with substitutes that are less
persistent in the
environment. The resurgence
of bald eagle, osprey, peregrin
falcon and brown pelican is
the result of EPA's ban on
DDT. We are also seeing
marked declines of DDT,
dieldrin and aldrin in the
tissues of fish and wildlife.
Currently we are
re-evaluating the risks of tens
of thousands of pesticide
products whose uses were
approved prior to the 1972
amendments to the nation's ;-.
pesticide law.
These accomplishments are
impressive when seen in the
context of the economic
expansion and population
growth that occurred during
the same period. There are 25
percent more people in the
United States now than 20
years ago; our gross national
product has increased 500
percent. There are more cars
on the road traveling more
miles, and more
manufacturing facilities
producing a greater number
of products. These statistics
indicate that economic
growth and environmental
health are not mutually
exclusive; indeed, there is an
important linkage between
them. Environmental
protection itself has proven
to be a wise investment and
a growth industry.
-------
THE
CHALLENGES
AHEAD
But the job is far from
finished. More than 60 cities
still do not meet federal air
quality standards for ozone.
Hundreds of communities are
not in compliance with
requirements for better
treatment of municipal
sewage. Our wetlands are
disappearing at an alarming
rate. Our oceans, estuaries,
and near-coastal waters are
victims of intensive coastal
and upstream development
and runoff from farms and
cities. Many urban areas face
a mounting crisis over
municipal garbage disposal.
Clearly, much work
remains to be done. While we
continue to pursue our
existing air, water, waste, and
toxics programs, we also
recognize that new
challenges await us. Because
many of the solutions of the
past decades merely
transferred pollutants from
the water to the air or from
the air to the land, we must
adopt a more integrated or
"systems" approach to
We must adopt a
more integrated or
systems approach to
environmental
protection/'
environmental protection.
We can no longer think
simply of clean air or clean
water; we must work for a
clean environment.
We need to work harder to
prevent environmental
problems by reducing the
amount of wastes from our
homes and from industry. We
need to recycle more waste.
Future waste management
should prevent disposal
problems by reducing the
amount of waste as a first
step.
We also must reassess our
notion of "environmental
safety." We now know that
many of the things we do and
chemicals we need to sustain
our modern lifestyle pose
some risk to people and to
our ecosystem. We have to
develop better ways to assess
these risks and make the
choices which balance the
benefits with the risks. This
may be one of our toughest
missions in the next decade.
Increased public
understanding of
environmental problems,
risks, arid solutions will be
even more critical to our
success than in the past. The
problems we deal with today
are not primarily the large
smokestack concerns of the
1970's. As these major
sources of pollution are being
controlled, Americans will
have to recognize that our
individual actions in our
homes, the products we buy
and how we choose to relax
all can affect the quality of
our environment. We will
have to face choices in our
daily lives to balance the
risks of these actions with
the benefits. EPA will have
to play a large role in
educating and involving the
public in its decisions.
Tn§ responsibility for
implementing our nation's
environmental laws also is
changing. Unlike the
majority of issues in the
1970s, centralized pollution
control efforts will not
effectively address all of the
major problems. State, local,
and Indian tribal
governments are now playing
an ever more significant role
in environmental protection.
We need to discover how
EPA can best assist and
encourage an even stronger
future role for these players.
Finally, we now recognize
through problems such as
acid rain, global warming,
and pollution of our oceans
that the quality of the
environment in America is
also dependent on how the
rest of the world treats our
planet—just as our actions
affect other nations. One of
our biggest challenges will be
to assist and educate other
nations and actively
negotiate multinational
agreements to protect the
global environment.
-------
EPA'S
FUTURE
AGENDA
Our agenda should include
several key components. It
should take into account the
problem of cross-media
transfer of pollution. It
should, to the extent
possible, reflect priorities
that are set on the basis of
risk. It should encourage full
Involvement of the public in
making tough choices in the
future. It should promote an
effective role for federal,
state, local, and American
Indian tribal governments. It
should recognize the global
riature of some issues.
Finally, and perhaps most
Critically, it should strive to
prevent pollution by reducing
the amount of waste we
produce, by recycling what
we can, and by making other
sound management
approaches to avoid more
Costly cleanups in future
years.
A Systems Approach
The environment is an
Integrated system. There is
no such place as "away"
where we can throw things.
For example, when we
remove pollutants from the
air, we often inadvertently
transfer them to the water or
to the land. If we simply
transfer the pollution, it
likely will come to rest at
the point of least regulation.
The point of least regulation,
however, may not be the
point of least risk.
To meet the challenges of
the 1990s and the next
century, a more systematic
approach to protecting the
environment must be taken,
one involving a coordinated
strategy by EPA and other
government programs for
achieving the maximum
affordable reduction of the
most significant risks.
Reducing Risk
We cannot eliminate all toxic
chemicals from the
environment. Given the tens
of thousands of chemicals
used today, basic decisions
must be made as to which
ones should be controlled, to
what levels, and at what cost.
This requires an assessment
of the risks to human health,
welfare, and the environment
that are posed by different
pollutants in different
locations. It requires
decisions on how to reduce
the most significant risks,
taking into consideration the
benefits and the costs, as
well as other public concerns.
It requires the establishment
of priorities through
risk-based decisionmaking.
EPA's challenge is to
improve the way risk-based
decisions are made in the
future. To do this, we will
need better risk information
and better science.
Public Education And
Involvement
EPA must share with the
public its knowledge of the
scope and severity of the
environmental challenges
before us. With improved
information and an
ifiach of us must
'""the part that
'f ....... pay in environmental ]
prStecEon and become
)ort of the solution."
understanding of the reality
of risk in an industrial
society, the public can do a
better job helping us
establish our national
environmental directions.
EPA must also help people
to understand that they are
part of the pollution problem
and its solution. The
attention of the last fifteen
years has been on controlling
large sources of pollution
such as smokestack
industries and municipal
sewage disposal facilities. As
we strive for further
environmental improvements
in the 1990's, the focus of the
nation's pollution control
efforts must also include
small sources that are
widespread throughout the
country. For example, we
need to pay greater attention
to how each of us can recycle
more of our household waste,
properly use and dispose of
lawn chemicals, or drive and
maintain our cars to reduce
air pollution. We cannot pass
to someone else the
responsibility for controlling
pollution. Each of us must
recognize the part that we
play in environmental
protection and become "part
of the solution."
Further progress, therefore,
will require lifestyle changes
by the American people. All
of us — individual
homeowners, farmers,
shopkeepers, automobile
drivers — will have to make
tough choices between
convenience, the costs of
goods and services, and a
cleaner environment. EPA's
job should grow from
primarily "the enforcer" to
include greater emphasis on
helping citizens make
informed choices in their
daily lives.
-------
State/EPA Partnership
EPA and the states need to
continue to strive toward a
proper balance in our
working relationship. The
challenges that face us now
are not as amenable to
centralized "command and
control" approaches as past
problems. EPA must further
recognize the increasing
capabilities and
responsibilities of
states—including Indian
tribal governments and local
governments—in protecting
the environment.
EPA must provide better
technical support to state
governments as they assume
more fesponsibility for
environmental program
funding and management.
This means more training
and technical1 assistance to
help states assess and address
risks. It means improving
data management so that
states and EPA have access to
each other's information, and
creating other ways for all of
us to share our expertise. A
true partnership also requires
EPA to be more sensitive to
the separate needs of the
states. Risks are not
distributed uniformly
nationwide; EPA must look
for new ways to address
priorities that differ around
the country and recognize the
growing role of state, local
and Indian tribal
governments in shaping their
own environmental agendas.
Although state and federal
roles are changing, EPA will
UnfinishedBusiness:
EPA's Assessment of
Environmental Risks
When the Environmental Protection
Agency was established in 1970, the
most pressing environmental _
problems were obvious. Important
polluters and pollutants were the -
visible ones: soot and smoke from
cars and smokestacks, and raw :
sewage and chemicals from
municipal and industrial waste
water.
The nation has done much to
abate the most visible pollution,
but there is still much unfinished
business. "New" problems have
been discovered, such as radon,
global climatic change, acid :
precipitation, and hazardous waste._
Many of these problems are difficult
to evaluate because they involve
slow, cumulative changes with
potentially serious but uncertain
effects. They often involve toxic
chemicals that can cause cancer or
birth defects at levels of exposure
that are hard to detect. Other
problems involve persistent
contaminants that move from one
environmental medium to another,
causing further damage after initial
controls have been applied.
The complexity and gravity of
these issues make it particularly
important that EPA apply its finite
resources where they will have the
greatest benefit. Thus, in ,1986,
Administrator Lee Thomas
commissioned a special task force
of senior agency managers and
technical experts to compare the
risks associated with major
environmental problems. The
findings would be combined with
other important considerations in
setting EPA's priorities.
.The risk comparison was
organized in four important ways.
First, the universe of environmental
problems was divided into 31
problem areas corresponding
generally with program
responsibilities or statutes. Second,
four types of risk were considered
separately for each problem area —•
cancer risks, non-cancer risks,
ecological effects, and "welfare"
effects, such as damage to crops,
vegetation, or buildings. There was
no attempt to compare the
importance of one type of risk
versus another. Third, the project
did not consider important factors
such as the costs and availability of
technologies to control the risks,
benefits to society of activities that
cause the environmental problems,
or the legal authority of EPA to deal
thern. Finally, risks were assessed as
they exist now— given the levels of
control currently in place.
The project ranked the 31
problems for each of the four types
of risk. Among the findings: :
* No problems ranked relatively
high in all four types of risk, or
relatively low in all four ask areas.
The "severity" of an environmental
problem depends on whether one is
specifically concerned with either
human health, ecological impacts,
or welfare effects. •"••;
• Problems thai ranked relatively
high in cancer and non-cancer
health risks but low in ecological
and welfare risks include: :-
hazardous air pollutants; indoor
radon; indoor air pollution other
than radon; pesticide application;
exposure to consumer products; and
worker exposures to chemicals.
• Problems that ranked relatively
high in ecological and welfare risks,
but low in both health risks
include: global warming; point and
non-point sources of surface water
pollution; physical alteration of
aquatic habitats; and mining waste.
• Areas related to ground water
consistently ranked medium or low,
but the availability of data on
ground water-related risks was very
limited.
The rankings by risk did not
correspond well with EPA's 1987
program priorities. Many areas of
relatively low risk, such as
hazardous waste sites and
Superfund, have received
considerably more EPA attention
than higher risk problems like
indoor air pollution.
Overall, EPA's priorities appeared
to be more closely aligned with
public opinion, often expressed
through Congressional mandates,
than with estimated risk. Two of
the agency's greatest challenges are
to educate the American public
about environmental risks, and to
incorporate these
considerations—along with
considerations of cost, statutory
authority, and other public concerns
and policies—in establishing
priorities for the national
environmental effort.
-------
continue to carry out its
statutory responsibility for
Setting standards and
ensuring compliance with
them. Our challenge is to get
this job done while also
riving states enough
flexibility to solve important
local problems that are not
national priorities.
Environmental Outlook:
Global
In the largest sense, the earth
is a single, integrated
ecosystem shared by all the
people living on it. As the
world's population and
economy continue to grow,
that ecosystem is being
strained in a number of ways.
Chlorofluorocarbons are
threatening the stratospheric
ozone layer; global emissions
of carbon dioxide are
contributing to a gradual
warming of the earth's
atmosphere; species of flora
and fauna are being lost
worldwide at an accelerating
rate. These kinds of changes
to the global environment are
of especially serious concern
because they have the
potential to affect the quality
of life of literally everyone on
earth.
Moreover, in a number of
places natural resources
shared by neighboring
nations are being degraded.
For example, acid rain is
harming aquatic ecosystems
in the northeastern United
States, southeastern Canada,
and Europe. Shared
waterbodies like the
Mediterranean Sea and the
Cult of Mexico are being
polluted by the combined
economic activities of the
different countries that
border them.
But whether these
emerging environmental
problems are global or
regional, our response to
them will entail international
cooperation. Because
pollution does not stop at
international political
boundaries, we are going to
have to find new ways of
cooperating with the
community of nations to find
shared solutions to shared
problems.
International cooperation
in this area will be
complicated by the need to
factor in the special
economic circumstances of
developing nations. Poorer
countries often find it
difficult to sustain their
natural resource base in the
face of immediate demands
for food, fuel, and jobs. They
have fewer resources to
invest in waste disposal and
pollution control. But as was
proved by the recently signed
Montreal Protocol to protect
the'stratosphere, nations are
capable of resolving their
economic and political
differences in the interest of
protecting a shared
environment. We will have
ample opportunity to put
that lesson to work in the
years ahead.
-------
Preventing Future
Environmental Problems
Environmental protection
will be a never-ending battle
against contaminated "hot
spots" unless we take steps
now to prevent them from
developing. We are placing
more emphasis on pollution
prevention in all EPA
programs. We need to do
more of it, and so do state
and local agencies as well as
the private sector.
We as a nation can do
many things to prevent
environmental problems from
developing in the first place.
We should reduce the
amount of waste from our
homes and industries before
that waste becomes a
disposal problem. Municipal
recycling and industrial
waste reduction ease the
economic and environmental
burden of waste disposal.
Source reduction and
recycling should become the
centerpiece of a progressive
national waste management
strategy.
We will continue to
restrict the use of toxic
chemicals in places where
they might enter drinking
water supplies or endanger
fish and wildlife. We will
continue to ban the disposal
of untreated wastes on the
land, where it threatens
human health or the
environment. We will
continue to identify sensitive
wetlands and restrict harmful
development before
irreparable damage is done.
We will continue to promote
better farming practices that
will prevent agricultural
chemicals from
contaminating ground and
surface waters. In short, we
will do a better job of
planning to prevent future
problems. By so doing, we
avoid costly cleanup later and
we avoid the loss of
irreplaceable resources. If we
take precautions today, we
will be making an important
investment in a safer and
cleaner environment
tomorrow.
We have begun to do
long-range planning at EPA.
We are trying to determine
what environmental results
we want to see in the
not-too-distant future, and
the best strategies we can
employ to achieve them. To
do this well requires
tremendous vision in
establishing goals, taking into
consideration the tough
choices we and the American
public need to make between
environmental and other
social goals. It requires
creativity and hard-nosed
realism in designing
systematic, coordinated
program strategies, and it
requires dedication to follow
through. This is EPA's
ultimate challenge.
Lee M. Thomas
-------
10
-------
\\
-------
AIR
Since the Clean Air Act
was passed in 1970, the
United States has made
impressive strides in
improving and protecting air
quality. In spite of pressures
from economic and industrial
growth, our air is now
substantially cleaner.
Pollution controls have
removed the smoky haze that
once perpetually enveloped
American cities.
Our greatest success is the
reduction of lead in the air.
Since 1977, ambient levels of
lead have decreased 87
percent. Annual nationwide
levels of ozone, carbon
monoxide, airborne
particulates, sulfur dioxide,
and nitrogen oxides have also
been reduced, in some cases
sharply. This success-has
been achieved through
cooperation between EPA and
state and local air quality
programs over the past 15
years.
Nonetheless, the
challenges ahead are
formidable and present tough
choices. The problem of
ground-level ozone or "smog"
has proven to be particularly
difficult to control. In the
next .decade we will be
working to resolve new and
emerging problems such as
radon and other indoor air
pollutants. We will also
continue to work with other
countries to address the
international problems of
global warming and
stratospheric ozone depletion.
This chapter begins with
an overview of EPA's
approach to air pollution
control and the progress
achieved so far. It then
discusses eight major air
pollution issues facing the
nation and how EPA plans to
address them.
12
-------
AN OVERVIEW
Ar pollution is one of the
greatest risks to human
health and the environment
in our country. The long list
of health problems brought
on or aggravated by air
pollution includes: lung
diseases, such as chronic
bronchitis and pulmonary
emphysema; cancer,
particularly lung cancer;
neural disorders, including
brain damage; bronchial
asthma and the common
cold, which are most
persistent in places with
highly polluted air; and eye
irritation (Figure A-l).
Environmental problems
range from damage to crops
and vegetation to increased
acidity of lakes that makes
them unlivable for fish and
other aquatic life.
The first air pollution laws
in the United States were
passed by cities. In the 1880s,
Chicago and Cincinnati
initiated the earliest
municipal regulation of
smoke emissions, followed in
the 1890s by Pittsburgh and
New York. One of the
earliest state air pollution
laws was passed by Ohio in
the 1890s to regulate smoke
emissions from steam boilers.
In 1952, Oregon became the
first state to pass
comprehensive statewide
legislation and establish a
state air pollution control
agency.
But while Americans have
long recognized dirty air as a
serious problem, they paid
little attention initially to
the public health risks it
presented. Not until the
1940s, did it become clear
that air pollution was a
serious problem. Killer fogs
in Donora, Pennsylvania in
1948 and in London in 1952
focused national attention on
the potential health hazards
of air pollution. During the
late 1940s, the state of
California, Los Angeles
County, and local industries
began spending millions of
dollars to study the causes
and effects of smog.
By the 1960's, the necessity
for a national approach to
address air pollution more
effectively was recognized. In
1963, Congress passed the .
Clean Air Act, authorizing
the U.S: Public Health
Service to study air pollution
and providing grants and
training to state and local
agencies to control it. This
legislation was strengthened
considerably when the Clean
Air Act of 1970 was enacted,
making EPA the focal point
of the Federal effort.
The new Act created a
partnership between state
and federal governments. It
gave state and local
governments primary
responsibility for preventing
and controlling air pollution.
EPA has more of a support
role: conducting research and
development programs,
setting national standards
and regulations, providing
technical and financial
assistance to the states, and
where necessary,
supplementing state
implementation programs.
As directed by the Clean
Air Act of 1970, EPA set
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for those
pollutants commonly found
throughout the country
which posed the greatest
overall threat to air quality.
These pollutants, termed
"criteria pollutants" under
the act include: ozone,
carbon monoxide, airborne
particulates, sulfur dioxide,
lead, and nitrogen oxides. For
these pollutants, the Act sets
primary standards to protect
human health and secondary
standards to protect
"welfare," primarily crops,
livestock, vegetation,
buildings, and visibility. For
some of these criteria
pollutants, a single national
ambient standard has been
established that protects both
health and welfare.
In addition to the criteria
pollutants provisions, the
Clean Air Act also requires
EPA to set National Emission
Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NESHAP's).
Hazardous pollutants are
defined as those that can
contribute to an increase in
mortality or serious illness.
EPA is currently analyzing a
number of air pollutants to
determine whether they are
hazardous and require
regulation. We have already
issued emissions standards
for asbestos, beryllium,
mercury, vinyl chloride,
arsenic, radionuclides,
benzene, and coke oven
emissions.
HGUREA-l
Health Effects of the Regulated Air Pollutants
Criteria Pollutants Health Concerns
Ozone Respiratory tract problems such as difficult
breathing and reduced lung function.
Asthma, eye irritation, nasal congestion,
reduced resistance to infection, and possibly
premature aging of lung tissue.
Particuiate Eye and throat irritation, bronchitis, lung
Matter _• ^damage, and impaired visibility. ",
Carbon Ability of blood to carry oxygen impaired. •
Monoxide Cardiovascular, nervous, and pulmonary
systems affected.
Sulfur Respiratory tract problems,-permanent harm
Dioxide to lung tissue. . _ j
Lead Retardation and brain damage, especially in
children:-' ;
Nitrogen Respiratory illness and lung damage.
Dioxide__ ^
Hazardous Ail Pollutants
Asbestos A variety of lung diseases, particularly lung ;
cancer. - j
Beryllium Primary lung disease, although also affects
liver, spleen, kidneys, and lymph glands.
Mercury Several areas of the brain as well as the
_ .__- kidneys_aiK[ bowel s_attected.
Vinyl Chloride Lung and liver cancer. i
Aresenic _ Causes cancer ''._.-• __ *
Radionoclides Causes cancer. _ „ 1
Benzene Lukemia _^_ _ _ :
Coke Oven Respiratory cancer
Emissions
- I
13
-------
SOURCES OF THE
PROBLEM AND EPA'S
APPROACH
Both criteria and hazardous
air pollutants come from
mobile and stationary
sources. Mobile sources
include passenger cars,
trucks, buses, motorcycles,
boats, and aircraft. Stationary
sources range from iron and
steel plants and oil refineries
to dry cleaners and gas
stations.
Under the Clean Air Act,
each state must prepare a
State Implementation Plan
describing how it will control
emissions from mobile and
stationary sources to meet
the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
Mobile Sources
More than half of the
nation's air pollution comes
from mobile sources. Exhaust
from such sources contains
carbon monoxide, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
nitrogen oxides, particulates,
and lead. Although VOCs are
not regulated as a criteria
pollutant, their emissions are
controlled. Along with
nitrogen oxides, they are the
major contributors to the
formation of ground-level
ozone, also known as
"smog."
EPA controls emissions
from motor vehicles through
the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program. Under this
program, the Agency sets
national emission standards
for fuel evaporation, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
volatile organic compounds,
and particulates. Car
manufacturers must design
new cars so that they meet
those standards.
State and local
governments, with EPA
support and guidance, operate
vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs to test
PROGRESS
To DATE
automobile emission levels.
In addition, anti-tampering
programs ensure that cars
built for unleaded gas are not
altered to receive leaded fuels
and that emission control
equipment is not removed.
State and local
governments also try to
reduce pollution from traffic
by supporting public
transportation and
encouraging ride-sharing
programs.
Stationary Sources
Stationary sources generate
air pollutants mainly by
burning fuel for energy and as
by-products of industrial
processes. Electric utilities,
factories, and residential and
commercial buildings that
burn coal, oil, natural gas,
wood, and other fuels, are the
principle sources of such
pollutants as sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, particulates,
VOCs, and lead.
Hazardous air pollutants
also come from a variety of
industrial and manufacturing
processes. Fuel oils
contaminated with toxic
chemicals, hazardous waste
disposal facilities, municipal
incinerators, landfills, and
electric utilities are other
sources of toxic air
pollutants.
EPA closely monitors the
compliance status of about
30,000 stationary air
pollution sources that are
regulated by the states. The
Agency reviews whether
states are meeting ambient
standards for individual
criteria pollutants. Where
they are not meeting these
standards, states are required
to develop new plans to do
so. Once these State
Implementation Plans are
developed, the states and
EPA monitor emissions to
ensure compliance with
limits and take action against
violators. Ambient pollution
levels also are monitored.
EPA, together with state and
local governments, has taken
a number of effective steps to
control mobile and stationary
air pollution sources.
Ambient levels of all criteria
pollutants have decreased and
far fewer communities have
pollution levels exceeding air
quality standards. Our
greatest success, however,
has been the reduction of
airborne lead (Figure A-2).
The sharp reduction in lead
emissions and ambient air
levels is largely due to EPA's
regulations phasing down the
level of lead in gasoline.
Between 1977 and 1986,
ambient levels of lead in the
air declined by 87 percent
and emissions decreased by
94 percent. Levels of lead are
expected to continue to
decline as less leaded
gasoline is produced. Some
refiners no longer sell leaded
gasoline in urban areas.
FIGURE A-2
Levels of Lead have
Decreased Sharply
[ Concentration (|ig/m3|
3
Range of 80%
of the Readings
14
Source: National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report, 1986, USEPA
-------
The Amount of
Pollutants in the Air
EPA and the states use a
nationwide monitoring
network to measure levels of
criteria pollutants in the
ambient air. Because the
monitors are concentrated in
cities, where there is the
greatest potential for human
exposure to these health
threats, there is an urban bias
to the data. In general,
however, the network data
reliably reflect national air
quality trends. Data for the
period from 1977 to 1986
show that annual average
ambient levels of all criteria
pollutants are down
nationwide (Figure A-3).
These achievements include:
• Particulate levels decreased
23 percent both because of
the installation of pollution
control equipment and a
reduction in industrial
activity.
• Sulfur dioxide levels
decreased 37 percent because
of efforts to cutback
emissions, such as pollution
controls at coal-fired power
plants.
• Nitrogen dioxide levels
decreased 14 percent, while
FIGURE A-3
Some Air Quality Trends
200
remaining well below
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)
in almost all areas. Without
pollution controls the large
increase in the volume of
traffic during this period
would have resulted in a
significant rise in nitrogen
dioxide levels.
• Ozone levels decreased 13
percent between 1979 and
1985 due to the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control
Program and stationary
source control efforts. Many
urban areas, however, did not
meet the standard in 1987.
• Carbon monoxide levels
decreased 32 percent because
of reductions brought about
by the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program.
!
•s
.NAAQS
Gleaning Up the Air
in Denver
Once a city with a reputation for pure, healthy
air, Denver has in recent years become known for
its summer-time "brown cloud" of nitrogen oxides
and winter-time carbon monoxide problems. A .
growing volume of traffic, combined with
Denver's unique geographic location and climate,
is responsible for much of this air pollution. A
temperature inversion develops every winter when
a layer of cold air traps relatively warmer air
below it, allowing a build up of carbon monoxide
and particulates. Denver's mile-high elevation
also adds to the problem. Poor fuel combustion
caused by the thin air produces high emissions of
carbon monoxide and small particulates.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas
'that has especially severe health effects for people
with heart and lung problems. Levels of carbon
monoxide in Denver have been measured at three
times the national standard. Over 80 percent of
Denver's carbon monoxide comes from.
automobiles.
Small particulates (less than 10 microns in size)
arid nitrogen oxides are responsible for Denver's
infamous brown cloud. Most of the small
particulates come from diesel trucks and buses,
coal-fired power plants, and sand spread on the
streets to improve traction in the snow.
EPA has been cooperating with state and local
governments in cleaning up the Denver air. The
city's new Metropolitan Air Quality Council has
enacted a carbon monoxide reduction plan that
stiffened inspection and maintenance
requirements and mandated the use of high
oxygen fuels for all vehicles. The plan also
improved the "Better Air Campaign," a voluntary
program to cut down on driving and encourage
municipalities to adopt wood burning bans on
days when concentrations of particulates are high.
Denver and four surrounding communities have
already adopted wood burning restrictions. Other
innovative ideas such as special pollution control
devices for cars used at high altitudes are being
discussed. In addition to efforts by government,
the Denver business sector has contributed $1
million to study the causes and health effects of
the brown cloud. :
TSP = Total Suspended Particulates CO = Carbon Monoxide NC-2 = Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS = National Ambient
S02 = Sulfur Dioxide 03Z = Ozone Pb = Lead Air Quality Standards
Source: National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1986, USEPA
15
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Areas Meeting Ambient
Standards
Across the nation, we have
made considerable progress in
meeting air quality standards.
As shown in Figure A-4,
many more areas are now
attaining standards for ozone,
sulfur dioxide, and carbon
monoxide than did in 1978.
(Lead nonattainment was not
reported in 1978, therefore,
there is no basis for
comparison.)
FIGURE A-4
Less Areas are Violating
Air Quality Standards
700
Darkness at noon: Pittsburgh during the 1940s.
The Dramatic Reduction
of Lead in the Air
The dramatic reduction of lead in the air we
breathe is one of EPA's most important success
stories. Lead has long been used in gasoline to
increase octane levels to avoid engine knocking.
Lead is a heavy metal that can cause serious
physical and mental impairment. Children are
particularly vulnerable to effects of high lead
levels. Two efforts begun 15 years ago are
responsible for a 95-percent reduction in the use
of lead in gasoline.
Recognizing the health risks posed by lead, EPA
in the early 1970s required the lead content of all
gasoline to be reduced over time. The lead
content of leaded gasoline was reduced in 1985
from an average of 1.0 gram/gallon to 0.5
gram/gallon, and still further in 1986 to 0.1
grams/gallon.
'lll;""In addition to phasing down of lead in gasoline,
EPA's overall automotive emission, control
program required the use of unleaded gasoline in
many cars beginning in 1975. Currently, about 70
'percent of the gas sold is unleaded.
These two efforts, combined with reductions in
lead emissions from stationary sources such as
battery plants and non-ferrous smelters, have
substantially reduced lead levels. This success has
been one of the greatest contributions EPA has
made to the nation's health.
Although we have made
considerable progress in
controlling air pollution from
both mobile and stationary
sources, much still needs to
be done. All of the six
criteria pollutants except lead
and nitrogen oxides are
currently of major concern in
a number of areas of the
country. In many counties or
portions of counties,
health-related standards for
one or more of the criteria
pollutants are not being met.
For example, ozone standards
are still not being met in
over 60 major urban areas,
such as Southern California,
Texas, the Northeast
Corridor, and the
Midwest.
We also need to do more
work to determine the nature
and extent of toxic air
pollutants. Since 1984, EPA
has developed and
implemented a national air
toxics program that assists
states in monitoring and
controlling high-risk local
problems. EPA is continuing
to develop national standards
for air toxics and for sources
of these pollutants.
To reduce the risk of
exposure to radiation from
indoor radon, EPA is working
with state and local
governments to detect and
mitigate unhealthful radon
levels. A major thrust of the
next decade will be to
address growing national and
international problems from
stratospheric ozone depletion,
global warming, and indoor
air pollution.
The remainder of this
chapter focuses on eight of
the most significant air
quality challenges: ozone and
carbon monoxide, airborne
particulates, sulfur dioxide,
airborne toxics, acid
deposition, indoor air
pollution, radon, and global
issues.
16
-------
EPA'S Radiation Efforts
Radioactive materials are widely used in our
society, including electricity generation, medical
research and treatment, weapons development,
industrial applications, and consumer products.
They are also by-products of certain mining
operations. Large amounts of radioactive wastes
have resulted from these activities, creating a
potential for exposure of our population to levels
of radiation that are well above natural
background levels. As the amount of exposure
increases, so do the health risks; exposure to
increasing levels of radiation increases the risk of
cancer and genetic damage.
Under the provisions of a broad range of
legislation, EPA is addressing radiation problems
in four primary areas: radiation from nuclear
accidents, radon emissions, land disposal of
radioactive waste, and radiation in ground water
and drinking water. The Agency is responsible for
setting certain radiation standards and for
developing guidance to be implemented by other
Federal agencies such as the Department of
Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
EPA has set standards for radioactive emissions
under the Clean Air Act, the Atomic Energy Act,
and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act. Under the Clean Air Act, radiation exposure
limits have been established for emissions from
Department of Energy facilities, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensees, and elemental
phosphorous plants, but under court order, EPA
currently is reexamining these emissions
standards. We also have prescribed work practices
to reduce the emissions of radon from
underground uranium mines and have published
standards for controlling radon emissions from
mill tailings at active and inactive uranium
milling sites.
Under our authority to issue guidance, the
Agency has proposed exposure limits for
nonioniziiig radio frequency radiation emitted by
broadcast and microwave transmitters. EPA has
also issued general guidance for occupational
exposure to ionizing radiation, including measures
to protect the unborn. In addition, EPA has issued
guidance to limit the exposure of underground
uranium miners to radon decay products and to
limit '/unnecessary exposure of medical patients to
medical x-rays. ,
Nuclear Accident Response
Nuclear accidents vary in magnitude from major
events such as.Three Mile Island to accidental
spills of small amounts of radioactive liquids at
medical facilities. EPA plays a major role in any
Federal response to nuclear accidents by
coordinating and participating in environmental
monitoring during and after emergencies. EPA
maintains emergency mobile monitoring teams
that can be rapidly deployed to an accident site.
EPA operated a post-accident monitoring station
at Three Mile Island for eight years, and was the
focal point for the U.S. response to the 1987
Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union,
As part of our Chernobyl response, we increased
the sampling frequency of the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, a
nationwide monitoring system that routinely
collects and analyzes air, water, and milk
samples.
17
-------
AIR
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
THE
PROBLEM
Helping Los Angeles, New
York, Houston, Chicago,
fioston, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and aoout 50 other
cities across the country
rjieet the health standard for
low-level ozone is a critical
national goal.
Ozone
Qzone is one of the most
intractable and widespread
environmental problems.
pespite significant efforts
including controls on
refineries and cars, no major
liiban area in the country,
with the exception of
Minneapolis, is in attainment
with the national
health-based standards for
qzone (Figure A-5). The major
component of smog, ozone
c|an cause serious respiratory
problems such as breathing
difficulty, asthma, and
reduced resistance to
infection.
Chemically, ozone is a
form of oxygen with three
qxygen atoms instead of the
two found in regular oxygen.
This makes it very reactive,
so that it combines with
Express bus lanes and other improvements to mass tianspottation
help reduce traffic.
practically every material
with which it comes in
contact. This reactivity
causes health problems
because it tends to break
down biological tissues and
cells. In the upper
atmosphere, where ozone is
needed to protect people from.
ultraviolet radiation, the
ozone is being destroyed by
man-made chemicals, such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
But at ground level ozone can
be a harmful pollutant.
Ozone is produced in the
atmosphere when sunlight
triggers chemical reactions
between naturally occurring
atmospheric gases and
pollutants such as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)
and nitrogen oxides. VOCs
are released into the air
HGURE A-S
Counties in Total or Partial Non-Attainment for Ozone
1985
through the combustion,
handling, and processing of
petroleum products. Nitrogen
oxides are also produced by
combustion sources.
Ozone levels are highest
during the day, usually after
heavy morning traffic has
released large amounts of
VOCs and nitrogen oxides.
Motor vehicle traffic is
growing so fast and is such
an essential aspect of life in
many places that even
strenuous efforts may not
sufficiently reduce emissions.
In just the four years between
1980 and 1984, Americans
increased their driving by
almost two billion vehicle
miles. Individuals as well as
state and local governments
must face tough choices if we
are to make adequate
reductions in ozone.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is an
invisible, odorless product
of incomplete fuel
combustion. When inhaled, it
replaces oxygen in the
bloodstream and can impair
vision, alertness, and other
mental and physical
capacities. It has particularly
severe health effects for
people with heart and lung
problems.
The main source of carbon
monoxide is motor vehicles,
especially when their engines
are burning fuel inefficiently
as they do when starting up
in the morning, idling, or
moving slowly in congested
traffic. Other sources are
wood stoves, incinerators,
and industrial processes.
Although carbon monoxide
levels' have declined in most
parts of the country since
1970, the standards are still
exceeded in 142 cities and
counties throughout the
United States (Figure A-6).
Many areas have local "hot
spots" of carbon monoxide
pollution, usually near
heavily congested roadways
and intersections.
Source: Maps Depicting Non-Attainment
Areas Pursuant to Section 107 of the Clean
Air Act - 1985, USEPA
18
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
Considerable progress has
been made in reducing both
ozone and carbon monoxide
levels over the past several
years. National ambient
ozone levels fell 13 percent
between 1979 and 1986
(Figure A-6). The number of
areas where the standard was
violated more than once a
year dropped from 607 in
1978 to 368 in 1985.
National ambient levels of
carbon monoxide fell 32
percent between 1977 and
1986, largely because of
automobile emissions
controls. Further reductions
in most places may depend
on effective local "inspection
and maintenance" programs
to make sure the control
equipment is functioning
properly. Inspection and
maintenance programs are
now being operated in 60
urban areas in 32 states.
Despite these gains, ozone
and carbon monoxide remain
serious problems for millions
of Americans. In 1986, 76.4
million Americans were
living in metropolitan areas
with unhealthy levels of
ozone. Los Angeles is the
worst, frequently having
levels three times the
standard. Reducing ozone to
FIGURE A-6
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Levels Have
^Continued to Decrease
acceptable levels will take
drastic changes in lifestyles
in many areas.
Emissions of VOCs from
large stationary sources such
as chemical plants, refineries,
and industrial processes have
been substantially controlled
through EPA, state, and local
regulatory and enforcement
efforts. However, many
smaller sources such as paint
manufacturers, dry cleaners,
and gas stations have not
been widely controlled. The
Agency is assessing methods
to control a number of these
small stationary sources.
New emission standards for
industries producing
synthetic organic chemicals,
paints and other surface
coatings, and pesticides are
part of this effort.
[Concentration (ppm|
Carbon Monoxide.
With a population of 11.3 million people, the Los
Angeles metropolitan area continues to have the
nation's most serious ozone problem. The same
attributes that lured millions of people-to the L.A.
area contribute to its ozone problem: constant
sunshine, light ocean breezes, and nearby
mountains that concentrate and even trap the
pollutants that produce ozone. L.A.'s large
population, reliance on automobiles, emissions
from a large petroleum industry, and numerous
small sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) (such as dry cleaners and gas stations)
make ozone extremely hard to control.
Ozone concentrations in L.A. have declined
from 1965 to the present; peak concentrations in
all areas of L.A. are well below the historic highs.
California has recognized the significant
contribution automobiles make to the ozone
•. problem. The auto emission standards are the
strictest in the country. Although there also are
stringent controls on industrial and small sources,
'• VOC emissions must be reduced by an additional
75 percent or more in order for L.A. to meet the
health-related ozone standard.
Continued population growth and a heavy
reliance on automobiles pose formidable obstacles
to meeting the ozone standard. The population in
the L.A. area is expected to rise to 15,8 million
people by the year 2007. Auto travel and the
number of small sources of VOCs also are
expected to increase. Anticipated increases in
VOC emissions alone over the next 20 years are
estimated to represent more than 95 percent of
the total allowable emissions in the L.A. area.
For L.A. to meet the ozone standard, there must
be a great deal of public support, as well as
significant advances in technological
developments that will reduce VOC emissions. In
December 1987, the L.A. area took a further step
and adopted an ambitious mandatory trip
reduction regulation. Continued progress in
reducing ozone concentrations will require
successful implementation of this and other
similar programs.
Source: National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1986, USEPA
19
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
EPA'S
AGENDA
While considerable
reductions in ozone and
carbon monoxide have been
achieved nationwide, there
are major urban areas where
especially intractable ozone
and carbon monoxide
problems will persist for a
considerable period of time.
The challenge for EPA and
the states is to find
responsive, effective, and
politically supportive ways to
meet ozone and carbon
monoxide standards
nationwide.
Cars made before 1970 are
4ot subject to national
emissions control programs.
These cars and others with
less stringent emissions
control devices manufactured
ift the early 1970's are not
being replaced as rapidly as
had been expected. In
addition, about 20 percent of
the cars on the road have had
their pollution control
devices disabled. Many
vehicle owners incorrectly
believed that this tampering
would improve the vehicle's
performance or fuel economy.
These factors make bringing
ozone and carbon monoxide
levels down, particularly in
heavily populated urban
areas, a difficult social,
economic, and environmental
problem. Local authorities
must be encouraged to use
incentive measures that
could improve both the
quality of life and the air by
Auto exhaust being measured for carbon monoxide level in Fairbanks,
Alaska.
altering the transportation ...
mix between cars and public
transportation.
Small Stationary Sources
of Pollution
Small stationary sources of
pollution were not initially
regulated by EPA or states.
But because reductions
achieved by controlling
automobile and large
stationary source emissions
have not sufficiently solved
the ozone problem in several
areas, further controls will be
required on small stationary
sources. The costs of
controlling these sources,
primarily small businesses
with slim profit margins,
present difficult economic
and environmental trade offs.
Ozone Transport
Ozone and its precursors
frequently drift across state
and national boundaries,
creating considerable
interstate and international
controversy. However,
expense and large data
requirements for modeling
techniques to determine the
source of ozone makes these
controversies difficult to
resolve.
Discarded catalytic converters and mufflers. Removal of catalytic
converters greatly increases a car's ozone-causing emissions.
Among the criteria air
pollutants, ozone and carbon
monoxide are still EPA's
highest priority. The Agency
is focusing its regulatory and
enforcement efforts on
controlling new and existing
sources of VOCs, and is
developing emission
standards for a variety of new
sources, based on the best
control technology for YOCs.
We have also proposed that
cars be required to have
equipment to control
gasoline vapors while
refueling. These "on-board"
controls and other gasoline
volatility regulations, along
with normal vehicle
turnover, should reduce
nationwide volatile organic
compounds emissions by as
much as 25 percent over the
next decade or so.
We will increase our
assistance to state and local
governments in promoting
the use of alternative fuels.
Methanol, ethanol, and
compressed natural gas
contribute substantially less
to ozone and carbon
monoxide than conventional
gasoline. Methanol is
especially attractive because
it can be produced from coal,
natural gas, and even plants.
EPA will continue to assist
the states in understanding
and addressing regional ozone
problems by developing
ozone models for areas such
as the northeast corridor.
This computer model will
simulate atmospheric
chemical reactions and
dispersion patterns over a
very large area.
In addition to our efforts,
and those of federal, state,
and local governments,
individuals can reduce ozone
and carbon monoxide
pollution by using cars more
efficiently, forming carpools
and reducing the number of
trips. In fact, millions of
people will have to live,
work, and travel in ways far
different from the ways they
do today to reduce ozone and
carbon monoxide to healthy
levels.
-------
Airborne Participates
THE
PROBLEM
EFFORTS
To DATE
Particulates in air, such as
dust, smoke, and aerosols
may have both short and
long-term health and
environmental effects. These
effects range from irritating
the eyes and throat and
reducing resistance to
infection, to causing chronic
respiratory diseases. Fine
particulates, about the size of
cigarette smoke particles, can
cause temporary or
permanent damage when
they are inhaled deeply and
lodged in the lungs (Figure
A-7). Some particulates, such
as those from diesel engines,
are also suspected of causing
cancer. Others, such as
wind-blown dust, can carry
toxic substances such as
polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and pesticides.
Particulates can also corrode
building materials, damage
vegetation, and severely
reduce visibility.
Majorisources of
particulates include steel
mills, power plants, cotton
gins, cement plants, smelters,
and diesel engines. Other
sources are grain storage
elevators, industrial haul
roads, construction work, and
demolition. Wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces also can
be significant sources of
particulates. Urban areas are
likely to have wind-blown
dust from roads, parking lots,
and construction activity.
. ..,
_ Small Particles are j
Inhaled into Lung Tissue
In 1971, EPA issued a
National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for total
suspended particulates
covering all kinds and sizes.
In July 1987, EPA published
new standards based on
particulate matter smaller
than ten microns in size
(PM10) (a micron is
approximately l/25,000th of
an inch). These smaller
inhalable particulates present
the most serious health
threat because they tend to
become lodged in the lungs
and remain in the body-for a
long time.
Some particulates may be
controlled by conventional
means; others require more
creative approaches. EPA and
states have sought to meet
the particulates standard by
limiting emissions from
industrial facilities and other
sources. To meet emission
limits, industries have
installed pollution controls,
such as electrically charged
plates and huge filters. EPA
has also set emissions
standards for diesel
automobiles. Improved
paving, better street cleaning,
limits on agricultural and
forest-burning practices, and
bans on backyard burning in
urban areas are also reducing
particulate concentrations.
Our data show a 23 percent
decrease in ambient
particulate levels from 1977
to 1986. In 1982, 345 areas
had not achieved particulate
standards. By 1985, the
number of non-attainment
areas had decreased to 290
(Figure A-8). For many of
nonattainment areas,
particularly in the western
states, a major barrier to
achieving the current
standard is natural
wind-blown dust.
EPA has established
tailpipe standards for the
emissions of particulates
from diesel trucks and buses.
These standards took effect
for diesel vehicles in the
1988 model year and become
progressively more stringent
in the 1991 and 1994 model
years.
FIGURE A-8
Counties in Total or Partial Non-Attainment for Particulates - 1985
Others get caught
in the smaller
air passages
Only the smallest
particles get into
lung tissue
.00
Source: Maps Depicting Non-Attainment Areas Pursuant to Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act - 1985, USEPA
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Two of the greatest
challenges we face include
the successful
implementation of the new
inhalable particulate standard
(the PM10 standard) and
controlling new sources of
particulates.
The PM10 standard will
require substantial efforts by
EPA, states, and local air
pollution control agencies
pver the next several years.
The particulate emission
Controls that have been used
to date have been most
effective in reducing
emissions of large and
intermediate-size particles.
'VVhile the trend in the
emission of small particles is
not clearly known, there are
doubts that they have been
reduced as much as large and
intermediate particulates
(Figure A-9). Some small
particles may be formed in
the atmosphere as the result
of various chemical and
physical processes. High
quality data for determining
compliance with the PM10
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and
identifying potential problem
areas are essential to an
effective state and local
agency air pollution control
program. Review procedures,
monitoring networks, and
emergency episode plans
must be established.
Particulates from Field
and Forestry Burning
in Oregon
In Oregon, as in many other western states,
controlled burning by the agricultural and forestry
industries is a common practice. Such burning is
the largest source of PM10 emissions in the state,
exceeding industrial emissions by a factor of
seven. Approximately 367,000 acres are burned
each year in Oregon, generating about 97,000 tons
of PM10. Forestry burning accounts for 84 percent
of these emissions; the remainder is from
agricultural field burning.
Brush and other unusable wood remaining after
clear cutting, called "slash," are burned routinely
to reduce fire hazards, permit reforestation, and
prevent infestations of insects harmful to trees,
such as the bark beetle. Most field burning occurs
in the Willamette Valley where approximately
half of American grass seed is grown. Fields are
burned in the late summer after the seed harvest
to control insects and to prepare for replanting.
Wheat fields in the Umatilla Plateau region of
eastern Oregon also are burned after harvest. The
regrowth of grasses and leaves after rangelands
are burned control weeds and provide fodder for
cattle and sheep. Approximately 10,000 to 15,000
acres of rangelands in eastern Oregon are burned
each year.
The potential health effects of smoke and
reduction in visibility and odor have been
controversial environmental issues in Oregon for
many years. Smoke from forest burning, regulated
by the U.S. Forest Service and the Oregon
Department of Forestry, has been reduced by
about 30 percent since the late 1970s. A recently
adopted visibility strategy is designed to further
reduce it by 22 percent by 1995. The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality has been
successful in limiting the effects of field burning
on populated areas through its Smoke
Management Program.
As in many other parts of the country,
environmental and economic values are in
conflict. Concerns about public health and
welfare must be balanced with the economic
importance of burnmg as a land management
'Practice. Logging and grass seed growing are two
of Oregon's key industries. To make further
progress in pollution control, Oregon must come
to terms with competing economic and
environmental values.
EPA;S
AGENDA
Because of the lack of good
quality PM10 data, EPA has
classified all counties of the
nation into three groups
based on their probability of
not meeting the new
standard. For areas of high
probability of
non-attainment, we will
require the states to revise
their implementation plans.
For areas with moderate
probabilities of
non-attainment, the states
must carefully monitor the
air quality. For areas with
low probabilities, current
control strategies will be
presumed adequate. We are
also helping states modify
existing ambient monitoring
sites for these small
particulates. We will issue
guidelines for states to
determine whether an area is
attaining the new standard
and, if not, how to achieve
attainment.
We are assessing the need
for a fine particulate
secondary standard for
PM2.5. The standard is
intended to protect visibility
principally in the eastern
United States and in urban
areas.
FIGURE A-9
Particulate Levels Have
Continued to Decrease
1100 Concentration y-s/af
tyAAQS ;
Source: National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report, 1986, USEPA
-------
Airborne Toxics
THE
PROBLEM
Toxic pollutants are one of
today's most serious
emerging problems. Toxic
substances are found in all
environmental media.
Despite their low
concentrations, toxic
chemicals emitted into the
air by human activities may
have serious short-term and
long-term effects on human
health and the environment.
Many sources emit toxic
chemicals into the
atmosphere: industrial and
manufacturing processes,
solvent use, sewage
treatment plants, hazardous
waste handling and disposal
sites, municipal waste sites,
incinerators, and motor
vehicles. Smelters, metal
refiners, manufacturing
processes, and stationary fuel
combustion sources emit
such toxic metals as
cadmium, lead, arsenic,
chromium, mercury, and
beryllium. Toxic organics,
such as vinyl chloride and
benzene, are released by a
variety of sources, such as
plastics and chemical
manufacturing plants, and
gas stations. Chlorinated
dioxins are emitted by some
chemical processes and the
high-temperature burning of
plastics in incinerators.
Once toxic contaminants
are emitted from a smoke
stack or tail pipe, people may
be exposed to them in a
variety of ways. The most
common exposure is through
inhalation. Indirect exposure
may occur after airborne
particles fall to earth and are
taken up by crops, animals,
or fish that we consume.
These particles may also
contaminate the water we
drink. Through these routes,
some toxics accumulate over
time and become highly
concentrated in human fatty
tissue and breast milk.
Most information on the
direct human health effects
of airborne toxics comes from
studies of industrial workers.
Exposure to airborne toxics
in the work place is generally
much higher than in the
ambient air. We know
relatively little about the
specific health and
environmental effects of
most airborne toxics at the
low levels at which they are
found in ambient air.
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
EPA has issued National
Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP's) under the Clean
Air Act for eight hazardous
air pollutants: asbestos,
beryllium, mercury, vinyl
chloride, benzene, arsenic,
radionuclides, and coke oven
^missions. We are working
on controls for eight other
Carcinogenic pollutants from
13 source categories. In
addition to assessing risk and
Control options of these and
many additional chemicals,
the Agency is working with
state and local governments
to solve air toxics problems.
Many state and local air
agencies are developing their
own programs for toxic
pollutants. Some have
addressed a large number of
pollutants and, with our help,
are improving monitoring
techniques to measure these
pollutants in the
environment.
We also work with state or
local agencies to investigate
specific problems.Some of
our cooperative programs
with state and local
governments include the
following:
» The Control Technology
Center provides state and
local air pollution agencies
with technical guidance and
support for controlling air
toxics. The Center's projects
have included an evaluation
pf potential emission sources
at a waferboard
pianufacturing plant for the
state of Colorado,
identification of the potential
for accidental and routine
releases of toluene
di-isocyanate for the
Allegheny County Health
pepartment in Pennsylvania,
and the evaluation of
emission factors for
formaldehyde from certain
wood-processing operations
for the state of Virginia.
• EPA's Regional offices
have been working with state
and local agencies to initiate
the process of identifying,
investigating, and controlling
the general air toxics problem
in urban areas. We are also
helping state and local
agencies develop appropriate
regulatory or other control
programs.
• In 1987, we began
managing an ambient toxics
program at sites in 18 cities.
Over the next few years, this
program will continue to
help state and local
governments assess the
nature and extent of
potentially toxic compounds
in their ambient air.
Cleaning Up Vinyl
Chloride in "Cancer
Alley", Louisiana
Approximately one-fifth of the nation's
petrochemicals are produced in an 85-mile
industrial corridor stretching from Baton Rouge to
New Orleans in southeastern Louisiana known as
"Cancer Alley." Health statistics show that this
area has an unusually high rate of several types of
cancers. Many people believe this high incidence
of cancer is attributable to air pollution. One of
the most prominent chemicals produced and used
in the corridor is vinyl chloride, which EPA
regulates as a hazardous air pollutant.
Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas used in the
manufacture of polyvinyl chloride, which is an
ingredient in plastics. Vinyl chloride has been
shown to cause liver cancer, and there is evidence
linking it to lung cancer, nervous disorders, and
other illnesses.
EPA has sued 22 of the approximately 50 plants
nationwide whose emissions are regulated by
vinyl chloride standards, including 11 plants in
Louisiana. The Agency recently settled two cases
out of court against a company for emissions from
a polyvinyl chloride plant in Geismar, Louisiana.
This settlement may help unravel the possible
cause-and-effect relationship between cancers and
miscarriages and exposure to vinyl chloride.
Among other things, the settlement calls for the
company to pay a $1,000,000 penalty to the
United States, and an additional $250,000 to the
Louisiana State University Foundation for
research into the health effects of hazardous air
pollutants. The fund could be used for research on
the relationship between vinyl chloride exposure
and miscarriages in the Geismar-St. Gabriel area
of Louisiana With the research results, EPA and
State and local authorities may be able to link
vinyl chloride to reproductive effects.
EPA'S
AGENDA
One of our highest priorities
is to solve the growing
national problem of air
toxics. EPA will move
aggressively under the
provisions of the Clean Air
Act to assist state and local
governments as they develop
their own programs.
Specifically, the Agency
will continue to promulgate
and enforce National
Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP's) for significant
sources of air toxics. We are
currently assessing the health
effects of some 30 chemicals,
including ammonia, chlorine,
and formaldehyde. We are
also evaluating other
chemicals for regulation
under NESHAP's; these
include chromium,
chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, and other
suspected carcinogens. :
Another high priority is
continuing the effort to
increase compliance with
existing emission standards,
especially those for VOCs.
Bringing additional sources of
these compounds into
compliance should reduce
both ozone levels and
potential air toxics
emissions.
The air toxics problem has
turned out to be more
complex than the framers of
the Clean Air Act originally
envisioned in 1970. In 1987,
we developed a five year plan
and strategy for routine
releases. Some of the major
components of the plan
include:
• Establishin,
programs to i
; federal
.entify and
regulate air toxics from
stationary and mobile
sources.
-------
• Helping states evaluate and
decide on the regulation of
high-risk point sources that
pose significant local risk,
but are not sufficiently
national in scope for federal
regulation.
• Enhancing state and local
programs by providing
planning, financial, and
technical support.
• Enforcing NESHAP's and
mobile source regulations.
• Expanding and improving
long-term air toxics
monitoring programs
including those operated
primarily by state and local
agencies. This work will
focus on consistent sampling
and measurement techniques
for toxic air pollutants to
ensure compatibility and
ready access to data handling
systems that could be used
by state and local programs
as well.
EPA's Air program
routinely monitors and
regulates emissions of air
toxics. Provisions for
emergency response to
accidental releases are
specified under Title III of
the Superfund Amendments
and Reathorization Act (see
the Land Chapter). We are
trying to integrate our
approach to toxics. We now
must coordinate our
regulatory efforts and avoid
inadvertently shifting
problems from one medium
to another or from one
geographic location to
another. An integrated
approach is essential to
managing cross-media toxic
substances problems.
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Risk Assessment
With improved scientific
techniques, environmental
contaminants can be
identified at very low
concentrations. Conducting a
scientific assessment of the
risk of these substances and
deciding how to manage
these risks, however, usually
involves very complex and
controversial scientific and
policy issues. For example,
scientists often disagree over
the risk assessment for a
substance because of the
assumptions that must be
made to develop the
assessment. Additional issues
related to airborne toxics
include determination of
what levels of exposure are
acceptable from health and
environmental perspectives
and the social and economic
costs and benefits of the
controls necessary for
reducing exposure levels.
Meaningful Involvement
of the Public
EPA wants to be sure the
public is informed about the
issues and uncertainties in
the risk management process
and to involve citizens in
evaluating possible options to
the greatest extent possible.
Because of the highly
technical nature of the
issues, it is often difficult for
citizens to participate
without special effort on
EPA's part.
More Potential Sources
Economic growth in the
chemical industry during the
next ten years is expected to
out-pace the average of all
other industries. This will
probably mean more new
plants in states where the
chemical industry is already
concentrated -California,
Texas, and New Jersey.
Without adequate control of
emissions, this growth may
increase the range and
quantity of toxic substances
released to the environment.
Cooperation with State
and Local Governments
A major focus of the national
air toxics strategy is the
multi-source, multi-pollutant
urban toxics problem. High
residual cancer risks from the
cumulative effects of
multiple pollutants from
many sources may exist in
many large, densely
populated or industrialized
urban areas. Problems and
solutions vary from city to
city. We are working with
state and local agencies to
address air toxics problems
particularly where there are
many sources and the
complex mix of pollutants
makes assessment of the
health effects difficult.
-------
Sulfur Dioxide
THE
PROBLEM
EFFORTS
To DATE
Several areas of the country
still exceed ambient
standards for sulfur dioxide
(Figure A-10). This presents
serious health and
environmental problems.
Excessive levels of sulfur
dioxide in the ambient air are
associated with significant
increases in acute and
chronic respiratory diseases.
Sulfur dioxide can be
transported long distances in
die atmosphere because it
bonds to particles of dust,
smoke, or aerosols.
Combining with water vapor
in the atmosphere to form
sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide
emissions are one of the
major contributors to acid
rain.
Sulfur dioxide is released
into the air primarily through
the burning of coal and fuel
oils. Up until the 1950s, the
burning of coal by railroad
locomotives was a major
source of sulfur dioxide
pollution. Emissions from
industrial sources grew
sharply between 1940 and
1970, as a result-of increased
production. But since 1970,
industrial emissions have
FIGURE A-H
Utilities Are the Primary Source
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
Industrial Processes 14.6%
Transportation 4.2%
Nonutility Fuel Combustion
From Stationary Sources 13.8%
Fuel Combustion
from Utilities 67.3%
Source: National Air Pollutant Emissions
Estimates, 1940 - 1986, USEPA
decreased because of controls
on nonferrous smelters and
sulfuric acid plants. Today,
two-thirds of all national
sulfur dioxide emissions
come from electric power
plants, with those that are
coal-fired accounting for 95
percent of all power plant
emissions (Figure A-11).
Other sources of sulfur
dioxide include refineries,
pulp and paper mills,
smelters, steel and chemical
plants, and energy facilities
related to oil shale, synfuels,
and oil and gas production.
Home furnaces and
coal-burning stoves are
sources that more directly
affect residential
neighborhoods.
FIGURE A-10
Counties in Total or Partial Non-Attainment for Sulfur Dioxide - 1985
Source: Maps Depicting Non-Attainment Areas Pursuant to Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act -1985, USEPA
Before EPA's establishment
in 1970, some states had
recognized the problems
resulting from sulfur dioxide
and had limited emissions
from power plants and
factories. One of EPA's first
actions was to set National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards for sulfur dioxide.
To meet the EPA
standards, state
environmental authorities
developed control plans for
the various facilities emitting
sulfur dioxide. Many utilities
installed equipment to wash
excessive sulfur from their
emissions. Some of these
facilities converted sulfur
emissions into commercial
products, such as sulfuric
acid.
One technique used to
attain the ambient standards
has proven to be
short-sighted. Power plants
and factories initially allowed
some use of tall stacks as an
alternative to further
reducing emissions. These
stacks dispersed the gas and
effectively reduced me local
impact of sulfur dioxide
emissions. However, sulfur
dioxide emitted from tall
stacks can be carried
hundreds of miles in the
atmosphere. As a result,
sulfur dioxide emissions in
the upper Midwest today are
contributing to acid rain in
New England.
Efforts to control sulfur
dioxide on the national level
have been reasonably
successful. Ambient levels
decreased by 37 percent
between 1977 and 1986, with
a 2 percent reduction
between 1985 and 1986
(Figure A-12). An even greater
improvement was observed
in the number of violations
of the ambient standard,
which dropped by 98 percent
during the same period.
Emissions, however, have
decreased only 21 percent.
Controls on existing plants in
urban areas and construction
of new power plants in rural
areas accounts for the
difference between emissions
and ambient levels.
-------
The decline in sulfur
dioxide emissions is largely
the result of the use of fuels
with lower average sulfur
content, the introduction of
scrubbers to remove sulfur
oxides from flue gases, and
controls on industrial
processes. The decrease in
sulfur dioxide levels in
residential and commercial
areas are due to a
combination of energy
conservation measures and
the use of cleaner fuels.
FIGURE A-12,
Sulfur Dioxide Levels
Have Continued to
Decrease
Source: National Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report, 1986, USEPA
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Today's major challenge is to
reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions from coal-fired
power plants while
continuing to lower
emissions from other major
sources. Recent new
advances in scrubber
technology are expected to
play an important role in
lowering emissions from
power plants.
The sulfur content of coal
varies greatly according to
where it is mined. The
technical, political, and
economic ramifications of
this variance have
complicated the task of
setting sulfur dioxide limits
for facilities burning coal.
The geographical distribution
of high-and-low sulfur coal,
the economic impact on the
mining and utilities
industries from restrictions
on high-sulfur coal, the
variability of the sulfur
content within coal, and
questions about the
contribution of sulfur dioxide
to acid rain have all caused
considerable debate.
EPA'S
AGENDA
EPA and the states will
continue to develop
compliance programs to
maintain the air quality gains
made so far and to enforce
limits on sources in the areas
violating the national
standards. We will also work
with the states to improve
the quality and usefulness of
monitoring data for managing
future efforts to control
sulfur dioxide.
Compliance and
enforcement efforts will be
focused particularly on
implementing the sulfur
dioxide Continuous
Compliance Strategy
scheduled to be issued in ,
1988. We will be developing
guidelines on the broader and
more efficient use of
self-monitoring data,
especially for new sources.
Revisions to the sulfur
dioxide standards may
require further tightening of
current emission limits on
existing sources, changing
implementation plans in
some states, and revising
certain new source permits.
-------
Acid Deposition
THE
PROBLEM
deposition is a serious
environmental concern in
many parts of the country.
The process of acid
deposition begins with
emissions of sulfur dioxide
iprimarily from coal-burning
power plants) and nitrogen
oxides (primarily from motor
vehicles and coal-burning
power plants). These
pollutants interact with
sunlight and water vapor in
the upper atmosphere to form
acidic compounds. During a
storm, these compounds fall
to earth as acid rain or snpw;
the compounds also may join
dust or other dry airborne
panicles and fall as "dry
deposition."
Over 80 percent of sulfur
dioxide emissions in the
United States originate in the
31 states east of or bordering
the Mississippi River. Most
emissions corne from the
states in or adjacent to the
Ohio River Valley (figure
A-13). Prevailing winds
transport emissions hundreds
of miles to the northeast,
across state and national
borders. Acid rain is now
recognized as a serious
long-term air pollution
problem for many
industrialized nations.
The extent of damage
caused by acid rain depends
on the total acidity deposited
in a particular area and the
sensitivity of the area
receiving it. Areas with
acid-neutralizing compounds
in the soil, for example, can
experience years of acid
deposition without problems.
Such soils are common in
much of the United States.
But the thin soils of the
mountainous and glaciated
northeast have very little
acid-buffering capacity,
making them vulnerable to
damage from acid rain.
Surface waters, soils, and
bedrock that have a relatively
low buffering capacity are
unable to neutralize the acid
effectively. Under such
conditions, the deposition
may increase the acidity of
water, reducing much or all
of its ability to sustain
aquatic life. Forests and
agriculture may be vulnerable
because acid deposition can
leach nutrients from the
ground, kill nitrogen-fixing
microorganisms that nourish
plants, and release toxic
metals.
EFFORTS
TO DATE
Before the 1970 Clean Air
Act, U.S. sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emissions
were increasing dramatically
(Figure A-14). Between 1940
and 1970, annual sulfur
dioxide emissions had
increased by more than 55
percent and nitrogen oxide
emissions had almost tripled.
The Clean Air Act helped
to curb the growth of these
emissions. By 1986, annual
sulfur dioxide emissions had
declined by 21 percent, and
nitrogen oxide emissions had
increased only 7 percent.
These reductions in historical
growth rates took place
despite the fact that the U.S.
economy and the combustion
of fossil fuels grew
substantially over the same
period.
How "Acid" is Acid Rain?
Vinegar Distilled Water
Lemon Juice "Pure" Rain (5,6| Baking Soda
1
Neutra.
Basic
FIGURE A-13
Areas Where Precipitation in the East is below pH 5
10 11 12 13
The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A value of 7.0 is neutral. Readings below 7.0 are acidic,
readings above 7.0 are alkaline. The more pH decreases below 7.0, the more acidity increases.
Because the pH scale is logarithmic, there is a tenfold difference between one number and
the one next to it. Therefore, a drop in pH from 6.0 to 5.0 represents a tenfold increase in
acidity, while a drop from 6.0 to 4.0 represents a hunderedfold increase.
All rain is slightly acidic. Only rain with a pH below 5.6 is considered "acid rain."
•Shaded areas indicate individual states
having emissions of 1,000 kilotonnes of SOa
and greater.
Contours connect points of equal
precipitation pH.
SJ
Source: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Interim Report, 1987, USEPA
28
-------
NATIONAL ACID
PRECIPITATION
ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM
In addition to enforcement
and monitoring under the
provisions of the Clean Air
Act, the Agency is actively
pursuing a major research
effort with other federal
agencies under the National
Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program
(NAPAP). This on-going
research project is designed
to resolve the critical
uncertainties surrounding the
causes and effects of acid
rain. About $300 million have
been spent for federal
research since NAPAP was
initiated in 1980, In
September 1987; NAPAP
published an interim
assessment on the causes and
effects of acid deposition.
Aquatic Effects
One of the most important
acid rain research projects
being conducted by EPA is
the National Surface Water
Survey. This survey is
designed to provide data on
the present and future status
of lakes and streams within
regions of the United States
believed to be susceptible to
change as a result of acid
deposition. Phase I of the
Eastern and Western Lakes
Surveys showed that there
are essentially no lakes or
reservoirs in the
mountainous West,
northeastern Minnesota, and
the Southern Blue Ridge of
the Southeast that are
considered acidic. The four
subregions with the highest
percentages of acidic lakes
are: the Adirondacks of New
York, where 10 percent of the
lakes were found to be acidic;
the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, where 10 percent
of the lakes were also found
to be acidic; the Okefenokee
Swamp in Florida, which is
naturally acidic; and, the
lakes in the Florida
Panhandle where the cause of
acidity is unknown.
The 1988 Stream Survey
determined that
approximately 2.7 percent of
the total stream reaches
sampled in the mid-Atlantic
and Southeast are acidic.
About 10 percent of head
waters in the forested ridges
of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia were found
to be acidic. Streams in
Florida found to have a low
pH are naturally acidic. The
study indicated that
Atmospheric deposition is
the major cause of sulfates in
streams. Atmospheric
deposition was also found to
be a major cause of sulfates
in the lakes surveyed as part
of the National Surface Water
Survey.
Forest Effects
The NAPAP:interim
assessment reviewed research
concerning the effects of acid
deposition ori forests. It
focused on the effects of
precursor pollutants (sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides)
and Volatile Organic
Compounds and their
oxidants (including ozone and
hydrogen peroxides) on
eastern spruce-fir, southern
pine, eastern hardwood, and
western conifer. The
assessment found that air
pollution is a factor in the
decline of both managed and
natural forests. The San
Bernardino National Forest in
California and some types of
white pine throughout the
eastern United States are
seriously affected by ozone.
Forests found to have
unknown causes of damage
included northeastern
spruce-fir, northeastern sugar
maple, southeastern yellow
pine, and species in the New
Jersey Pine Barrens. The high
elevation forests such as the
spruce fir in the eastern
United States were found to
be exposed to severe natural
stresses as well as being
frequently immersed in
clouds containing pollutants
at higher concentrations than
those observed in rain.
Research has shown no direct
impacts to seedlings by acidic
precipitation or gaseous
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides at ambient levels in
the United States. Ozone is
the leading suspected
pollutant that may stress
regional forests and reduce
growth. Research is
underway to resolve the
relative importance of
physical and natural stresses.
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Crop Effects
The NAPAP assessment
indicated that there are no
measurable consistent effects
on crop yield from the direct
effects or simulated acidic
rain at ambient levels of
acidity. This finding was
based on yield measurements
qf grains, forage, vegetable,
afld fruit crops exposed to a
range of simulated rain
acidity levels in controlled
exposure studies. Continuing
research efforts will examine
Whether stress agents such as
drought or insect pests cause
crops to be more sensitive to
rainfall acidity.
Average ambient
concentrations of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides
qver most agricultural areas
in the United States are not
high enough or elevated
frequently enough to affect
crop production on a regional
scale. However, crops may be
affected locally in areas close
to emission sources.
Controlled studies also
indicate that ambient levels
of ozone in the United States
Are sufficient to reduce the
yield of many crops.
Materials Effects
The NAPAP Interim Report
indicated that many
uncertainties need to be
reduced before a reliable
economic assessment could
be made of the effects of acid
deposition on materials, such
as building materials, statues,
monuments, and car paint.
Major areas of uncertainty
include inventories of
materials at risk, variability
of urban air quality, effects
on structures, and cost
estimates for repair and
replacement.
Human Health Effects
The NAPAP interim
assessment reported that
there are also many
uncertainties associated with
assessing the influence of
ambient levels of
atmospheric pollutants on
human health. The primary
factors involved are a lack of
information on the levels of
exposure to acidic aerosols
for various population groups
across North America;
chronic health problems
caused by short-term changes
in respiratory symptoms and
decrease in lung function;
and the effects of repetitive
or long-term exposures to air
pollutants. Studies on
toxicity of drinking water
have linked rain acidity to
unhealthy levels of toxic
metals in drinking water and
fish.
INTERNATIONAL
AND STATE
COOPERATION
On the international level,
the United States has been
working with Canada to
solve transboundary air
pollution problems. In 1986,
the Canadian and U.S.
Special Envoys on acid rain
proposed a plan to begin a
government/industry program
to demonstrate innovative
pollution control technology,
and conduct ongoing bilateral
consultations and cooperative
research projects. We are
working with other federal
agencies to implement the
recommendations of the
Special Envoys' Report on
Acid Rain, including a $5
billion government/industry
clean coal technology
program and a demonstration
program of an expanded
menu of commercial retrofit
control technologies. We are
also sponsoring joint
meetings and field
observations by European and
American scientists to
develop and test hypotheses
to explain the mechanisms of
forest damage.
EPA also is working with
the states as part of the
congressionally funded State
Acid Rain Program (STAR) to
identify and resolve potential
implementation issues that
may arise should an acid rain
control program be
established.
Our greatest challenge is to
continue to reduce emissions
of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. We must also
continue research to reduce
the level of scientific and
economic uncertainties about
acid deposition and work to
resolve the regional and
international conflicts related
to this problem. In addition
to EPA's research efforts,
major federal research
programs are being funded by
the Department of Energy,
the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Argonne,
Brookhaven, Lawrence
Berkley, and Oak Ridge
national laboratories.
30
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
HI- - i. *n u,«n' -in «r-in i iiKiaiiiii
EPA, in coordination with
other federal agencies, is
continuing wide-ranging
research on the causes and
effects of acid deposition.
Our major research efforts
include effects on aquatic and
forest ecosystems, building
materials and human health.
In the area of human health,
in particular, EPA is
conducting exposure studies
on acid aerosols.
EPA is conducting ongoing
aquatics research projects
that will continue over the
next two or three years. As
part of the National Surface
Water Survey, seasonal
variability or lakes in the
Northeast will be studied.
The Direct/Delayed
Response Project will
evaluate the rate and
magnitude of future
acidification with initial
results expected in 1989. In
1990, the Episodic Response
Project is expected to provide
damage estimates for
particular acid deposition
events. When combined with
projected emissions trends,
the results of these studies
will provide estimates of the
current extent of surface
water acidification together
with expected rates of future
acidification on a
region-by-region basis for the
eastern United States.
Also, EPA is working with
the U.S. Forest Service to
carry out the Forest Response
Program. Under the program,
research is conducted
regionally on eastern
spruce-fir, southern
commercial forests, eastern
hardwood, and western
conifer. A report on the
extent and severity of forest
damage is expected by the
end of 1988. Other studies
concern the roles of sulfur
and nitrogen compounds in
forest damage. Estimates are
expected by 1990. Data from
these research projects will
also be used to develop
predictive models of forest
health, growth, and general
conditions. Quantitative
estimates of current forest
response to sulfur and
nitrogen compounds will also
be developed.
EPA will continue research
to determine the effects of
acid deposition on various
types of building materials.
Inventories of galvanized
steel and painted surfaces,
expected to be completed by
1990, will be used to
determine the extent that
building materials are at risk.
Damage studies for
galvanized steel are expected
to be completed in 1988, and
for carbonate stone in the
next two to three years.
Surveys are planned that will
be used to determine the
benefits of reducing the rate
of acidic damage to building
materials.
We will continue to work
with the states through the
State Acid Rain Program and
with other federal agencies to
implement the
recommendations of the
Canadian and U.S. Special
Envoys. At the same time,
EPA is enforcing provisions
of the Clean Air Act to
reduce the principal
precursors of acid rain —
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. We will also work
with the Canada and United
States Bilateral Committee to
resolve the transboundary
acid rain problem.
Over the next two years,
major research results are
anticipated for improving the
basis of decisionmaking on
acid rain issues. EPA also
expects that Congress and
other groups will continue to
propose options to reduce
acid deposition. As proposals
are offered, we will provide
analyses of costs,
consequences, and the
feasibility of implementation.
31
-------
Am
Indoor Air Pollution
THE
PROBLEM
Indoor air pollution is rapidly
becoming a major health
issue in me United States.
Indoor pollutant levels are
frequently higher than
outdoors, particularly where
buildings are tightly
constructed to save energy.
Since most people spend 90
percent of their time indoors,
many may be exposed to
unhealthy concentrations of
pollutants. People most
susceptible to the risks of
pollution — the aged, the ill,
and the very young — spend
nearly all of their time
indoors. As many as 30
percent of new and
remodelled buildings may
have indoor air quality
problems.
The degree of risk
associated with exposure to
indoor pollutants depends on
how well buildings are
ventilated and the type,
mixture, and amount of
pollutants in the building.
Improperly designed and
operated ventilation systems
can cause "sick building
syndrome", with complaints
of eye, nose, and throat
irritations, fatigue, lethargy,
headaches, nausea,
irritability, or forgetfulness.
Long-term health effects
range from impairment of the
nervous system to cancer.
Harmful indoor pollutants
include airborne pathogens,
such as viruses, bacteria, and
fungi, as well as radioactive
gases like radon> inorganic
compounds like mercury and
lead; and an array of organic
compounds such as
formaldehyde chloroform,
and perchlorethylene. These
pollutants may come from
sources such as tobacco
smoke, building materials,
furnishings, space heaters,
gas ranges, wood
preservatives, consumer
goods such as "air
. ..,„...,.„,...,
I Ak Pollution in the Home
Asbestos]
Insulationl
Heating
Pesticides
Cleaners
Solvents
Aerosols
Glues
fresheners," and solvents in
cleaning agents (Figure A-15).
Indoor air pollutants of
special concern are described
below.
Radon
Radon is a naturally
occurring gas resulting from
the radioactive decay of
radium, which is found in
many types of rocks and
soils. Radon enters buildings
through cracks in the
foundation. When inhaled,
radon can adhere to particles
and then lodge deep in the
lungs, increasing the risk of
cancer. Radon may be found
in building materials such as
concrete or stone. Radon can
also be emitted from drinking
water drawn from wells. EPA
estimates that radon may be
responsible for 5,000 to
20,000 lung cancer deaths per
year. The National Academy
of Sciences recently issued a
report that supports this
estimate. Radon is a
particular risk for smokers,
who have a health risk of
cancer ten times greater than
non-smokers. (The radon
problem is discussed in the
next section.)
Environmental Tobacco
Smoke
Environmental tobacco
smoke (smoke that
non-smokers are exposed to
from smokers) has been
judged by the Surgeon
General, the National
Research Council, and the
International Agency for
Research on Cancer to pose a
risk of lung cancer to
non-smokers. Tobacco smoke
contains a number of
pollutants, including
inorganic gases, heavy '
metals, particulates, VOCs,
and: products of incomplete
burning, such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons.
Published risk estimates of
lung cancer deaths among
non-smokers exposed to
environmental tobacco
smoke range from 500 to
5,000 per year.
Environmental tobacco
smoke can also cause other
diseases including other
cancers and heart disease in
healthy non-smokers.
Asbestos
Asbestos fibers have been
shown to cause lung cancer
and other respiratory
diseases. Asbestos has been
used in the past in a variety
of building materials,
including many types of
insulation, fireproofing,
wallboard, ceiling tiles, and
floor tiles. The remodeling or
demolition of buildings with
asbestos-containing materials
frees tiny asbestos fibers in
clumps or clouds of dust.
Even with normal aging,
materials may deteriorate and
release asbestos fibers. Once
released, these asbestos fibers
can be inhaled into the lungs
and can accumulate.
Formaldehyde And
Other Volatile Organic
Compounds
EPA has found formaldehyde
to be a probable human
carcinogen. Formaldehyde is
responsible for a variety of
acute health problems, such
as eye and nose irritation and
respiratory ailments. People
with lung diseases or
impaired immune systems,
children, and the elderly may
be particularly affected by
this pollutant. The use of
formaldehyde in furniture,
foam insulation, and pressed
wood products, such as some
plywood, particle board, and
fiberboard, makes
32
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
formaldehyde a major indoor
air pollutant.
Other VOCs commonly
found indoors include
benzene from tobacco smoke
and perchlorethylene emitted
by dry cleaned clothes. Paints
and stored chemicals,
including certain cleaning
compounds, are also major
sources of VOCs. VOCs can
also be emitted from drinking
water. Twenty percent of
water supply systems have
detectable amounts of VOCs,
although only one percent of
supply systems are thought
to exceed 1986 Safe Drinking
Water Act standards for
VOCs.
Biological Pollutants
Heating, ventilation, air
condition systems, and
humidifiers can be breeding
grounds for biological
contaminants when they are
not properly cleaned and
maintained. They can also
bring biological contaminants
indoors and circulate them,
resulting in such health
problems as allergic reactions
to pollen, fungi, and animal
dander; bacterial and viral
infections; and reactions to
chemical toxins released by
fungi.
Pesticides
Indoor and outdoor use of
pesticides, including
termiticides and wood
preservatives are another
cause of concern. Even when
used as directed, pesticides
may release VOCs. EPA
researchers are investigating
whether indoor use of
insecticides and subsurface
soil injection of termiticides
can lead to hazardous
exposure. (See the "Pesticides
Section" of the Toxics
Chapter.)
Over the past several years,
EPA has addressed the indoor
air pollution problem under a
variety of environmental
laws, including the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Resource
Conversation and Recovery
Act, the Asbestos in Schools
Hazard Abatement Act of
1986 and the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control
Act. Congress gave EPA more
specific direction to establish
an indoor air quality
program, however, in the
1986 Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act.
Research, Technical
Assistance, and Public
Information
Since 1982, EPA has
conducted a research program
on indoor air quality
problems. This research has
been directed toward
increasing the understanding
of personal exposure,
emissions, health effects, and
mitigation techniques. As
part of the Superfund
Amendments and
Reauthorization Act,
Congress passed the Radon
Gas and Indoor Air Quality
Act of 1986, which directed
EPA to conduct research,
implement a public
information and technical
assistance program, and
coordinate Federal activities
on indoor air quality.
Pioneering work has been
done to develop monitoring
equipment that measures an
individual's "total exposure"
to pollutants in the air both
outdoors and indoors and in
drinking water. EPA operates
test chambers and a test
house to determine the
composition and rate of
pollutant emissions from
selected building materials
and consumer produces.
These facilities are also used
to evaluate the effectiveness
of mitigation and prevention
techniques. The Agency is
also conducting research on
the health effects of some
important indoor air
pollutants and pollutant
mixtures.
Several other programs
within EPA have conducted
information and public
awareness activities related
to indoor air quality for
several years. For example,
EPA has a radon program
which is designed to identify
the health risks of radon,
demonstrate effective
mitigation techniques, and
give state and local
governments information on
how to implement these
techniques in new and
existing buildings. Several
Erograms have issued
ooklets and other materials
for the general public on such
topics as radon, asbestos,
termiticides, and wood
preservatives. Hotlines on
toxic substances and
pesticides maintained by EPA
offer another means for
answering indoor air-related
questions from the public.
33
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
EPA'S
AGENDA
Regulatory Actions
EPA has taken regulatory
action on asbestos, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in
drinking water, and certain
pesticides. We require
schools to inspect for
asbestos, to prepare
management plans, and to
take action when they find
friable (easily crumbled)
asbestos. In addition we have
proposed a ten-year phase-out
of the manufacturing and
Importing of asbestos
products.
EPA issued Maximum
Contaminant Levels for eight
VOCs in water supplies
serving more than .25
persons. Plans are to issue 75
more drinking water
standards for a wide variety
of chemicals having national
significance. These actions
should reduce the levels of
these compounds in indoor
air.
We have acted to control
indoor exposures to a number
of pesticides. For example,
we have stopped use or the
pesticide lindane as a
domestic fumigant and have
required child-proof
packaging for certain other
indoor applications. The
Agency prohibited indoor
applications of the wood
preservatives
pcnta-chlorophenol and
creosote, cancelled use of
pentachlorophenol in log
homes, and required sealers
on previously treated wood
used indoors. Recent
evidence showed that even
with proper application, the
termiticides known as
chlordane, heptachlor,
dieldrin, and aldrin persist in
the air of homes long after
treatment. In response, EPA
arrived at an agreement with
the major manufacturer of
chlordane and heptachlor for
a voluntary cancellation of
further sales of this product
pending demonstration of
safe application methods.
Finally, we have suspended
the sale of the termiticides
aldrin and dieldrin; they are
no longer being produced.
EPA's 1987 comparative risk
study places indoor air
pollution among the top
environmental problems
facing the nation. More
research is needed to identify
and rank the health risks
from exposure to individual
pollutants or mixtures of
pollutants. We also need
effective, easily operated,
commercially available
devices to monitor personal
exposure to indoor air
pollution.
Methods for diagnosing and
correcting the causes of
building-related illnesses
need to be improved. A
variety of control measures
need to be identified and
analyzed, including product
substitution or modification,
and changes in building
design and ventilation.
The Agency also needs to
determine the most effective
combination of public
information, technical
assistance, voluntary
guidelines, and regulatory
standards to manage known
risks.
The Agency is preparing a
report to Congress that will
make recommendations for
long-term research needs. We
have identified several
sources and pollutants for
further research including:
environmental tobacco
smoke; combustion
appliances; building
materials, furnishings, and
consumer goods; biological
contaminants; radon;
pesticides; and nonionizing
radiation from electric and
magnetic fields. We also will
be developing techniques to
diagnose, mitigate, and
Erevent indoor air-related
uilding problems. We will
be producing several public
information documents,
including consumer booklets
and technical manuals on
building-related illnesses and
environmental tobacco
smoke.
In addition, EPA heads the
Interagency Committee on
Indoor Air Quality which
coordinates Federal indoor air
programs. With the
Committee, EPA periodically
issues the publication
Current Federal Indoor Air
Quality Activities. EPA will
also lead or participate in
other interagency efforts that
address the problem of indoor
air pollution. For example,
EPA is leading an interagency
review of certain chlorinated
solvents to assess the
potential risks to consumers
and workers.
34
-------
Radon
THE
PROBLEM
Radon is a unique
environmental problem
because it occurs naturally.
Radon results from the
radioactive decay of
radium-226, found in many
types of rocks and soils. Most
indoor radon comes from the
rock and soil around a
building and enters structures
through cracks or openings in
the foundation or basement.
Secondary sources of indoor
radon are well water and
building materials.
When inhaled, radon
particles release ionizing "-
radiation that can damage
FIGURE A-16
Areas With Potentially High Radon Levels
sensitive lung'tissue and lead
to lung cancer. EPA
estimates that radon may be
responsible for 5,000 to
20,000 lung cancer deaths
each year. Radon may be the
leading cause of lung cancer
among nonsmokers. EPA
believes that lip to eight
million homes may have
radon levels exceeding four
picocuries per liter of air, the
level at which EPA
recommends corrective
action.
Levels of radon can vary
greatly, even within the same
community. The variation
Source; Office of Air and Radiation Programs, 1987, USEPA
depends on a number of
factors, including the
concentration of radon in the
soil, how individual buildings
are constructed, and how
well they are ventilated.
Exposure to elevated indoor
concentrations of radon gas
was first recognized as a
potential problem in the
1960s when houses in
Colorado were found to have
been built with materials
contaminated by uranium
mill tailings. In the 1970s
EPA discovered that some
houses built on reclaimed
phosphate lands in Florida
also had elevated radon
levels.
The discovery in 1984 that
a nuclear power plant
construction engineer had
been contaminated by
extremely high levels of
naturally occurring indoor
radon in his Pennsylvania
home led to recognition of a
broader problem at the state
and national levels. His
house was located on a
geologic formation that runs
through Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and New York known
as the Reading Prong.
Measurements have
confirmed that high levels of
indoor radon also exist in a
number of other geologic
regions in many states.
Shaded regions are areas which may have the greatest chance of producing high radon levels and the largest number of high radon levels.
This map should not be used as the sole source for any radon predictions. This map cannot be used to predict locations 'of high radon in
specific localities or to identify individual homes with high radon levels.
Local variations, including soil permeability and housing characteristics, will strongly affect indoor radon levels and any regional radon prediction.
This map is only preliminary and will be modified as research progresses.
Areas outside of shaded regions are not free of risk from elevated indoor radon levels.
| | Extent of continental glaciation.
|MH| Geologic areas with known or expected indoor radon levels: granitic rocks, black shales, phosphatic rocks, near surface
^^^* distribution of MURE potential uranium sources.
I I Areas with scattered occurences of uranium bearing coals and shale
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
EPA has acted as a catalyst to
bring together expertise in
radon assessment and
Remedial techniques in
federal, state, and local
governments as well as the
private sector. We have
developed a non-regulatory
approach which relies on this
close partnership to help
citizens reduce their health
risk from indoor radon. In
1979 we recommended initial
radon guidelines for existing
homes and new home
construction on reclaimed
phosphate lands in Florida.
The discovery of high levels
of naturally occurring radon
along the Reading Prong led
to the development of our
Radon Action Program in
1985, and helped focus
national attention on indoor
air pollution in general.
As a result, EPA issued
national guidelines in 1986
which explain the health
risks of radon and
recommend actions for
homeowners to reduce
exposure. The radon program
today has five major
elements: problem
assessment; mitigation and
prevention,- capability
development; public
information,- and interagency
cooperation.
Problem Assessment
Hie Agency is assisting
States in conducting surveys
io identify areas with high
indoor radon levels. We also
have worked with Indian
tribes in three states. More
than 11,000 homes were
tested in the first ten states
surveyed. Preliminary results
Show that 21 percent of the
houses tested have radon
levels above EPA's four
plcocuries per liter action
guideline. Figure A-16 is a
preliminary map of areas in
the United States with
potentially high radon levels,
based on geology. State
surveys have confirmed that
geology is usually a good
predictor of high-risk areas.
36
Mitigation and
Prevention
EPA has a multi-year
program to research,
demonstrate, and evaluate
techniques to reduce radon
levels in new and existing
homes. These techniques
include sealing cracks,
improving ventilation both
within the home and in the
surrounding soil, and
removing radon and its decay
products from the air.
Capability Development
The Agency established
standard methods for
measuring radon levels using
several techniques, such as
Radon Risk Evaluation Chart
Estimated lung Comparable
cancer deaths due
oCi/1 WL to radon exposure exposure
PCI/I WL (outofl(KMj; levels
Comparable risk
More than
60 times
non-smoker risk
4 pack-a-day
smoker
100 : 0.5 270—630 100 times
• I, average indoor
level
40 0.2 ';120—380
2;000 chest
x-rays per year
,2 pack-a-day
smoker
pack-a-day
smoker
0.01 7—30 10 times
- ',- average outdoor
"level
1 0.005 3—13 Average
, indoor level
0.2 0.001 1—3 Average
outdoor level
Note: Measurement results are reported in one of two ways,
I pCi/l|Picocuries per liter) - measurement of radon gas
filBll'i'll i'P'ii'llil Pi] I" |: ;»!' » * » in miiwiiw PI« «««»'» "rc *n ^5
LfWorking Jeyelsj - measurement of radon decay piroducts
Source: Office of Air and Radiation Programs, USEPA
5 times
non-smoker risk
200 chest
x-rays per year
Non-smoker
risk of dying
from lung cancer
20 chest x-rays
per year
carbon canisters, to collect
radon samples. We now
evaluate semiannually the
performance of states and
private companies in
analyzing measurements
done in homes.
We also have helped states
and the private sector
develop technical capabilities
to assess and reduce radon
levels in homes. We have
provided classroom and field
training for state and local
officials and private
contractors, and have
distributed videotapes of
course material. The Agency
produced a technical guide on
radon reduction techniques
for detached houses and, in
cooperation with the
National Association of
Home Builders, a summary of
techniques for new home
construction.
Public Information
EPA provides information on
how radon measurements are
made, how to evaluate health
risks associated with
different levels of radon, and
how to reduce radon levels,
both in indoor air and in
drinking water. We have
produced several brochures
intended to help homeowners
better understand the nature
of radon.
Interagency Cooperation
We have been working
closely in our research efforts
with other federal agencies,
including the Department of
Energy; the Centers for
Disease Control; the U.S.
Geological Survey; the
Department of Housing and
Urban Development; the
Tennessee Valley Authority;
the National Institutes of
Health; and the National
Bureau of Standards.
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
In spite of the risks
associated with exposure to
indoor radon, relatively few
people have had their houses
tested. To remedy this, the
Agency must continue
working with the states to
develop effective ways to
communicate risks to the
public and to share results of
ongoing research. This will
need to include developing
additional ways to measure
and correct indoor radon
problems in houses as well as
in schools and commercial
buildings.
EPA'S
AGENDA
In the future, EPA will focus
on assisting those states
which are now finding
elevated radon levels. The
Agency will continue to
expand its mitigation efforts
and will include a wider
variety of building types. We
will also work with building
code organizations to ensure
that radon-resistant building
techniques are incorporated
into new construction
practices.
EPA will continue
providing technical assistance
to state and tribal
governments to enable them
to develop radon programs
Radon gas enters buildings through openings around pipes and cracks
in foundations.
and to expand private sector
capabilities to control radon.
Among the federal agencies,
EPA will coordinate research
into health effects from radon
and provide assistance with
measurement activities in
federal buildings.
New Jersey's Radon Awareness Program
The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection's Radon
Outreach Program is often viewed
as a model by other states. A, major
portion of the New Jersey program is
the statewide survey of radon levels,
which found that almost two-thirds
of the state is at risk. Thirty three
percent of the 6,000 homes tested so
far have radon concentrations
greater than the 4 picocuries/liter
level used to identify buildings
requiring further testing or action.
The results of this study were
released in the form of a map
showing three priority areas for
testing: areas where radon testing
should be done as soon as possible,
areas where testing should be done
within one year, and areas where
testing is suggested only if the
homeowners are concerned. A list of
individual towns in each area was
also published to help communities
and homeowners determine if they
were at risk.
An other important element of
the program is public information.
New Jersey's toll-free Radon
information line has handled over
50,000 calls since 1985, and is
currently receiving several thousand
calls per month. EPA has
cooperated with the state and local
officials in .establishing a highly
successful community based
information campaign. New Jersey
has been training local health
officers in the affected towns about
ways to solve the radon problem.
Towns have started to sponsor
"Radon Awareness Weeks-" which
include slide show presentations
and information about radon in
local papers.
The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection has
instituted a monitoring program to
confirm radon measurements.
Confirmatory tests have been done
for over 4,000 homes. About 25
percent of the tests were done by
local public health officials. New
Jersey has also been supporting
research to help solve the radon
problem by participating in
mitigation demonstration projects
with EPA, including a
state-of-the-art project with
Lawrence Berkeley Labs, Oak Ridge
Universities, and Princeton
University on the ways radon enters
buildings and how to counteract it.
I Tier 1 - Test as soon as practical
I Tier 2 Test within one year
Tier 3 - Test if concerned
57
-------
AIR
Global Atmospheric Change
THE
PROBLEM
Certain types of air
pollutants are producing
long-term and perhaps
Irreversible changes to the
global atmosphere. These
changes seriously threaten
human health and the
environment. Industrial
growth since the
mid-nineteenth century has
released large amounts of
carbon dioxide. In the
troposphere (the lower ten
miles of atmosphere) high
levels of carbon dioxide are
producing an overall warming
of the global temperatures.
This "greenhouse" effect may
cause irreversible changes to
the climate. In the
stratosphere (extending from
the troposphere to about 30
miles above the earth's
surface) chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and halons are
breaking down the ozone
layer which protects the
earth from ultraviolet
radiation. This increased
radiation threatens to cause
increases in skin cancer and
other adverse effects. CFCs
and halons can remain in the
atmosphere from 75 to 100
years. Even if-emissions were
eliminated today, the
concentrations of these gases
would take many decades to
return to pre-industrial
levels. The global warming
trend may take even longer
to correct.
The Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect is a
natural phenomenon largely
caused by carbon dioxide,
which has an effect
comparable to that of the
glass in a greenhouse. Visible
light passes through the
atmosphere to the earth's
surface. The earth radiates
the heat as infrared rays,-
some heat escapes, but
carbon dioxide and other
FIGURE A-17
The Greenhouse Effect Traps Solar Heat
gases in the troposphere trap
the rest, warming the earth
(Figure A-17). Without the
greenhouse effect the earth
would be a frozen planet like
Mars; the average
temperature of the earth
would be 00 Fahrenheit,
rather than the current 590
Fahrenheit.
By increasing the amount
of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere through the
burning of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil, and natural gas, we
have created a warming trend
that may raise global
temperatures between 20 F
and 80 F by the year 2050
(Figure A-18). The clearing of
rain forests also contributes
carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere when wood is
burned. Moreover, the
clearing of large areas of rain
forests means that less
carbon dioxide is removed
from the air by plants.
Deforestation in Brazil,
Africa, Indonesia, and the
Philippines may be
contributing to rising global
temperatures.
Global warming may
change weather patterns and
regional climates. Many
important agricultural areas
of the United States, for
example, could become arid
and less productive. Natural
ecosystems would also be
affected. One major
FIGURE A-18
Global Concentrations of
Carbon Dioxide Have
Risen 10 Percent Since
1958
..
Monthly Concentrations
of Carbon Dioxide
-2- at Mauna Loa, Hawaii
consequence of global
warming is already being felt:
rising sea levels, amplified by
storms, are increasing the
erosion of many coastal
areas. Sea levels are being
raised not only by the
melting of alpine glaciers and
polar ice sheets, but also by
the expansion of the oceans
as they are heated. Sea level
is expected to rise one foot in
the next 30 to 40 years, and 2
to 7 feet by the year 2100.
Sea level rise of this
magnitude would inundate
50 to 80 percent of U.S.
coastal wetlands, erode all
recreational beaches, and
increase the salinity of
estuaries and aquifers. In
addition, coastal development
would be damaged.
Ozone Depletion in the
Stratosphere
Increasing concentrations of
the synthetic chemicals
known as CFCs and halons
are breaking down the ozone
layer, allowing more of the
sun's ultraviolet rays to
penetrate to the earth's
surface. Ultraviolet rays can
break apart important
biological molecules,
including DNA. Increased
ultraviolet radiation can lead
to greater incidence of skin
cancer, cataracts, and
immune deficiencies, as well
as decreased crop yields and
reduced populations of
certain fish larvae,
phytoplankton, and
zooplankton that are vital to
the food chain. Increased
ultraviolet radiation would
also contribute to smog and
reduce the useful life of
outdoor paints and plastics.
Stratospheric ozone also
protects oxygen at lower
altitudes from being broken
up by ultraviolet light and
keeps most of these harmful
38
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1985
-------
rays from penetrating to the
earth's surface.
Chlorofluorocarbons are
compounds that consist of
chlorine, fluorine, and
carbon. First introduced in
the late 1920s, these gases
have been used as coolants
for refrigerators and air
conditioners, propellants for
aerosol sprays, agents for
producing plastic foam, and
cleansers for electrical parts.
CFCs do not degrade easily in
the troposphere. As a result,
they rise into the
stratosphere where they are
broken down by ultraviolet
light. The chlorine atoms
react with ozone to convert it
into two molecules of oxygen
(Figure A-19). More important,
chlorine acts as a catalyst
and is unchanged in the
process. Consequently, each
chlorine atom can destroy as
many as 10,000 ozone
molecules before it is
returned to the troposphere.
Halons are an
industrially-produced group
of chemicals that contain
bromine, which acts in a
manner similar to chlorine
by catalytically destroying
ozone. Halons are used
primarily in fire
extinguishing foam.
Laboratory tests have
shown that nitrogen oxides
also remove ozone from the
stratosphere. Levels of
nitrous oxide (N2O) are rising
from increased combustion of
fossil fuels and use of
nitrogen-rich fertilizers.
Ozone Hole Over
Antarctica
In 1985, atmospheric scientists of the British
Antarctic Survey published the unexpected
finding that there is an ozone "hole" in the
atmosphere over Antarctica. They found that
springtime levels of ozone in the stratosphere over
Halley Bay, Antarctica had decreased by more
than 40 percent between 1977 and 1984.
Measurements taken from space by the Nimbus-7
satellite showed that the loss was occurring above
an area greater than the size of the entire
Antarctic continent. The British study provided
the first evidence that the stratospheric layer of
ozone surrounding the earth might be in greater
jeopardy than previously thought.
In 1987, scientists from four countries met in
Punta Arenas, Chile to conduct the most detailed
study to date, the Airborne Antarctic Ozone
Experiment. Data from high altitude airplanes,
ground monitors, and satellites were used to
gather detailed information about its size and
chemistry. Investigators concluded not only that
the ozone hole in 1987 was the largest ever, but
that it is caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
It is now clear that CFCs are responsible for
reducing the amount of ozone in the atmosphere.
Moreover, the CFCs that have already been
released into the stratosphere will continue to
break down ozone for decades to come.
FIGURE A-19
How Ozone Is Destroyed
Chlorine monoxide
Chlorofluorocarbon molecule
In the upper atmosphere ultraviolet
light breaks off a chlorine atom
from a chlorofluorocarbon molecule.
The chlorine attacks an ozone molecule breaking
it apart. An ordinary oxygen molecule and a
molecule of chlorine monoxide are formed.
Free oxygen atom
,**•'
A free oxygen atom breaks up the
chlorine monoxide. The chlorine
is free to repeat the process.
39
-------
EFFORTS
TO DATE
In the early 1970s, CFCs
were primarily used in
aerosol propellants. After
1974, U.S. consumption of
aerosols had dropped sharply
as public concern intensified
about stratospheric ozone
depletion from CFCs.
Moreover, industry
anticipated future regulation
and shifted to other lower
cost chemicals. In 1978, EPA
ind other Federal agencies
banned the nonessential use
of CFCs as propellants.
However, other uses of CFCs
continued to grow, and only
Canada and a few European
nations followed the United
States' lead in banning CFC
use in aerosols.
In recognition of the global
nature of the problem, 31
nations representing the
majority of the
CFC-producing countries
signed the Montreal Protocol
in 1987. The Protocol, which
must be ratified by at least
11 countries before it
becomes official at the start
bf 1989, requires developed
nations to freeze
consumption of CFCs at 1986
levels by mid-1990 and to
halve usage by 1999. The
Protocol provides for periodic
assessments and rapid
revision should scientific
analysis indicate the need for
such steps. Additional
features of the Protocol
Polar ice-caps are at risk of further melting from global warming.
include provisions on trade
and enforcement to ensure
that nations that fail to take
responsibility for protecting
the ozone layer do not gain
any economic advantage.
Many of the countries that
signed the Protocol now are
moving toward its
ratification.
In addition to
implementing the Montreal
Protocol, EPA is working
with industry, the military,
and other government
organizations to reduce
unnecessary emissions of
CFCs and halons by altering
work practices and testing
procedures, or by removing
institutional obstacles to
reductions. We are working
with the National Air and
Space Administration, the
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
the Department of Energy,
the National Science
Foundation, and other federal
agencies to better understand
the effects of global warming
and stratospheric ozone
depletion.
In 1986 and again in 1987,
research teams were sent to
investigate the causes and
implications of the hole in
the ozone over Antarctica. In
1986 we published a
multi-volume summary with
the United Nations on the
effects of global atmospheric
change. In addition, in 1987
we published a major risk
assessment of the
implications of continued
emission of gases that can
alter the atmosphere and
climate.
In December of 1987, the
Agency published proposed
regulations for implementing
the Montreal Protocol. The
provisions of the Protocol
would be implemented by
limiting the production of
regulated chemicals and
allowing the marketplace to
determine their future price
and specific uses.
40
-------
TODAY'S EPA'S
CHALLENGES AGENDA
While the Montreal Protocol
represents a major step
toward safeguarding the
earth's ozone layer,
considerable work remains to
be done. Our major challenge
is to develop a better
understanding of the effects
of stratospheric ozone
depletion and global warming
on human health, agriculture,
and natural ecosystems.
Substantial scientific
uncertainty still exists. More
must be learned about the
Antarctic ozone hole and its
implications, both for that
region and the rest of the
earth. More must also be
learned about recent evidence
of global ozone losses of 2 to
5 percent during the past 15
years. Any new scientific
information must be
incorporated into the
upcoming 1989/90
assessments called for by the
Montreal Protocol.
Efforts to develop
alternatives to CFCs and
halons must be expedited.
The Montreal Protocol
provides a clear signal for
industry to shift away from
these chemicals. New
technologies and new
chemicals that will not
deplete the ozone layer and
increased conservation and
recovery are essential to
reducing the economic effects
of the Protocol both in the
United States and abroad. In
the short time since the
Protocol was signed, major
advancements in alternative
technologies have been
announced for CFC use in
food packaging and solvents.
Yet these are only a
beginning and more must be
done.
We plan to continue
international efforts to
protect the ozone layer and
to assess the risks of future
climate change. We will send
advisory teams to several key
nations to help them explore
options for reducing use of
CFCs, such as producing
different products,
substituting other chemicals,
and controlling emissions.
We are expanding our
efforts to address the
greenhouse effect by
continuing to study the
potential consequences of
global warming, such as sea
level rise and loss of
agricultural productivity. In
1988 the Agency will submit
reports to Congress on the
effects of global warming and
ways to limit the emissions
of greenhouse gases.
Stratospheric ozone depletion is increasing the risk of skin cancer from exposure to sun light.
-------
42
-------
-------
WATER
In the past 18 years since
EPA was established, our
nation has made significant
progress in restoring water
quality. At the same time,
we have learned that many
water resources have become
increasingly threatened.
• Ground water is being
contaminated by leaking
underground storage tanks,
fertilizers and pesticides,
uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites, septic tanks, drainage
wells, and other sources,
threatening 50 percent of the
nation's drinking water
supplies for half of this
nation's population.
• Many coastaL towns along
the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico have to close beaches
one or more times during the
summer months because of
shoreline pollution.
• In Puget Sound, fecal
coliform bacteria
contaminate oysters, and the
harbor seals have higher
concentrations of
Solychlorinated biphenyls
?CBs) than almost any other
seal population in the world.
• Wetlands, the most
productive wildlife habitat on
an acre-per-acre basis, are
being destroyed at a rate
between 350,000 to 500,000
acres per year.
This chapter provides an
overview of the nation's
water pollution problems and
describes the progress
achieved so far and major
challenges remaining.
44
-------
AN OVERVIEW
EPA; in partnership with
state and local
governments, is responsible
for improving and protecting
water quality. These efforts
are organized around three
themes. The first is
maintaining the quality of
drinking water. This is
addressed by monitoring and
treating drinking water prior
to consumption and by
minimizing the
contamination of the surface
water and protecting against
contamination of ground
water needed for human
consumption. The second
theme is preventing the
degradation and destruction
of critical aquatic habitats,
including wetlands, nearshore
coastal waters, oceans, and
lakes. The third is reducing
the pollution of free-flowing
surface waters and protecting
their uses.
Drinking water is provided
to 200 million Americans (83
percent of the population) by
58,000 community water
supply systems and to
nonresidential locations such
as campgrounds, schools, and
factories by 160,000
small-scale suppliers. The
balance of Americans are
served by private wells. The
drinking water supplied to
over half of all Americans is
drawn from ground water,
which comprises about 90
percent of the nation's
available fresh water. In rural
areas, ground water is the
source of 95 percent of
drinking water consumed.
Protection of ground water
from contamination must be
a major component of our
nation's effort to provide
good quality drinking water.
Untreated water drawn
from ground water and
surface waters, (such as lakes
and rivers), can contain
contaminants that pose acute
and chronic threats to human
health. EPA has developed a
program for monitoring and
treating surface water before
it is consumed. Because
significant problems still
remain, EPA is continuing its
work in establishing
standards for contaminants
found in drinking water and
continuing to ensure
compliance with all drinking
water standards.
Wetlands, coastal waters,
marine waters, and lakes
serve as breeding areas for
commercial and sport
fisheries and other wildlife,
and as recreational areas for
millions of residents and
tourists. For a variety of"
reasons, some of these
critical aquatic habitats have
been significantly degraded or
destroyed during our nation's
history, and many more are
threatened. EPA is placing
particular emphasis on the
protection of these resources.
In the early 1970's the
nation recognized the impact
of conventional pollutants on
surface waters and developed
programs for their control.
EPA and the states have
established a major program
of establishing standards for
our surface waters and
subsequent permitting and
enforcement to safeguard
these standards. Now we are
also aware of the impact of
toxic pollutants in surface
water. In 1986, 27 states
reported detectable levels of
toxic contaminants in fish
tissue and 23 reported
concentrations in localized
areas exceeding levels
considered safe by the Food
and Drug Administration.
Continuing to protect rivers,
lakes, and streams is the
third focus of EPA's effort to
protect our nation's water
resources.
LAWS PROTECTING
WATER RESOURCES
Congress has given EPA, the
states, and Indian tribal
governments broad authority
to deal with water pollution.
The principal law is the
Clean Water Act of 1972
(CWA). The CWA's goal is to
"restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the
nation's waters." Under this
mandate, EPA has developed
regulations and programs to
reduce pollutants entering all
surface waters, including
lakes, rivers, estuaries,
oceans, and wetlands. In 1987
Congress passed the Water
Quality Act of 1987 that
reauthorized and
strengthened the Clean Water
Act. The amendments ensure
continued support for
municipal sewage treatment
plants, initiate a new
state-federal program to
control nonpoint source
pollution, and accelerate the
imposition of tighter controls
on toxic pollutants.
The Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) of 1974 created
major legislative authority for
protecting drinking water
resources. This act, which
was amended in 1986,
requires the establishment of
additional drinking water
standards as well as
protection of underground
sources of drinking water
from underground disposal of
fluids. The 1986 amendments
to the SDWA also established
two new major ground-water
protection programs: the
wellhead protection program
to protect areas around public
drinking water wells and the
sole-source aquifer
demonstration program to
protect unique underground
water supplies.
To protect the marine
environment from the
harmful effects of ocean
dumping, Congress enacted
the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act
in 1972. This act established
a permit program to ensure
that dumping of wastes in
the ocean does not cause
degradation of the marine
environment.
Additional environmental
laws such as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund),
and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) require
measures that ultimately
improve and protect our
inland, marine and
ground-water resources.
45
-------
SOURCES OF THE
PROBLEM AND EPA'S
APPROACH
The job of cleaning and
protecting the nation's
drinking water, coastal zone
waters, and surface waters is
made complex by the variety
of sources of pollution that
affect them. In general, water
quality problems are caused
by one of four major
categories of pollution
sources: municipal,
industrial, npnpoint, and
dredge and fill activities (see
Figure W-l). A stream or
ground-water aquifer may be
affected by only one of these
sources. More often, they are
polluted by a combination of
these sources.
Municipal Sources
Municipal wastewater
consists primarily of water
from toilets and "gray water"
from sinks, showers, and
other uses. This wastewater
which runs through city
sewers may be contaminated
by organic materials,
nutrients, sediment, bacteria,
and viruses. Toxic substances
used in the home, including
crankcase oil, paint,
household cleaners, and
pesticides, also make their
way into sewers. In many
towns, industrial facilities are
hooked into the municipal
system and frequently
discharge toxic metals and
organic chemicals into the
systems. Storm water from
downspouts, streets, and
parking lots, sometimes
enters the municipal system
through street sewers and
may carry with it residues,
toxic chemicals, and
sediments.
Municipal pollution can be
controlled by properly
constructed and maintained
household systems and,
where necessary, by the
construction and operation of
sewage treatment plants.
Toxics discharged by industry
are controlled by
"pretreating" industrial
wastes before they are
discharged into municipal
sewers. Initially, the CWA
mandated a program of
federal grants to share the
cost of sewage treatment
plant construction with
states and local governments.
The 1987 amendments
provided for phasing out this
program and replacing it with
state revolving funds with
initial seed money provided
to the states by EPA.
The CWA also created a
program to issue permits to
every facility that discharges
waste into water, including
all sewage plants. The
FIGURE W-l
Major Causes of Stream Pollution
(for 370,000 stream miles not meeting designated uses)
Industrial Sources 9%
Municipal Sources 17%
Background Sources 6%
I Other/Unknown Sources
permits, under the National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System or
NPDES, establish the amount
of each pollutant that the
plant may discharge based on
national, technology-based
effluent limits or, where
necessary, the quality of the
water as determined by state
water quality standards.
Industrial Sources
The use of water in industrial
processes, such as the
manufacturing of steel or
chemicals, produces billions
of gallons of wastewater
daily. Some industrial
pollutants are similar to
those in municipal sewage
but often more concentrated.
Others are more exotic and
include a great variety of
heavy rnetals and synthetic
organic substances. In large
enough dosages, these
pollutants may present
serious hazards to human
health and aquatic organisms.
Industrial water pollution
control also relies mainly on
the enforcement of NPDES
permits. Many industrial
permits are now being
revised to improve control of
toxic substances in their
discharges.
Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint sources of water
pollution are multiple,
diffuse sources of pollution as
opposed to a single "point"
source such as a discharge
pipe from a factory. For
example, rainwater washing
over farmlands and carrying
top soil and chemical
residues into nearby streams
is a major nonpoint source of
water pollution. Primary
nonpoint sources of pollution
include water runoff from
farming, urban areas, mining,
forestry, and construction
activities.
The major pollutant from
nonpoint sources by volume
is sediment. Runoff also may
carry oil and gasoline,
agricultural chemicals,
nutrients, heavy metals, and
other toxic substances, as
well as bacteria, viruses, and
oxygen-demanding compounds.
Nonpoint sources now
comprise the largest source of
water pollution, contributing
65 percent of the
contamination in impaired
rivers, 76 percent in impaired
lakes, and 45 percent in
impaired estuaries.
Dredge and Fill
Activities
When waterways are dredged
to make them wider or
deeper, the dredging churns
up bottom sediments and
other pollutants, such as
PCBs and heavy metals, that
are bound to the sediments.
These resuspended pollutants
thus get a new chance to
pollute the environment.
Moreover, when dredged
materials are dumpecT
onshore, they can seriously
harm sensitive wetland areas
such as swamps, bogs, and
coastal marshes. Fill
material, too, harms wetlands
when used to provide
development sites.
The federal program to
regulate through permits the
discharge of dredged or fill
material in United States
waters is jointly administered
by EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. As part of
its responsibility, EPA
encourages careful
consideration of alternative
sites and methods to mitigate
the effects of dredged or fill
material on wetlands or open
waters.
Source: 305(b) 1986 National Report
-------
Legislative Tools
1
Congress has provided EPA and the
states with three primary statutes to
control and reduce water pollution:
the Clean Water Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act. Each statute provides a variety
of tools that can be used to meet the
challenges and complexities of
reducing water pollution in our
nation.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Standards
The states adopt water quality
standards for every stream within
their borders. These standards
include a designated use such as
fishing or swimming and prescribe
criteria to protect that use. The
criteria are pollutant specific and
represent the permissible levels of
substances in the waters that would
enable the use to be achieved. Water
quah'ty standards are the basis for
nearly all water quality management
decisions. Depending upon the
standard adopted for a particular
stream, controls may be needed to
reduce the pollutant levels. Water
quality standards are reviewed every
three years and revised as needed.
Effluent Guidelines
EPA develops uniform, nationally
consistent effluent limitations
(pollutant-specific discharge
limitations) for industrial categories
and sewage treatment plants. These
limitations are based on a
consideration of the best available
technology that is economically
achievable. EPA and the states use
these guidelines to establish National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit limitations.
The effluent guidelines are minimum
or baseline limitations; additional
controls may be required to achieve
water quality standards for the
stream segment that receives a
plant's discharge.
Permits and Enforcement
All industrial and municipal facilities
that discharge waste-water directly
into our nations rivers and streams
must have an NPDES permit and are
responsible for monitoring and
reporting discharge levels. The states
and/or EPA inspect dischargers to
determine if they are in compliance
with the permit limitations and : .
conditions. Appropriate enforcement
actions, including criminal actions,
are taken as needed.
Wetlands Protection
EPA and the U.S. Army.Corps of
Engineers implement jointly a permit
program regulating the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States, including
wetlands. As part of this program,
EPA's principal responsibility is to
develop the substantive
environmental criteria by which
permit applications are evaluated.
EPA also reviews the permit
applications and, if necessary, can
veto permits that would result in
significant environmental damage.
National Estuary Program
States nominate and EPA selects
estuaries of national significance that
are threatened by pollution, ,
development, or overuse. EPA and \
the involved state(s) form a
management committee consisting of
numerous workgroups to assess the
problems, identify management
solutions, and develop and oversee
implementation of plans for
addressing the problems.
Grants
The CWA authorizes EPA to provide
financial assistance to states to
support programs such as the
construction of municipal sewage
treatment plants; water quality
monitoring, permitting, and
enforcement; and implementation of
nonpoint source controls. These funds
also may support development and
implemen tation of state ground-water
protection strategies. In addition,
EPA provides grants to states for the
creation of State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds. States, may
use these funds for loans and other
types of financial assistance to local
governments for the construction of
municipal wastewater treatment
plants, implementation of nonpoint
source programs, and the,
development and implementation of
estuary protection programs„
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Standards
EPA establishes standards for
drinking water quality. These
standards represent the Maximum
Containinant Levels (MCL)
allowable, and consist of numerical
..criteria for specified contaminants.
Treatment and Monitoring
Local water supply systems are
required to monitor their drinking
water periodically for contaminants
with MCLs and for a broad range of
other contaminants as specified by
EPA. Additionally, to protect
underground sources of drinking
water, EPA requires periodic
monitoring of wells used for
underground injection of hazardous
waste, including monitoring of the
ground water above the wells.
Enforcement
States have the primary
responsibility for the enforcement of
drinking water standards,
monitoring, and reporting
requirements. States also determine
requirements for environmentally
sound underground injection of
. wastes. . .:.... -.."...'.... . ,.',.._....,
Grants
The Safe Drinking Water Act
authorizes EPA to award grants to
states for developing and
implementing programs to protect
drinking water at the tap and
ground-water resources. These several
grant programs may be for supporting
state public water supply, wellhead
protection, and underground injection
programs, including compliance and
enforcement.
MARINE PROTECTION,
RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES
ACT (TITLE I)
Permits, Enforcement, and Site
Designation
EPA designates recommended sites
and times for ocean dumping. Actual
dumping at these designated sites
requires a permit. EPA and the Corps
of Engineers share this permitting
authority, with the Corps responsible
for the permitting of dredged material
(subject to an EPA review role), and
. EPA responsible for permitting all
other types of materials. The Coast
Guard monitors the activities and
EPA is responsible for assessing
penalties for violations. EPA also is
responsible for designating sites and
times for the ocean dumping
activities.
47
-------
FIGURE W-2
::;MajorSources of Ground Water
Contamination Reported by States
PROGRESS TO DATE
Overall, the national strategy
to restore and maintain water
quality is working. A strong
cooperative relationship has
been developed among the
federal, state, and local
jurisdictions responsible for
maintaining the integrity of
our waters. Expenditures by
EPA, the states, and local
governments to construct and
update sewage treatment
facilities have substantially
increased the population
served. Public awareness and
concern over safe drinking
water has increased due to
more frequent reporting of
the occurrence or
contamination in finished
water. Interest in protecting
ecologically critical areas
such as wetlands and
estuaries has increased in the
public and private sectors. By
focusing primarily on point
sources, the United States
has kept significant amounts
of pollutants out of its
surface waters.
Details of the progress
made in protecting drinking
water, critical aquatic
habitats, and surface waters
from pollution generated by
municipalities, industry,
nonpoint sources, and
dredging activities is
summarized below.
Protecting Drinking
Water Sources
EPA's program to protect the
nation's drinking water
focuses on two areas:
protecting ground water and
assuring mat water being
consumed meets health-based
standards.
There are many potential
sources of ground-water
contamination resulting from
commercial and household
activities, and hundreds of
chemicals have been found in
ground water (see Figure W-2).
Recognizing the high costs or
treating and cleaning up
contaminated ground water,
EPA and the states have
worked together on
developing and implementing
a variety of ground-water
protection management,
research, and control
48
Source
,,,' ."" .." ;; '. "' " .:..'::''' "," ' ; •„
Septic Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks
Agricultural Activities
On-site Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Municipal Landfills
Abandoned Waste Sites
Oil and Gas Brine Pits
No. of States
Reporting "
; • ; ;• Source
46
43
41
34
33
32
. . " 29
22
No. of States
Reporting as
Ifnmary Source * *
9
13
6
5
2
1
3
2
i
:
f
"1
^
f
!•
"i
ni
focus is on problem
recognition, developing new
program strategies, and
beginning research and
development of protection
and cleanup technologies.
Some significant
accomplishments already
exist:
Saltwater Intrusion
Other Landfills
Road Salting
Land Application of Sludge
Regulated Waste Sites
Mining Activities
Underground Injection Wells
Construction Activities
19
18
16
12
12
11
9
2
und- water
ii:i "Ba^d^pr^aJptal.o^SI Sjiales^ar^jerrllprfes^hic .
contamination sources in their 1986 305 (b) submittafs.
...... •SomeiiStatesiidid npt^indicatea^rirnary source.^ ,r.i(i ........... ^ii(n ..... 1 |
; Sourcg: JJQgjj J986 Nations] Report ...... _ _.__ ...... ._. __ ^
activities. In 1984, EPA
adopted a Ground-Water
Protection Strategy that was
designed as a comprehensive
approach to protecting our
nation's ground-water. States
have developed and are
starting to implement
strategies to deal with
ground-water problems,
including Wellhead
Protection programs to
protect public wells providing
drinking water.
Indeed, the nation has
become increasingly aware of
the need to protect recharge
areas of wells. Many states
are moving forward to create
statewide or more localized
wellhead protection
programs. EPA is providing
numerous technical
assistance documents and
training to help states with
their wellhead protection
efforts.
When the Safe Drinking
Water Act became law, the
federal government had little
reliable information about
water suppliers, the quality
of the drinking water being
provided, the treatment
techniques used, or even
about water system owners.
This information was
available for only about
19,200 community water
systems in 1969. Today this
information is available on
more than 58,000 systems.
To protect drinking water,
EPA established standards
defining the maximum
extent to which
contaminants are allowed. In
the past decade, the Agency
has issued Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
for 26 important pollutants
in drinking water. In 1986, 87
percent of 58,000 public
water systems were meeting
these federal standards.
Standards for 83 additional
MCLs will be established by
1989.
An active enforcement
program, in partnership with
the states, also has been
successful in identifying the
most flagrant violations of
treatment standards and
working with communities
to return water systems to
compliance.
Protecting Critical
Aquatic Habitats
EPA only recently started to
focus attention on critical
aquatic habitats as a major
environmental problem. The
current program combines
the expertise and experience
of EPA, other federal
agencies, and state and local
governments. The initial
• EPA has successfully
pioneered coastal waterbody
management programs in the
Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay, and in other estuaries
under its National Estuary
Program. We are now
expanding our efforts to reach
other waters through
implementing a newly
developed strategic plan for
improving the management
of near coastal waters. This
Near Coastal Waters
Initiative is the next step in
improving the waters of our
bays, estuaries, coastal
wetlands and the coastal
ocean.
• Great strides have been
made in changing public
views on wetland areas. Over
50 percent of the wetlands in
the lower 48 states have been
converted to other uses
within the last 200 years. By
the mid-1950s, the rate of
wetland loss was 458,000
acres annually; and annual
losses are estimated to
continue at 350,000 to
500,000 acres. These areas
which once were treated as
unhealthy wastelands fit only
to be drained and filled are
now recognized for the wide
variety of important natural
functions they provide. This
is an important first step in
developing a comprehensive
approach to the protection
and management of wetlands.
Within recent years, EPA has
been taking an increasingly
active role in the Clean
Water Act dredge and fill
permitting program. Evidence
of EPA's increased role is the
Agency's use, in appropriate
circumstances, of its veto
authority of Corps of
Engineers approved permits.
EPA also has initiated
projects to identify and
protect sensitive wetlands
-------
Degree of Designated Use Support in the
Nation's Waters*
Rivets
(miles)
Lakes
(acres)
Estuaries
(sq. miles)
Total in U.S.**
Assessed
(% of Total)
Fully Supporting
(% of Assessed)
Partially Supporting Uses
(% of Assessed)
Not Supporting Uses
(% of Assessed)
Unknown
(% of Assessed)
1,800,000 39,400,000 ,32,000 }
370,544 12,531,846 17,606 *
.. • (21%) (32%) .' ;(55%) j
274,537 9,202,752 13,154 '
(74%) ; .(73%). (75%) I
70,916 2,181,331 : 3,224 ^
(19%) (17%) (18%) j
22,974
(6%)
2,127
(1%)
859,080 1,177
.(7%). .(7%) ,{
288,684 51 n
(2%) (0.30%) I
•Based on 1986 Sec. 305|b| data as follows: for rivers 42 States and territories
reported; for lakes, 37 States reported; for estuaries, 20 States reported.
"Total waters based on State-reported information in America's Clean Water:
The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment, ASIWPCA, 1985. Total U.S.,. estuarine
square miles excludes Alaska
-1
throughout the country. In
addition, EPA is working
with other federal agencies to
eliminate policies that
encourage wetlands
destruction.
• EPA has made progress in
the last four years limiting
the amount of primary
treated effluent discharged to
the ocean on all coasts.
These improvements have
been achieved by
significantly reducing the
amount of wastes dumped in
the ocean, and by transferring
the disposal of New York and
New Jersey sewage sludge
from nearshore sites to more
environmentally sound,
deep-water sites.
Protecting Surface
Waters
One of the best measures of
progress in cleaning up
surface water is the extent to
which the water quality goals
of the Clean Water Act have
been achieved. State and
federal data indicate that our
water pollution efforts have
made significant headway to
restore or protect surface
water quality. Many rivers
that once were heavily
degraded by municipal and
industrial discharges now are
safe for swimming and
fishing again.
• Over 99 percent of the
Nation's streams are
designated for water uses
equal to or better than the
"fishable/swimmable" goal
mandated by Congress in
1972. The states reported
that of the 370,544 miles of
rivers assessed in 1986,
designated uses were fully
supported on 74 percent,
partially supported in 19
percent (i.e. some designated
uses are met), and not
supported in 6 percent (see
Figure W-3).
• The Nation's ability to
treat its wastewater has
improved substantially since
1972. Under the Clean Water
Act, secondary treatment to
remove 85 percent of key
constituents such as oxygen
demanding material and
suspended solids is the
minimum treatment required
of sewage treatment plants
nationwide. Many treatment
facilities now achieve even
greater removals of these
constituents and nutrients
such as phosphates or
nitrates. The total population
served by secondary
treatment or better has
increased from 85 million in
1972 to 127 million in 1986.
At the same time, the total
population discharging
untreated wastewater to
rivers or lakes dropped from
5 million to less than 2
million. EPA's construction
grants program has assisted
this process by providing
federal funds for projects at
over 5,000 treatment plants.
Partnership in Action
in the Great Lakes
Canada and the United States share the largest
area of fresh water on earth (with the exception of
the polar ice caps): the Great Lakes. This vast
resource, containing 20 percent of the world's fresh
water, provides drinking water, recreational
opportunities, and routes for commerce and
travel. Industrial, municipal, and agricultural
activities in the Great Lakes Basin have resulted in
pollutant accumulation over time, because the
Great Lakes are to a large extent a closed system.
Less than one percent of the lakes' waters flow out
through the St. Lawrence River per year.
The U.S. and Canada cooperate through the
International Joint Commission to resolve problems
in the Great Lakes. In November of 1987, the U.S.
and Canada renegotiated the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement that was first signed in 1972.
They identified further steps to protect the Great
Lakes ecosystem from toxic substances.
Prior to 1972, severely degraded conditions were
evident within the Great Lakes, particularly in
Lake Erie. Cooperative efforts by the United States
and Canada in response to the problems have
resulted in a major recovery in the Lakes'
condition, primarily through expenditure of $7.6
billion since 1972 for construction and upgrading of
municipal sewage treatment facilities. In addition
to controlling phosphorus discharges from sewage
treatment plants, Canada and several U.S. states
limited amounts of phosphates allowed in laundry
products. These efforts, coupled with strict controls
on industrial wastewater, largely have freed the
lakes from their oppressive nutrient burden.
Progress in the area of toxic chemical pollutants,
however, has been much more difficult.
Remedial action plans are being prepared for
geographical areas of concern where problems are
most severe. The Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement specifically calls for identification of
contaminated sediment areas, watershed
management for nonpoint source pollution,
monitoring airborne toxics, mapping of
contaminated ground-water, and efforts for
coordinated bilateral research. "Lakewide
Management Plans" will be prepared for critical
pollutants affecting the open waters of the Lakes.
Lakewide plans exist already for control of
phosphorus. Plans for toxic pollutant control will
follow a similar pattern.
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
The Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act
place great reliance on state
and local initiatives in
addressing water problems.
With the enactment of the
1986 Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments and the
1987 Water Quality Act,
significant additional
responsibilities were assigned
to EPA and the states. Faced
with many competing
programs and limited
resources, the public sector
will need to set priorities.
With this in mind, EPA is
encouraging states to address
National Pollutant Discharge
Eliniinatign System
Wfȣt & a NPDES^ Permit}
Under the Clean Water Act, the
di&hdrge of pollutants into the waters
of Hie United States is prohibited unless
a permit is issued by EPA or a state
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). These
permits must be. renewed at least once
every five years, There are
approximately 48,400 industrial and
15,300 municipal facilities that
Currently have NPDES permits.
What Do NPD£S Permits Contain*
An NPDES permit contains effluent
limitations and monitoring and
reporting requirements. Effluent
limitations are restrictions on the
amount of specific pollutants that a
factiitjrcairt discharge into a stream,
~ rivjr, or harbor. Monitoring and
regotting requirements are specific
="-instruction's on how sampling of the
li'se"ffluent should be done to check
whether the effluent limitations are
being met. Instructions may include
'fjqjtffgd sampling frequency (i.e., daily,
weekly, or monthly) and the type of
monitoring required. The permittee may
be required to monitor the effluent on a
daily, weekly, or monthly basis. The
thonitoring results are then regularly
Field biologists monitor water quality of streams
reported to the EPA and state
authorities. When a discharger fails to
comply with the effluent limitations or
monitoring and reporting requirements,
EPA or the state may take enforcement
action.
How Are These Effluent Limitations
Developed}
Congress recognized that it would be an
overwhelming task for EPA to establish
effluent limitations for each individual
industrial and municipal discharger.
Therefore, Congress authorized the
Agency to develop uniform effluent
limitations for each category of point
sources such as steel mills, paper mills,
and pesticide manufacturers. The
Agency develops these effluent
limitations on the basis of many factors,
most notably efficient treatment
technologies. Once EPA proposes an
effluent limit and public comments are
received, EPA or the states issue all
point sources within that industry
category NPDES permits using the
technology-based limits. Sewage
treatment plants also are provided with
effluent limitations based on technology
performance.
What Are Water Quality-Based Limits*
Limitations that are more stringent than
those based on technology are
sometimes necessary to ensure that
state developed water quality standards
are met. For example, several different
facilities may be discharging into one
stream, creating pollutant levels
harmful to fish. In this case, the
facilities on that stream must meet
more stringent treatment requirements,
known as water quality-based
limitations. These limits are developed
by determining the amounts of
pollutants that the stream can safely
absorb and calculating permit limits
such that these amounts are not exceeded.
their water quality problems
by developing State Clean
Water Strategies. These
strategies are to set forth
state priorities over a
multi-year period. They will
help target the most valuable
and/or most threatened water
resources for protection.
Success in the water
programs is increasingly tied
to state and local leadership
and decision-making and to
public support. EPA will
work with state and local
agencies, industry,
environmentalists, and the
public as we develop our
environmental agenda in the
following three areas:
• Protection of drinking
water: Although more
Americans are receiving safer
drinking water than ever
before, there are still serious
problems with contamination
of drinking water supplies
and of ground water that is or
could be used for human
consumption. Contaminated
ground water has caused well
closings in every state. The
extent and significance of
contamination by toxics has
not been fully assessed for
most of the nation's rivers
and lakes, which are often
used for drinking water
supply. All of these issues are
areas for continued work and
improvement.
• Protection of critical
aquatic habitats:
Contamination or destruction
of previously underprotected
areas such as oceans,
wetlands, and near coastal
waters must be addressed.
• Protection of surface-water
resources: EPA and the states
will need to establish a new
phase of the federal-state
partnership in ensuring
continuing progress in
addressing conventional
sources of pollution and in
SO
-------
creating and managing state
revolving loan funds for
municipal wastewater
treatment. Additionally, we
will need to address the
increasingly apparent
problems caused by toxic
pollutants discharged into
our waters and by the
nonpoint sources of
pollutants coming from farm
lands and city streets.
Overall, we have made
significant gains in protecting
the quality of the nations
waters since 1970. The most
fundamental challenge now
is to maintain these gains,
strengthen the state and local
organizations we have relied
on to carry out these
programs, and move forward
together to address new
problems.
Dealing with Environmental Variability:
The Ecoregion Approach
Most people recognize that the
landscape of the United States is not
just a grab bag of environmental
characteristics, but rather is the
result of specific combinations of
weather patterns, vegetation, and
land forms. Environmental managers
must account for these local
variations when developing pollution
control programs. This is especially
true in managing water quality. For
example, the effect of a toxic
chemical discharge on living
organisms will vary, depending upon
the temperature, flow, and other
natural conditions of the water body.
Many of the traditional approaches
to controlling water pollution are
based on water quality criteria. These
criteria are scientifically derived
in-stream concentrations of
chemicals that will protect a desired
use for the water. Although the
criteria can be adjusted for some
local variability in pH and water
hardness, they are not sensitive to
other site-specific conditions. These
local variations can significantly
affect the toxicity of a chemical on
stream life.
A principal complaint against these
national criteria is that they are too
general for some local conditions,
resulting in either underprotection or
overprotection of the water body. In
such cases, states are encouraged to
develop site-specific criteria and to
designate more specialized categories
of water use. Although this is a
desirable approach, the process of
conducting these intensive studies at
numerous sites within a state is very
costly.
Several states are working with
biologists and geographers at the EPA
research laboratory in Corvallis,
Oregon to develop a less costly,
method for conducting these studies.
Instead of developmg^umque water
quality criteria for thousands of
small segments of rivers or streams,
scientists have studied regional
characteristics, such as the surface of
the land; soils, natural vegetation,
and land use, and have identified 76
homogeneous ecological regions or
"ecoregions" for the United States;
The approach is based on the
hypothesis that streams reflect the
characteristics of the watersheds, or
lands they drain. The scientists have
shown that streams within a
particular ecoregion are more similar
to one another in terms of their
physical habitat, hydrology, water
chemistry, and types of fish and
aquatic insects than they are to
streams in other ecoregions. It might
be appropriate, therefore, for EPA to
derive one set of water quality
criteria for all similar ecoregions.
Ecoregion analyses have been used
for both research and regulatory
purposes. For example, an ecoregion
approach has been used to identify
surface waters that are sensitive to
acidic deposition. This helps
researchers decide where and when
to monitor water quality, and assists
them in developing programs to
modify or eliminate the effects of
acid rain. In Arkansas and Ohio, the
primary use of this concept has been
to reexamine state: water quality
criteria and standards. The
motivation for undertaking the
ecoregion program in Arkansas was
that many of the state's cleanest
streams and lakes had not met
national water quality standards
because of naturally occurring
physical and chemical conditions.
Rather than enforce inappropriate
standards, state officials undertook
an ambitious program to assess water
quality and ecological conditions in
least disturbed streams in each of the
six ecoregions that were identified in
Arkansas. These least disturbed
streams will be used as "reference
streams" for comparative studies of
polluted areas and as a basis for
setting achievable water quality
goals. Ohio has conducted similar
analyses for its five ecoregions.
The ecoregion approach is designed
to provide a sound basis for
reclassifying streams where existing
criteria and standards are either too
stringent or too lenient. The
applications of this technique in
Arkansas and Ohio have
demonstrated its usefulness in
developing and evaluating programs
to protect the use of valuable aquatic
resources.
Ohio Ecoregions
Lake Erie
»*„»
* |^w /» i v^ «
Eastern Corn Belt Plains
| | Huron/Erie Lake Plain
Erie/Ontario Lake Plain
I;'. ,8:1 Western Allegheny Plateau
1 I Interior Plateau
" -j__Ji
51
-------
WATER
Drinking Water
Ground-Water Protection
THE
PROBLEM
EPA's drinking water
program is focused in two
areas: minimizing the
contamination of ground
water and surface waters
needed for human
consumption, and monitoring
and treating drinking water
prior to consumption. This
section summarizes EPA's
efforts in these areas. The
Agency's program to protect
surface water is discussed
separately in this chapter.
Half of all Americans (120
million people) and 95
percent of rural Americans,
use ground water for drinking
water (see Figure W-4).
Ground-water is also used for
about half of the nation's
irrigation needs in agriculture
and about one-quarter of the
nation's industrial needs. To
meet this demand, ground
water withdrawals more than
doubled between 1950 and
1980 and have leveled off
since then. Until the 1970's
it was widely thought that
ground water was adequately
protected from
contamination. Since then,
every state in the nation has
found contaminated
ground-water.
EPA reported in 1984 that
at least 8,000 water wells
throughout the nation were
unusable or had degraded
water. As a result of
advanced technological
capabilities, we are
constantly expanding our
understanding of the extent
of ground-water
contamination. However,
because of the complexity of
the ground-water resource
and the expense of
monitoring, we may never
have a complete picture of
the nature and extent of the
problem. We do know,
however, that the current and
potential sources of
ground-water contamination
are vast (see Figure W-5).
Examples of the broad
categories of actual or
potential sources of
contamination include:
• about 29,000 hazardous
waste sites stated as potential
candidates for the Superfund
National Priorities List;
• millions of septic systems
(one-fourth of homes in the
U.S. use such systems or
similar ones);
• over 180,000 surface
impoundments (i.e. pits,
ponds and lagoons);
• an estimated 500
hazardous waste land
disposal facilities, and 16,000
municipal and other landfills;
• Approximately 5-6 million
underground storage tanks,
(hundreds of thousands of
which are estimated to be
leaking);
FIGURE W-4
Estimated Ground-Water Use By States
^^H 50% or more
I | 30% to 49%
| | Less than 30%
Source: Derived from data in a report
entitled Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1980, USGS Circular 1001,
by Wayne B. Solky, Edith B. Chase, and
William B. Mann IV
« thousands of underground
injection wells; and
• millions of tons of
pesticides and fertilizers
spread on the ground,
primarily in the rural areas.
Many of these sources
could contain hundreds of
different chemicals that
could reach ground water and
potentially contaminate
drinking water wells. The
Agency's major concern is
with man-made toxic
chemicals such as the
synthetic organic chemicals
that are pervasive in plastics,
solvents, pesticides, paints,
dyes, varnishes, and ink.
Some of the 40,000
community public water
systems and 13 million
private wells that supply 50
percent of Americans with
drinking water are known to
be contaminated with these
substances. For example:
• Between 1975 and 1985,
about 1,500 to 3,000 public
water supplies out of 40,000
using ground water exceeded
EPA's drinking water
standards for inorganic
substances (fluoride and
nitrates were the most
common problem).
• The Council of
Environmental Quality in
1981 reported major problems
from toxic organics in some
wells in almost all states east
of the Mississippi River
(trichloroethylene, a known
carcinogen, was the most
frequent contaminant found).
• EPA's 1980 Ground-Water
Supply Survey showed that
20% of all public water
supply wells and 29% of
those in urban areas (serving
over 10,000 people] had
detectable levels of at least
one volatile organic
chemical.
• EPA has also found that
about 60 pesticides have been
detected in 30 states at
various levels of
contamination. In most
cases, however, pesticide
levels were below health
advisory levels.
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
• At least 13 organic $
chemicals which are
confirmed animal or human
carcinogens have been
detected in drinking water
wells.
The principal concern over
ground-water contamination
is related to its adverse
impact on human health.
Concerns about the
environmental and ecological
effects of ground-water
contamination, however, are
also growing. Potential
impacts of ground-water
contamination on the
environment include adverse
effects on surface waters and
damage to fish, vegetation,
and wildlife. For example, 15
percent of endangered species
rely upon ground water for
maintaining their habitat.
Many programs and a large
percentage of EPA's budget
support activities to protect,
maintain, and restore
ground-water quality. In this
effort, EPA controls, inspects
and cleans up hazardous
waste disposal facilities,
enforces permit conditions at
underground injection wells,
regulates the annual use of
millions of tons of pesticides,
and helps states develop their
own ground-water protection
programs. The regulated
community encompasses not
only a few large industries
and businesses, but also
small businesses, individual
homeowners, and farmers.
In August 1984, EPA issued
a Ground-Water Protection
Strategy to provide an
integrated framework for the
many EPA statutes affecting
the protection of ground
water. Over the past four
years, we have effectively
applied the strategy to move
EPA and other federal and
state institutions toward
preserving ground water
quality and protecting the
public health.
The Agency's primary goal
is to help state's to develop
and implement ground-water
protection strategies. Since
1984, EPA has provided over
$25 million to;states to help
them develop and carry out
these strategies. As a result,
all fifty states are developing,
or have instituted, overall
state strategies as compared
to eleven in 1985. These
states have assessed their
ground water problems and
made major changes to the
way they carry out ground
water protection efforts. New
state statutes and regulations
have been written, specialists
in hydrology hired, statewide
and local level ground water
task groups established, and
major studies conducted.
Since the issuance of the
Ground-water Protection
Strategy, the Congress passed
the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments (SDWA) of
1986, to require states to
develop a program to protect
areas surrounding drinking
water wells (the wellhead)
from contaminants that may
have adverse health effects.
Wellhead protection areas are
defined as the surface and
subsurface areas surrounding
a water well or wellfield
supplying a public water
system that may be
contaminated through
FIGURE W-5
Sources of Ground-Wate
Evaporation
Contamination
The hydrologic cycle and sources
of ground-water contamination
Ground Water Movement
Intentional Input
Unintentional Input
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
normal or exceptional human
activity.
Further, to implement
EPA's Strategy and the 1986
SDWA Amendments, we
have developed and
distributed documents to
help state and local officials
design and implement
programs to prevent or
reduce ground-water
contamination. EPA ha?
published a series of guides
addressing specific sources of
contamination and addressing
implementation of wellhead
protection programs. We also
are implementing a
ground-water data
management strategy to
provide better information for
ground-water decision
making.
A second goal of the
strategy is to develop a better
understanding of the
ground-water contamination
problems that are of national
concern, including pesticides,
underground storage tanks,
and other diffuse sources of
contamination, and to take
appropriate action. To
achieve this goal, we are
conducting a national survey
of agricultural chemicals,
pesticides, and fertilizers in
drinking water and
developing an "Agricultural
Chemicals in Ground Water
Strategy" in coordination
with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. These activities
will serve to develop an
environmental baseline.
A third goal of the
Ground-Water Protection
Strategy is to create a
consistent and rational policy
for protection and cleanup of
ground water. In 1988, EPA
will publish guidelines for
classifying ground water. The
purpose of this guidance is to
assist in establishing more
consistent prevention and
cleanup goals across the
various EPA programs. As
appropriate, we will
incorporate the classification
system into those regulations
and program guidance that
affect ground water. The
ground-water classification
system is important technical
guidance for EPA programs as
they develop regulatory
policy.
Because ground water is an
integral and often
predominant part of many
EPA programs, another goal
of the EPA Ground-Water
Protection Strategy is to
strengthen EPA's internal
ground-water organization.
For over three years, the
Office of Ground-Water
Protection has been
coordinating the
implementation of
ground-water policies across
the Agency. Each EPA Region
now has a functioning
Ground-Water Protection
Office that primarily assists
states implement the
ground-water policies. We
also have established a
Ground-Water Oversight
Committee at headquarters
at the top levels of
management, and Regional
Ground-Water Coordinating
Committees.
Research is another
essential component of EPA's
ground-water protection
program. Research over the
past three years has led to
new methods to monitor
contamination, track
contaminant movements,
control and clean up
contamination, and to
understand the health and
environmental effects of
contaminants.
Although we have known
about ground-water
contamination problems in
many areas of the country for
several decades, it wasn't
until the late 1970's that the
EPA began to develop a
comprehensive framework for
managing ground-water
resources. This framework
includes utilizing EPA's
statutory authorities for
ground-water protection most
effectively for ground-water
protection, building
institutional capabilities at
the federal and state levels,
and collecting data to
describe the magnitude and
significance of the problem.
Much has happened since the
initial discussions of the
strategic plan to protect this
valuable resource: in 1984,
EPA issued a Ground-Water
Protection Strategy; the
Office of Ground-Water
Protection was established as
a focal point for ground water
in the Agency; in 1986 the
Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments required states
to develop programs to
protect wellhead areas from
contamination; and in 1987,
the Agency developed a
strategic plan to address
contamination of ground
water from agricultural
chemicals. Major
amendments were also made
to RCRA and CERCLA
during this period greatly
strengthening their statutes
ability to protect ground
water.
The increasing focus on
ground-water issues by the
Congress, the public, and
within the Agency, has
resulted in some major
challenges that must be
address over the next 10
years if we are to achieve the
goals of our ground-water
strategy.
Building Capacity in
State Governments and
Indian Tribes
EPA's goal is to build
capacity in state and Indian
tribal governments to protect
their own ground water.
54
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
States and Indian tribes have
the principal responsibility in
ground-water protection and
should maintain their
traditional role in managing
water and land use. The
recent emphasis on
ground-water protection has
resulted in a large
improvement in our
understanding of the extent
and significance of ground
water in EPA programs and
have required the states to
expand their role in many
new and unfamiliar areas.
Agricultural Chemicals
in Ground Water
Pollution of ground water by pesticides and
nitrates due to the application of agricultural
chemicals is a major environmental concern in
many parts of the country, particularly the
Midwest. In Iowa, where agricultural chemicals
are used in 60 percent of the state, some public
and private drinking water wells have exceeded
public health standards for nitrate. Pesticides also
have been found in ground water. About 30 towns
in Nebraska have excessive amounts of nitrate in
their drinking water. Bottled water must be
provided to infants and monthly well testing is
required.
The interagency, interdisciplinary Iowa Big
Spring Basin Demonstration Project is a
seven-year effort to test the ground-water
consequences and economic viability of various
agricultural management techniques. It will
include demonstrations of traditional and
innovative agricultural practices to document
effects on chemical movement, water quality, and
crop production. It also will include educational
programs to help farmers use fertilizers and
pesticides more efficiently.
The Big Spring area in Iowa is a unique
"laboratory" for expanding our understanding of
how farm chemicals get into ground water and
how to prevent contamination. Big Springs is
dominated by farming. Nearly all of its ground
water emerges at Big Spring, so chemicals that
leach into the ground water eventually appear
there. Transport of contaminants to the springs is
extremely rapid due to limestone conditions.
Early research shows nitrate concentrations have
tripled in the last 25 years, paralleling a three-fold
increase in use of nitrogen fertilizers. Toxic
pesticides also have been found in greater
amounts than anticipated.
The $6.8 million Big Spring Project is
considered one of the nation's most significant
studies of the effects of agricultural practices on
ground water. It seeks not only more definitive _
answers on the relationship between ground water
and agricultural practices, but also could provide
the economically stressed farmers with
cost-saving information.
Our principal challenge
then is to support and assist
them in that role. We have
already responded by
providing financial assistance
for state and tribal strategy
development and
implementation as well as
disseminating technical and
policy guidance that will
make this job easier. We will
continue to provide technical
assistance, training and
guidance where necessary to
ensure the development and
effective implementation of
state and tribal programs.
Achieving Consistency
Among EPA Programs
Nearly all human activity
has the potential to adversely
affect ground-water
resources. Consequently,
there are multiple laws,
regulations, policies, and
programs for which EPA is
responsible. The strength of
our protection efforts will be
vastly improved if we can get
the many participants to
support a. well coordinated
and comprehensive approach
to ground-water protection.
Critical elements of this
approach are the differential
protection polity and its
implementation through the
ground-water classification
system.
Increasing Research
Efforts
Our recent investigations
regarding the nature, extent
and significance of
ground-water contamination
has generated a series of
questions. We will continue
our ground-water research
program to increase
knowledge of monitoring,
fate and transport of
pollutants, aquifer
restoration, source control,
and health effects of exposure
to contaminated ground
water. Further, we will
increase our efforts to
disseminate our research
findings to state and local
governments and the private
sector through1 a technical
assistance and training
program.
To meet the challenges of
protecting ground-water
resources, EPA will increase
efforts to implement the
ground-water protection .
strategy. The following
actions are listed in order pf
priority:
• First and foremost, we will
continue to strengthen the
capability of states and
indian tribes to effectively
manage and protect
ground-water resources. This
will be done by continuing
our support of ground-water
strategies and wellhead
protection programs. We will
develop methods and
techniques for state and local
governments to delineate
high priority areas and
control sources of
contamination that are not
federally regulated.
• The Agency will also
continue efforts to control
sources of contamination of
national concern. The
Agricultural Chemicals in
Ground Water Strategy
provides a comprehensive
and well reasoned plan of
action to manage this
growing problem. We will
encourage its rapid
implementation. Our survey
of Agricultural Chemicals in
Drinking Water will provide
the data necessary to assist in
making choices called for in
this strategy.
• Publication of
classification guidelines will
provide all programs that
address ground water with a
consistent benchmark that
can be used to guide their
activities. We will therefore
assist and encourage all EPA
programs to be consistent
with these guidelines. In
support of the goals of the
guidelines, we are planning
an outreach effort to enable
-------
federal, state and local
grouna-water managers,
private business, and citizens
to understand how EPA plans
to establish priorities in its
efforts to protect and cleanup
ground water.
• EPA will continue its
already substantial research
efforts. We will continue
ground-water research
programs on monitoring, fate
and transport, aquifer
restoration, source control,
and health effects of
contaminants. Particular
emphasis will be placed on
the following: "aquifer
restoration" technology;
pn-site treatment of wastes
in groundwater utilizing
biological microorganisms;
and real time, on-site
monitoring techniques.
• We will continue to
improve the quality and
accessibility of ground-water
data collected by or on behalf
of EPA (for example, by
contractors, and by states
with responsibility for EPA
programs) so that regularly
collected data can be used to
develop a better
understanding of the quality
of our ground water.
• Finally, the Agency will
further efforts to achieve
interagency coordination and
seek a more coordinated
approach to problem
resolution, through
discussions with all federal
departments responsible for
ground-water protection.
Ground-Water Management
in Dade County, Florida
Ill 11 ll| 11 I lull I I 111 hill
Ground water is an abundant and
Vital resource in Florida. It supplies
most gf ih&.&tat£s drinking water
and industrial needs, as well as
aboui half of the^state's agricultural
iieeds. However, Florida also has
mayx $owrg«?s; of ground-water
cori'tWrninalibn itiat threaten this
M mSSUrce, These sources .,
ie industrial wastewater
, agricultural pesticides and
g, peaking^underground
tanks, landfills, mining
:-activities^ and 'salt-water intxusipn.
r'ffi 'Swih'&ozid'a", the Biscayne
Aquifer is the sole source of
drinking water far three million
people, many of whom live in
^poptafoirsTDade county, which
'Includes Miami, this aquifer system
„ |j_-^jjjy vulnerable to contamination
{&ec
-------
Drinking Water at the Tap
THE
PROBLEM
The most severe and acute
public health effects from
contaminated drinking water
such as cholera and typhoid
have been eliminated in
America. However, some less
acute and immediate hazards
remain in the Nation's tap
water. These hazards are
associated with a number of
specific contaminants in
drinking water.
Contaminants of special
concern to EPA are lead,
radionuclides,
microbiological
contaminants, and
disinfection by-products. The
remaining hazards also are
related to the low level of
compliance of small
community systems with
national drinking water
standards. Finally, the
Agency is concerned about
potential contamination from
underground injection of
solid and hazardous waste.
Contaminants of Special
Concern
• Lead: The primary source
of lead in drinking water is
corrosion of plumbing
materials, such as lead
service lines and lead solders,
in water distribution systems
and in houses and larger
buildings. Virtually all public
water systems serve
households with lead solders
of varying ages, and most
faucets are made of materials
that can contribute some lead
to drinking water.
The health effects related
to the ingestion of too much
lead are very serious and can
lead to impaired blood
formation, brain damage,
increased blood pressure,
premature birth, low birth
weight and nervous system
disorders. Young children are
especially at risk from high
levels of lead in drinking
water.
• Radionuclides:
Radionuclides are radioactive
isotopes that emit radiation
as they decay. The most
significant radionuclides in
drinking water are radium,
uranium, and radon, all of
which occur in nature. These
radionuclides are seldom
found together in high
concentrations, and relatively
high levels of each
radionuclide tend to be found
in certain areas of the
country; with radium
occurring most frequently in
the Midwest and Appalachian
regions, natural uranium in
the Rocky Mountains, and
radon in the Northeast.
Recent surveys, however,
show that radon also may be
naturally occurring in other
parts of the country.
Ingestion of uranium and
radium in drinking water
may cause cancer of the bone
and kidney. While radium . -
and uranium enter the body
by ingestion, radon, which is
a gas, is usually inhaled after
being released into the air
during showers, baths, and
other activities such as
washing clothes and dishes.
Although radon can be
ingested as well as inhaled, it
is estimated that inhalation
is far more toxic than the
ingestion route. The main
health risk of concern due to
inhalation of radon is lung
cancer.
Radionuclides in drinking
water occur primarily in
those systems that use
ground water. Naturally
occurring radionuclides
seldom are found in surface
waters (such as rivers, lakes,
and streams).
• Microbiological
Contaminants: Water
contains many
microbes—bacteria, viruses,
and protozoa. Although some
organisms are harmless,
others can cause disease. The
Centers for Disease Control
reported 112 waterborne
disease outbreaks from 1981
through 1983. Parasites, such
as Giardia lamblia, were the
cause in 43 cases, while
bacteria and viral pathogens
were the causes in 22 cases.
Microbial contamination
continues to be a national
concern because
contaminated drinking water
systems can rapidly spread
disease.
• Disinfection By-Products:
Disinfection by-products are
produced during water
treatment by the chemical
reactions of disinfectants
with naturally occurring or
synthetic organic materials
present in untreated water.
Many disinfeption
by-products may pose health
risks. These risks tend to be
related to long-term exposure
to low levels of
contaminants. Disinfectants
are essential to safe drinking
water, therefore, EPA is
looking at ways to minimize
the risks from byproducts.
Improving Compliance
of Small Water Supply
Systems
Water supply systems serving
between 25 and 3,300 persons
account for the vast majority
of our nation's public water
suppliers. These small
suppliers also represent the
majority of water systems in
the nation that are not in
compliance with national
drinking water standards.
About one-third of the
systems exceed Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
for contaminants in drinking
water or do not meet
reporting requirements.
Noncompliance with MCLs
may increase as EPA meets
its Congressionally-mandated
responsibility to issue MCLs
for 83 additional constituents
during the next few years.
Many small communities
cannot afford to purchase
equipment necessary for
treating their drinking water
57
-------
adequately or to hire
experienced operators to
maintain drinking water
treatment systems.
Improving compliance by
small systems will be
particularly difficult.
Underground Infection
Wells
Underground injection wells
are used to dispose of solid
and hazardous wastes and
other fluids. If improperly
injected, these wastes can
contaminate underground
sources of drinking water.
This could create health risks
for anyone drawing water
from contaminated sources or
result in otherwise
unnecessary treatment before
drinking.
EPA is particularly
concerned about two types of
Wells, Class I wells and Class
V wells. Class I wells are
used for disposal of hazardous
Waste. Over half of all Liquid
hazardous waste that is
generated in this country is
disposed of in Class I wells.
Class V wells are used for
injecting solid waste into or
above underground sources of
drinking water. These Class
V wells are not subject to
detailed national standards
and some may be damaging
underground sources of
drinking water.
EFFORTS
To DATE
We have established
regulations to implement the
SDWA for coliform bacteria,
turbidity, and a number of
inorganic, organic, and
radioactive chemicals. To
date, MCLs have been set for
26 contaminants as well as
for volatile organic
compounds. These
regulations also call for
periodic monitoring of public
water supplies for the
specified contaminants, and
notification of water users
when any of the standards
are exceeded. Violations of
drinking water criteria and
monitoring and reporting
requirements are analyzed
periodically by state agencies
and EPA.
The process of setting
standards includes the
collection of data on the
toxicology and occurrence of
contaminants, the costs and
economic effects of
treatment, and new methods
of treatment. These data are
needed before the Agency can
objectively assess the extent
of environmental problems
associated with individual
contaminants and set
reasonable standards as
required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. EPA
recently finished a National
Inorganic and Radionuch'des
Survey of drinking water to
determine the occurrence of
organic and radionuclide
contamination in drinking
water across the country.
The 1986 amendments to
the SDWA require EPA to
establish MCLs for 83
contaminants by 1989, and at
least 25 more by 1991. The
amendments also limit the
use of lead solder, flux, and
pipes used in new
installations and repairs of
public water systems. States
are responsible for enforcing
this prohibition.
The amendments require
EPA to issue rules within 18
months for monitoring the
disposal of hazardous waste
below a drinking water
source using Class I injection
wells. Additionally, we are
required to issue a report to
Congress summarizing
results of state surveys of
Class V solid waste disposal
wells. This report was
submitted in September
1987.
As part of our commitment
to state and local community
outreach, the Agency
published health advisories to
help officials determine the
health hazard of unregulated
contaminants in drinking
water. This guidance includes
available scientific data and
information on analytical
methods and treatment
techniques. State and local
officials use these health
advisories to select measures
to protect public health for
contaminants for which no
MCL has yet been
established.
EPA, states, and territories
have the authority to enforce
drinking water standards. At
the beginning of 1988, 54 of
57 states and territories
operated drinking water
programs and were
responsible for ensuring that
public water systems met
federal standards for MCLs.
Thirty-nine states operate
underground injection control
programs.
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
One of the greatest
challenges racing the nation's
safe drinking water program
is communicating to the
public the long-term health
risk associated with drinking
water with low levels of
contaminants. Historically,
public concern with drinking
water quality focused on
health effects such as
Giardiasis, hepatitis, cholera,
typhoid, and Legionnaires
Disease which result from
drinking water containing
disease-causing microbial
organisms. These diseases
appear almost immediately
after consumption of the
contaminated water.
However, exposure to many
other contaminants, such as
organic chemicals,
disinfection by-products, or
radionuclides, may result in
health effects that are less
immediate but are of equal or
greater concern. The
challenge is to effectively
communicate to the public
the significance of these
long-term health risks, and
the importance of reducing
these risks by further
treatment of its drinking
water.
Risks of diseases caused by
microbial contamination
which can be controlled by
disinfection and filtration of
water remain a concern of
the Agency. From 1961
through 1983, there were
Over 575 reported cases of
waterborne disease outbreaks
involving more than 153,000
individual cases of illness
resulting in 23 deaths. From
1981 through 1985, 351 cases
of outbreaks were reported
from public systems which
inadequately treated their
water. And yet, there are still
over 1300 community water
systems and more than 1500
noncommunity water
systems which use surface
water as a source of drinking
water and do not provide
filtration.
58
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
Another challenge is to
overcome the financial
problems faced by public
water supply systems,
especially the small systems.
Many systems lack funds for
treatment technologies or
regular monitoring and
analysis of drinking water.
Because of their size, small
systems have limited access
to capital and there is often
consumer opposition to rate
increases to finance
additional treatment systems.
One possible reason for this
opposition is the lack of
information about the
potential health risks from
inadequate treatment.
The financial problems are
likely to become worse as
EPA meets its mandate under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
New regulations will not
only require public water
systems to treat and monitor
for additional contaminants
but also require systems
which use surface water to
provide filtration and
stringent coliform
monitoring.
Mobilization
A five-year project is
underway to involve agencies
and organizations concerned
about drinking water quality
in mobilizing support and
understanding of national
drinking water problems and
solutions. This effort will
concentrate on the four
contaminants of concern
(radionuclides, lead,
microbiological
contaminants, and
disinfection by-products) and
small system compliance.
EPA hopes to increase
knowledge and awareness of
the drinking water program.
It is also important to
increase the number of
trained personnel in the
public and private sectors.
Finally, we need to increase
the willingness of the public
to pay for improved water
systems.
We will work with as
many agencies and
organizations as possible to
provide technical assistance,
education, and training. For
example, EPA has basic
informational materials, such
as brochures, videos, and
public service
announcements, to use in
meetings and conferences and
to distribute to consumers.
Enforcement
Having more contaminants
to regulate means that
technical assistance,
education, and training must
be supplemented by
enforcement to form a
balanced compliance
program. The 1986
amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act gave
EPA greater authority to take
action against violators.
However, enforcing all of the
new MCLs will be difficult
and expensive. We will need
an efficient and effective
strategy if we are to meet our
responsibilities under the
statute. Enforcement will
focus on systems whose
contaminant levels exceed
MCLs and where appropriate
measures are not being taken
to reduce the contaminant
levels. Of special concern
will be those high risk
situations where a system
has shown a long-term, failure
to monitor for contaminants
and where there have been
frequent violations relating to
microbiological risks.
Underground Injection
We will be publishing final
rules in 1988 for the disposal
of hazardous waste into
injection wells. These
regulations will prevent the
migration of injected
hazardous wastes out of the
deep underground zone where
they are injected. As part of
the implementation of these
rules, EPA will be reviewing
permit applications
submitted by owners of
hazardous waste injection
wells. When approved, each
permit will specify what the
owner must do to comply
with the new rules. In
addition, we will be
reviewing Class V wells and
deciding what kinds of
controls are needed to
prevent these wells from
contaminating underground
sources of drinking water.
Pesticides in Drinking
Water
As part of the National
Pesticide Survey, we will be
sampling 1500 drinking water
wells around the country for
70 pesticides to determine if
contamination from
pesticides is a national
problem. The results of this
effort will help us to decide if
MCLs should be set for any
additional pesticides. The
final report is due in early
1990.
59
-------
WATER
Critical Aquatic Habitats
/—iritical aquatic habitats
V-/that need special
management attention
include the nation's
Wetlands, near coastal waters,
oceans, and lakes. In recent
years EPA has been focusing
on addressing the special
problems of these areas.
Wetlands
THE
PROBLEM
The United States is losing
one of its most valuable, and
perhaps irreplaceable,
resources - the nation's
wetlands. Once regarded as
wastelands, wetlands are now
recognized as an important
resource to people and the
environment.
Wetlands are among the
most productive of all
ecosystems. Wetland plants
convert sunlight into plant
material or biomass which
serves as food for many types
of aquatic and terrestrial
animals. The major food
value of wetland plants
occurs as they break down
into small particles to form
the base of an aquatic food
chain.
Wetlands are habitats for
many forms of fish and
wildlife. Approximately
two-thirds of this nation's
major commercial fisheries
use estuaries and coastal
marshes as nurseries or
spawning grounds. Migratory
waterfowl and other birds
also depend on wetlands,
some spending their entire
lives in wetlands and others
using them primarily as
nesting, feeding or resting
grounds.
The role of wetlands in
improving and maintaining
water quality in adjacent
water bodies is increasingly
being recognized in the
scientific literature. Wetlands
remove nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, and
thus help prevent
over-enrichment of waters
(eutrophication). Also, they
filter harmful chemicals,
such as pesticides and heavy
metals, and trap suspended
sediments, which otherwise
would produce turbidity
(cloudiness) in water. This
function is particularly
important as a natural buffer
for nonpoint pollution
sources.
Wetlands also have
socioeconomic values. They
play an important role in
flood control by absorbing
peak flows and releasing
water slowly. Along the
coast, they buffer land
against storm surges resulting
from hurricanes and tropical
storms. Wetlands vegetation
can reduce shoreline erosion
by absorbing and dissipating
wave energy and encouraging
the deposition of suspended
sediments. Also, wetlands
contribute $20 billion to $40
billion annually to the
nation's economy, for
example, through recreational
and commercial fishing,
hunting of waterfowl, and the
production of cash crops such
as wild rice and cranberries.
Unfortunately, our natural
heritage of swamps, marshes,
bogs, and other types of
wetlands is rapidly
disappearing. Once there
were over 200 million acres
of wetlands in the lower 48
states; by the mid-1970's,
only 99 million acres
remained. Between 1955 and
1975, more than 11 million
acres of wetlands were lost
entirely - an area three times
the size of the state of New
Jersey. The average rate of
wetland loss during this
period was 458,000 acres per
year - 440,000 acres of inland
wetlands and 18,000 acres of
coastal wetlands. Agricultural
development involving
drainage of wetlands was
responsible for 87 percent of
the losses during those two
decades. Urban and other
development caused 8
percent and 5 percent of
losses, respectively. In
addition to the physical
destruction of habitat,
wetlands are also threatened
by chemical contamination
and other types of pollution.
60
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
As recognition of the
importance of our nation's
wetlands has increased, so
have government efforts to
protect them. In 1987, EPA
established the Office of
Wetlands Protection to
expand our efforts and
emphasize our wetlands
protection goals. EPA has
been involved in wetlands
protection since the
enactment in 1972 of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
This section regulates the
discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the
United States. However,
EPA's wetland protection
responsibilities extend
beyond Section 404 to other
sections of the Clean Water
Act. Since most wetlands are
waters of the United States
within the meaning of the
Act, they are automatically
accorded all of the law's
protection.
Programmatically, wetland
protection is linked directly
and indirectly to other Office
of Water programs, such as
marine and estuarine
protection, nonpoint source
management, and
ground-water protection. An
integrated strategy for
wetlands results in increased
recognition of the importance
of wetlands in improving
water quality, and provides
enhanced protection by
addressing wetlands as an
ecologically meaningful unit.
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act
Currently no comprehensive
federal law for protecting
wetlands exists. The major
federal regulatory program for
wetlands is section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, which is
jointly administered by EPA
and the U.S. Corps of
Engineers. The Corps bears
the day-to-day administrative
responsibilities for the
program, reviewing permit
applications, issuing permits,
and taking actions against
violators of the law.
EPA and the Corps jointly
developed the section 404
(b)(l) guidelines, which are
the environmental standards
that the Corps must apply
when evaluating a permit
application for the discharge
of dredged or fill material.
Section 404(c) authorizes EPA
to prohibit or restrict the use
of a wetlands site for such
discharge if we determine
that the proposed discharge
will have an adverse effect on
municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishing
areas, wildlife, or recreational
areas.
EPA's other section 404
responsibilities include:
determining and defining the
areas that constitute
wetlands subject to
regulation under section 404;
reviewing permit applications
and providing
recommendations to the
Corps regarding permit
issuance, restriction, or
denial; defining activities
that may be exempt from the
permit requirements, such as
certain farming, ranching,and
forestry practices; approving
and overseeing state
assumption of the 404
program; and enforcing
against unpermitted
discharges.
In recent years, we have
taken an increasingly active
role in the 404 program. One
area of stepped-up activity
has been Section 404(c).
Between 1983 and early 1988,
we have initiated 13 actions
to veto or restrict a proposed
permit issuance by the Corps.
This represents an important
increase in activity, since we
had only used Section 404(c)
once between 1972 and 1983.
Also, we have begun a
more anticipatory approach
that addresses wetland loss
problems in advance of
individual project proposals.
Under this advanced
identification process, we
work with the Corps, and
possibly state and local
agencies, to select and study
geographic areas. We then
determine which are likely to
be environmentally suitable
and unsuitable for disposal of
dredged or fill materials.
Numerous advanced
identification projects are
ongoing throughout the
country. The process can
avoid costly litigation by
helping developers identify
areas that are not
environmentally sensitive
and slow down the loss of
valuable wetlands.
Other Federal Laws
Federal programs other than
the Clean Water Act also
protect the Nation's
wetlands. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service acquires
migratory waterfowl habitat,
that are primarily wetlands,
for inclusion in the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
These acquisitions are funded
hi part by revenues obtained
from the sale of duck stamps
(which are required of all
waterfowl hunters aged 16
and over). In 1986, Congress
passed the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act that
expands and enhances the
sources of funds for wetlands
acquisition. The new law
also directs the Secretary of
the Interior to develop, in
consultation with EPA and
other federal and state
agencies, a National
Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan that
identifies the type of
wetlands and wetland
interests to be given priority
for federal and state
acquisition.
While various federal
programs do protect
wetlands, other policies
actually encourage wetland
destruction by reducing the
costs of conversion to other
uses. In recent years,
Congress has passed laws
designed to eliminate these
inconsistent federal wetland
policies. The Coastal Barriers
Resource Act of 1982
prohibits most new federal
expenditures and financial
assistance for development of
designated barrier islands,
helping to protect their
important wetland resources.
Of greater significance for
other wetlands is the
"Swampbuster" provision of
the Food Security Act of
1985, implemented by the
Department of Agriculture.
Swampbuster seeks to
discourage the further
conversion of wetlands for
agricultural purposes by
making any person who
produces crops on wetlands
converted after December 23,
1985, ineligible for most
federal farm benefits.
State and Local Laws
Like the federal government,
state and local governments
have passed laws to protect
wetlands through acquisition,
regulation, and other
approaches. Laws passed by
most coastal states have
significantly reduced the loss
of coastal wetlands. In
contrast, inland wetlands are
inadequately protected; fewer
than 25 states have laws
specifically regulating their
uses. Within the last several
years, however, an increasing
number of states have passed
inland wetlands legislation
including New Jersey, Maine,
and Florida.
61
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Despite recent efforts, our
nation's wetlands continue to
be threatened. Loss of habitat
remains the primary threat
for all of our nation's
wetlands. These threats vary,
depending on the wetland
type and region of the
country.Descriptions of some
of the principal areas of
concern are:
Coastal Louisiana: Louisiana
contains approximately
one-third of the coastal
marshes in the lower 48
states. These marshes are
being lost at an annual rate
of 25,000 acres due to a
combination of natural and
human-induced causes, such
as Mississippi River
channelization and levee
construction, canal dredging
for navigation and energy
operations, and subsidence
from extraction of oil and
gas, minerals, and ground
water.
Southeast: Bottomland
hardwood wetlands occupy
the floodplains of many of
the forested wetlands
occurring in the lower
Mississippi Valley. Less than
25 percent of the original
acreage remains today. Many
of these wetlands have been
cleared and drained for crop
production. Federal flood
Control and small watershed
projects also have adversely
affected the bottomland
hardwoods.
Seventy percent of the
hation's pocosins — a type of
shrub swamp — are found in
North Carolina, where they
help stabilize water quality
and balance salinity in such
estuaries as Albermarle and
Pamlico Sounds. Of the 2.5
million acres originally found
hi North Carolina, barely one
million remain in their
natural condition. Timber
production, agriculture, and
peat extraction have been the
most rapidly developing uses
of these wetlands.
Midwest/Great Plains: The
Prairie Pothole Region
consists of about 300,000
square miles extending from
south-central Canada to the
north-central United states.
Prairie pothole wetlands are
water-holding depressions
usually of glacial origin.
These are perhaps the most
valuable inland marshes for
waterfowl production in
North America. Although the
Prairie Pothole Region
comprises only 10 percent of
the continent's total
waterfowl breeding area, it
produces 50 percent of the
duck population in an
average year. Millions of
acres of potholes have been
drained and converted to
agricultural uses or destroyed
by irrigation and flood
control projects.
Northeast: Unlike many
other regions of the country,
the primary threat to the
inland marshes and swamps
of the Northeast in recent
years has not been
agricultural activities. These
wetlands are being destroyed
by highway construction,
hydroelectric and water
supply projects, and
recreational houses and
facilities.
Alaska: Alaska has more
than 200 million acres of
wetlands, encompassing
about 58 percent of the
state's land area. Although
wetland losses have not been
great, the discovery of
significant oil and gas
deposits at Prudhoe Bay and
the subsequent pipeline
construction and energy
development have altered
wetlands.
Coastal California: Of special
concern are the coastal
wetlands of San Francisco
Bay, California's largest
estuary. Most of the bay's
original wetland acreage was
lost to urban and industrial
development, while many
remaining coastal wetlands
were diked to create
salt-evaporation ponds.
Despite the existence of state
and local wetland protection
laws, these wetlands are still
under heavy pressure for
urban and industrial
development.
62
Urban Areas: Wetlands in
urban areas frequently
represent the last large tracts
of open space and often are a
final haven for wildlife. Not
surprisingly, as suitable
upland development sites
become exhausted, urban
wetlands are under increasing
pressure for residential
housing, industry, and
commercial facilities.
Increasing evidence exists
that our nation's wetlands, in
addition to being destroyed
by physical threats, also are
being degraded by chemical
contamination. Although the
extent of the threat is not
known, the problem of
wetland contamination
received national attention in
1985, with reports of
waterfowl deaths and
deformities caused by
selenium contamination at
Kesterson National Wildlife
Refuge in California.
Selenium is a trace element
that occurs naturally in soil
and is needed in small
amounts to sustain life.
However, for years it was
being leached out of the soil
and carried in agricultural
drainwater used to flood the
refuge's wetlands, where it
accumulated in dangerously
high levels.
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
In 1986, after a major
strategic study of wetlands,
EPA Administrator Lee
Thomas underscored the
Agency's commitment to
protecting this resource by
creating an Office of
Wetlands Protection (OWP).
Wetland protection activities
will be expanded beyond the
traditional Clean Water Act
section 404 authorities with
the following areas of
emphasis.
Expedite Section 404
Policy Development
The section 404 regulatory
responsibilities will continue
to serve as the cornerstone
for EPA's wetland protection
activities, with particular
emphasis on expediting
policy development in such
areas as enforcement,
mitigation, and delineation of
wetland boundaries.
Enhance State and Local
Participation
EPA has long recognized the
importance of the state and
local roles in wetland
protection. In the context of
the section 404 program, we
are continuing to look for
ways to make program
assumption more attractive
and easier for the states. We
are expanding technical
assistance to state wetland
programs and developing
scientific initiatives to
strengthen the role of local
governments in wetlands
protection.
Superfund Sites fin
Wetlands
Preliminary estimates
indicate that less than 10
percent of contamination
from Superfund sites has
been found in wetlands. In
1988, EPA will be refining
these estimates by
conducting a more detailed
evaluation of Superfund sites.
EPA is identifying how the
Superfund program can take
better account of the special
needs of Superfund sites in
wetlands.
Increase Anticipatory
Approaches to Wetlands
Protection
While seeking to make the
traditional regulatory
programs more efficient and
effective, we are also
identifying and promoting
complementary or related
nonregulatory; programs. The
goals of this effort include:
ensuring protection of high
priority wetlands;
complementing wetland
protection where section 404
does not apply or is
ineffective; and
supplementing
permit-by-permit review with
other approaches that
facilitate consideration of
indirect or cumulative
impacts. In addition to the
advanced identification
process, we are also working
with the comprehensive
planning processes of other
agencies that could provide
more wetland protection,
such as special area
management planning under
the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
Increase Coordination
with and Consistency of
Federal and State
Policies
We are improving integration
of wetlands into EPA's
planning and management
efforts. The Agency also is
working with other federal
agencies to support
complementary programs
Rainwater Basin Advanced Identification Project
The Rainwater Basin spans 4,200 square miles in
central Nebraska south of the Plane River. Early in
this century, it contained nearly 4,000 distinct
wetlands, totalling about 94,000 acres. Today,
largely as a result of the installation of irrigation or
drainage systems, more than 90 percent of the
original wetland basins have been destroyed. About
375 wetlands remain. Destruction of the wetlands
has resulted in the loss of habitat for the millions of.
ducks and geese that migrate annually through the
central flyway. : : :
EPA and the Corps of Engineers Omaha District
established an interagency team comprised of
technical representatives of the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.:
The team has undertaken four concurrent efforts
designed to increase the chances of preserving
wetlands of the Rainwater Basin.
• Establishing an Inventory of the Existing
Wetlands. This is a particularly complex task in the
Rainwater Basin area because these wetlands are
extremely dynamic systems, sometimes disappearing
completely during periods of drought.
* Collecting Technical Data. Limited information is
available on the wetlands in the Rainwater Basin.
Data are being collected systematically to document
the scientific and environmental significance of these
ecosystems^ These data also will be used to develop
criteria for identifying wetlands subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction and for designating areas as
suitable or unsuitable for disposal site specification.
• Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Wetlands
Conversion. Because careful consideration must be
given to the economics involved in wetland
designation, an analysis is being conducted of the
profitability of converting wetlands to agricultural
use, and the costs associated with wetlands
destruction. Economic costs attributable to wetlands
destruction could prove to be the most compelling
argument in favor of preservation.
» Conducting a Community Involvement Program.
EPA initiated a community involvement program to
set the stage for the designation process, stress the
values of wetlands and the implication of their
destruction, and raise public awareness of the Clean
Water Act section 404 program.
The result of these efforts will be the identification
and protection of those wetlands in the Rainwater
Basin that will serve as a stopover and nesting
-------
such as the Department of
Agriculture's implementation
of the Swampbuster
provisions of the Food
Security Act of 1985, and to
eliminate policies that harm
wetlands.
Expand Scientific
Knowledge of Wetland
functions
Wetland ecology is a
relatively young science with
jnajor information gaps.
Thus, the Agency is
implementing a five-year
Wetlands Research Plan,
adopted in 1986, that
addresses: (1) the
Contribution of wetlands to
water quality/ (2) prediction
of the cumulative impacts of
wetland loss and the relation
i){ individual permit decisions
to that loss; and (3)
techniques for creating and
restoring wetlands.
Enhance Public
Awareness of Wetlands
Values
j
Ultimate protection of our
nation's wetlands requires
that all Americans
understand the need to
protect these natural
resources. Private
landowners, public land
managers, developers, and the
general public should be
more aware of the ecological
value of wetlands. Ongoing
and proposed public
education projects include
public service
announcements for
television, informational
brochures, and educational
curriculum materials. The
National Wetlands Policy
Forum is also part of EPA's
efforts to increase public
awareness (see the highlight
"National Wetlands Policy
Forum").
Excavation and filling operations are a serious threat to wetlands.
National Wetlands
Forum
Through the Conservation Foundation, EPA has
convened a National Wetlands Policy Forum to
develop sound, broadly supported
recommendations for effective wetlands
management. The issues to be addressed are
intended to go beyond those relating to the Clean
Water Act section 404 program.
The Forum has been organized to involve people
with varying opinions on the process of wetlands
management. It is being chaired by New Jersey
Governor Thomas Kean and its members
represent state and local governments,
environmental groups, academia, business,
agriculture, and forestry interests. In addition,
representatives of five federal agencies involved in
wetlands management are participating in the
Porum as ex officio members.
The purpose of the Forum is to address major
national policy concerns about the protection and
use of the nation's wetland resources, disc.uss
goals for future wetlands initiatives, and, establish
a framework for comprehensive national wetlands
policies. The forum expects to make its
recommendations by mid-1988 on how federal,
state, and locc^~weuqnf[s policy could be
improved to benefit both environmental
protection and economic development.
64
-------
Near Coastal Waters and the Great Lakes
THE
PROBLEM
Near Coastal Waters
The nation's near coastal
waters encompass inland
waters from the coast to the
head of tide (i.e., the farthest
point inland at which the
influence of the tides on
water level is detected). These
waters include bays,
estuaries, and coastal
wetlands, and the coastal
ocean out to where it is no
longer affected hy land and
water uses in the coastal
drainage basin. Taken
together, these ecosystems
support a wide range of
ecological, economic,
recreational, and aesthetic
uses that depend upon good
water quality.
Coastal waters and
wetlands are home to many
ecologically and
commercially valuable
species of finfish, shellfish,
birds, and other wildlife.
Eighty-five percent of our
nation's commercially
harvested fish are dependent
upon near coastal waters at
some point in their life
cycles. These waters generate
billions of dollars a year in
income from commercial and
recreational fisheries, tourism
and travel, urban waterfront
and private real estate
development, recreational
boating, marinas, and
harbors. Millions of people
enjoy the bays, beaches,
wetlands, and coastal ocean
for swimming, boating,
fishing, hiking, birdwatching,
and open space every year.
These environments are
particularly susceptible to
contamination because they
act as sinks for the large
quantities of pollution
discharged from municipal
sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and
hazardous waste disposal
sites. In many coastal areas,
nonpoint source runoff from
agricultural lands, suburban
developments, city streets,
and combined sewer and
Coastal Wetlands
stormwater overflows poses
an even more significant
problem than point sources.
This is due to the difficulty
of identifying and then
controlling the source of the
pollution.
—Physical and hydrological
modifications from such
activities as dredging
channels, draining and filling
wetlands, constructing dams,
diverting freshwater for
irrigation and drinking, and
building shorefront houses
may further degrade near
coastal environments.
Growing population pressures
will continue to subject these
sensitive coastal ecosystems
to further stress. As a result,
near coastal waters are
suffering from a number of
major environmental
problems whose specific
impacts vary from waterbody
to waterbody. These
problems include toxic
contamination,
eutrophication, pathogen
contamination, habitat loss
and alteration, and changes
in living resources.
Toxic chemicals
contaminate finfish, shellfish,
water birds, and a number of
near coastal habitats.
Contamination often results
in closures of shellfish bed
harvesting areas and fishery
bans or advisories against fish
consumption. Eutrophication
is the extensive algae growth
that results from excessive
nutrient loadings.
Eutrophication recurs every
summer along parts of the
Gulf and East Coasts.
Pathogen contamination
causes many shellfish
closures, as well as beach
closures. From 1980 to 1985
alone, eleven coastal states
suffered losses of 1,000 to
200,000 acres of productive
shellfish beds.
Destruction of coastal
habitats including wetlands
and shallow open waters has
been accelerating in recent
years. As a result, coastal
fisheries, wildlife and bird
populations have been
declining, with fewer species
represented. Expanding
development into previously
pristine coastal areas is a
major threat.
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes provide an
invaluable resource to the 45
million people living in the
surrounding basin. The five
lakes, which fall under the
jurisdiction of eight states in
the U.S. and one province in
Canada, possess 95 percent of
the entire U.S. fresh surface
water. A 1970 study by the
International Joint
Commission, created under
the Boundary Waters Treaty
of 1901, identified nutrients
and toxics problems in the
lakes. The study found that
Lake Ontario and Lake Erie
in particular suffered from
eutrophication problems
caused by excessive nutrient
inputs. Since then, joint
efforts by the two countries
have resulted in major
successes in reducing the
nutrient loadings, particularly
phosphorus, and controlling
the eutrophication. However,
contamination of the water
and fish by toxics from
pesticides runoff, landfill
leachates, and in-place
polluted sediments remains a
major problem. These issues
now are being addressed by
the U.S. and Canada.
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
As an indication of our
continued and heightened
Commitment to protecting
the nation's marine and
coastal waters, EPA
established the Office of
Marine and Estuarine
Protection in 1984. The
Office administers all of
EPA's ocean and coastal
programs. The two major
statutory authorities under
which it operates are the
Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, which
covers ocean dumping and
monitoring, and the Clean
Water Act, which covers
coastal and ocean discharges
and the National Estuary
Program. The Agency also
has implemented programs to
address the problems of the
Chesapeake Bay and other
estuaries.
Great Lakes Program
pur Great Lakes Program
originated in 1972 under the
Clean Water Act in response
to major nutrient pollution
problems, particularly in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.
In the same year, the
U.S. signed the first of its
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreements with Canada,
which focused on nutrient
pollution, mainly phosphorus
from urban and agricultural
Sources. The two countries
expanded the agreement in
1978 and again in 1983. In
addition to research on the
problems from toxic
compounds in the lakes, the
agreement calls for five of the
Great Lakes states to develop
individual programs to meet
phosphorus limits. In 1987,
the U.S. and Canada agreed
to address more closely
toxicant concentrations in
the Great Lakes.
Coastal storm damage.
The federal government
has spent over $6 billion
dollars on Great Lakes
problems since the passage of
the Clean Water Act in 1972.
This money was for the
construction and upgrading of
more than 1,000 municipal
sewage treatment facilities in
the Great Lakes basin. Today,
virtually all U.S. municipal
facilities discharging to the
Great Lakes basin are in
compliance with the 1
mg/liter phosphorus limit set
by the Great Lakes
agreement.
Chesapeake Bay Program
In 1983, we completed a
seven-year study of the
causes of declining
productivity in the
Chesapeake Bay. The study
was the first milestone in the
ongoing Chesapeake Bay
cleanup effort. The main
report, A Framework for
Action, concluded that the
major problems affecting the
bay were nutrient
enrichment, toxic
contamination, substantially
increased areas of low
dissolved oxygen, declines in
striped bass, submerged
grasses and other living
resources, and substantial
population growth and
changes in land uses. Later in
1983, the states of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania,
the District of Columbia,
EPA, and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission signed an
historic Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to work
cooperatively in cleaning up
the bay. The Chesapeake Bay
Restoration and Protection
Plan recommended that state
and federal programs improve
habitat and restore finfish
and shellfish populations. It
also calls for reducing
nutrient and toxic substance
contamination from
industrial and municipal
point sources and from
agricultural and urban
nonpoint sources.
In 1987, two additional
milestones for the program
were achieved. In February,
the program was enacted into
law as part of the new Clean
Water Act. And on December
16, Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, the District of
Columbia, EPA, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission
signed a new, more specific
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
This agreement specifies
goals for state
implementation programs
and commits the federal
government to have a
coordinated work plan in
place by July 1988. The plan
will outline all federal
activities and resources that
will be dedicated to
protecting and restoring the
Bay.
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
EPA'S
AGENDA
National Estuary
Program
The experiences of the Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
programs with successful
management through
partnership of the public and
private sectors helped lay the
foundation for EPA's
National Estuary Program.
This program began in 1985
with a $4 million
appropriation from Congress.
Passage of the Water Quality
Act of 1987 signaled national
recognition of the need to
ensure protection of our
estuaries by formally
establishing the National
Estuaries Program. The Act
authorizes the Administrator
to convene management
conferences to develop
Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans for
estuaries of national
significance that are
threatened by pollution,
development, or overuse.
These national
demonstration programs are
based on a cooperative
three-phased approach:
characterization of the
environmental problems,
development of a
management plan, and
implementation.
The Water Quality Act
'listed twelve estuaries to be
considered for inclusion into
the National Estuary
Program. EPA has formally
convened management
conferences for six estuaries:
Buzzards Bay in
Massachusetts, Narragansett
Bay in Pvhode Island, Long
Island Sound in New York
and Connecticut, Puget
Sound in Washington,
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina, and San
Francisco Bay in California.
Other waterbodies under
consideration are New
York-New Jersey Harbor,
Delaware Bay in New Jersey
and Delaware, Delaware
Inland Bays, Sarasota Bay in
Florida, Galveston Bay in
Texas, and Santa Monica Bay
in California.
Near Coastal Water
Initiative
In 1985 EPA developed a
long-term strategic plan to
manage environmental
problems in near coastal
waters that were not being
addressed by the ongoing bay
and estuary programs. The
Agency currently is
conducting an assessment of
near coastal waters to
identify those in need of
management attention. We
are sponsoring three projects
designed to demonstrate
innovative and cost-effective
techniques for cleaning up
and protecting near coastal
waters.
Protection of the coastal and
marine environment in the
face of accelerating growth
will continue to present
challenges for the nation.
Current estimates predict
that by the year 2000, 75
percent of the U.S.
population will live within
50 miles of the coast. Near
coastal water pollution
problems became highly
visible to the public during
the summer of 1987 when a
number of pollution
incidents around the country
were reported, including the
death of fish and shellfish,
closing shellfishing and
swimming areas, bans on
eating fish, and incidents of
garbage washing up on New
Jersey beaches.
The challenge for resolving
the various pollution
problems in coastal waters
will be to get federal, state,
and local governments to
follow through on their
commitments. For example,
federal, state, and local
agencies must work together
to achieve nutrient reduction
of 40 percent by the year
2000, in Chesapeake Bay.
As in most programs,
success will largely depend
on obtaining the necessary
financial resources to
improve environmental
controls. In particular,
managers will need to rely
more on innovative financing
strategies such as tax
incentives, user fees, and
promoting land acquisition
by private parties. Incentives
will be needed for farmers to
change to less polluting
agricultural practices and for
industry to convert to
recycling and reduction of
chemical wastes. Finally,
expanded public awareness of
the effects of pollution from
the watershed on near coastal
waters is crucial to
protection of coastal waters.
A high priority will be to
continue EPA's coastal
waterbody management
programs. EPA will be
overseeing the National
Estuary Programs in
designated estuaries. EPA
will continue to implement
both the Chesapeake Bay and
the Great Lakes agreements.
The Agency will be
focusing more permitting and
enforcement actions on
coastal waters. Criteria to
assess marine water quality
and the extent of toxic
contamination of estuarine
sediments will be developed.
More extensive research on
near coastal water impacts
will be conducted.
We will continue to
update, with the assistance of
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
and the coastal states, our
national assessment of near
coastal waters as a basis for
identifying waterbodies
needing management
attention. Technology and
information transfer of
successful management
techniques and solutions
developed through the Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay,
National Estuary, and other
programs will continue to be
a high priority. Through
work with state and local
governments, scientists,
fishermen, industry, and the
public, we hope more people
will be committed to
protecting our valuable
coastal water resources.
67
-------
The Ocean
THE
PROBLEM
Ocean dumping of dredged
material, sewage sludge, and
industrial wastes is a major
source of ocean pollution.
Sediments dredged from
industrialized urban harbors
are often highly
contaminated with heavy
metals and toxic synthetic
organic chemicals like PCBs
and petroleum hydrocarbons.
When these sediments are
dumped in the ocean, the
contaminants can be taken
up by marine organisms.
National concern for the
threat of environmental
Quality impacts from ocean
dumping led to passage of the
Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act in 1972.
Under this act, EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are responsible for
regulating the transportation
and dumping of wastes in the
ocean.
The Congressional Office
of Technology Assessment
1987 report entitled Wastes
in Marine Environments
indicates that the ocean
dumping of dredged
materials, sludge, and
industrial wastes is now less
of a threat to the ocean.
However, persistent disposal
of plastics from land and
ships at sea have become
serious problems, particularly
in the past several years. The
most severe impact of this
nonbiodegradable debris
floating in the ocean is injury
and death of fish, marine
mammals, and birds. Debris
on beaches from sewer and
storm drain overflows, or
mismanagement of trash
poses public safety and
aesthetic concerns and can
result in major economic
losses for coastal
communities during tourist
season.
Herring Gull entangled in plastic tiash.
''FIGURE W-6
Sewage Sludge and Industrial Waste
Ocean Disposed in U.S. Waters Between
1973 and 1986
68
I I
Note: For the purpose of this graph, Industrial Waste Category also includes Fish Waste and Construction Debris
Source: Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, USEPA
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
Ocean dumping of industrial
wastes has declined from 5
million tons in 1973 to 0.3
million tons in 1986 (see
Figure W-6). Sewage sludge
dumping in the ocean has
increased from 5 million tons
in 1973 to 7.9 million tons in
1986. This increase is due
largely to construction and
operation of new or improved
sewage treatment plants that
increased the production of
sewage sludge. In December
1987, due to action taken by
EPA, dumping at the
relatively shallow sludge
dumping site 12 miles
offshore in the New York
Bight ceased and dumping
operations were transferred to
a site located about 100 miles
offshore. This action is
expected to result in an
improvement of the
condition of the nearshore
area.
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
The major challenge facing
the oceans will be the
resolution of the country's
waste disposal crisis. In the
past, dumping in the ocean
was sometimes seen as the
"quick fix" solution for
waste disposal problems. The
nation needs an integrated
long-term waste management
strategy, with ocean dumping
as one of several waste
management options.
Resolution of the marine
debris problem, particularly
problems due to
nonbiodegradable plastics,
presents a different challenge.
It involves lifestyle changes
of the average citizen using
and throwing away plastic
products and of the
fisherman who discards
plastic fish nets at sea.
Manufacturers need to be
encouraged to use more
biodegradable or recyclable
material.
EPA'S
AGENDA
EPA's long-term agenda for
the oceans will be to work
towards an integrated waste
management strategy, that
shifts away from ocean
disposal alternatives. The
short-term agenda will be to
issue the revised ocean
dumping regulations, and
investigate the extent of the
persistent marine debris
problem. Where EPA has
authority, we will work to
improve existing controls.
We will also work with other
Federal agencies to determine
how their laws, regulations,
and policies can help address
marine problems.
69
-------
WATER
Surface Waters
THE
PROBLEM
Pollutants in our waterways
impair or destroy aquatic life,
threaten human health, or
Simply foul the water such
that recreational and
aesthetic potential is lost.
They come from industries or
treatment plants discharging
wastewater into streams or
from waters running across
urban and agricultural areas
and carrying the surface
pollution with them
fnonpoint sources).
Restrictions in shellfish beds,
fishing bans, and swimming
and beach closings are all
symptoms of water pollution.
The most visible water
pollution problems such as
choked algae-coated lakes
and rivers are due to
pollutants such as nitrates
and phosphates. Toxic
pollutants present a less
visible and ultimately more
challenging problem to
control. Early efforts to
control toxic discharges
focused on EPA establishing
technology-based effluent
standards that industries had
to meet. We found, however,
that these controls alone
were insufficient. Rivers and
streams continue to show
Impairment due to the
presence of toxic pollutants.
Toxicants continue to pass
through municipal
wastewater treatment plants
which are not equipped to
treat them: in 1986 it was
reported that an estimated 37
percent of the toxic industrial
compounds entering our
surface waters did so by
passing through treatment
plants.
Municipal Wastewater
Raw or insufficiently treated
wastewater from municipal
and industrial treatment
plants still threatens our
water resources in many
parts of the country.
Nutrients in sewage foster
excessive growth of algae and
other aquatic plants. Those
plants then die and decay,
depleting the dissolved
oxygen needed by fish.
Moreover, poorly treated
wastewater may contain
bacteria and chemicals
harmful to both human and
aquatic life.
Sludge, the residue left
from wastewater treatment
plants, is a growing problem.
Since 1972, municipal sludge
has doubled in volume to
about 7 million dry metric
tons annually, and quantities
are expected to double again
by the year 2000. The toxic
properties of sludge vary.
Some sludges are relatively
"clean", or free from toxic
substances, and can be used
for beneficial purposes such
as soil conditioners. Other
sludges may contain organic,
inorganic, or toxic pollutants
and pathogens. These sludges
present disposal difficulties
because there are limited
disposal options for them and
those options that are
available are costly.
Industrial Discharges
An important source of toxic
pollution is industrial
wastewater discharged
directly into waterways or
indirectly through municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
Industrial wastes discharged
directly into surface waters
are controlled through
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. Industrial wastes
discharged indirectly to
municipal waste water
treatment plants are treated
to remove toxic pollutants.
This process is known as
pretreatment (see the
highlight "Pretreatment"). It
is important since toxic
wastes may interfere with
the operation of the
treatment plant, and pass
through into surface waters
creating health and
environmental risks. The
toxics may also may end up
in sludge making it harder to
dispose of safely.
Pollution from Nonpoint
Sources
Nonpoint sources present
continuing problems for
achieving national
FIGURE W-7
Pollutants and Their Sources
Common Pollutant Categories
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Combined
Sewer Overflows
Agricultural
Runoff
Mining Runoff
Septic Systems
Landfills/Spills
Source: Modified from 1986 305|b| National Report
ojjis Biological Oxygen Demand, BOD^ Total Dissolved Solids, TDS
70
-------
water-quality goals in many
parts of the country. Some of
the most common nonpoint
pollutants and their sources
are listed in Figure W-7.
Sediment, the largest
contributor to nonpoint
source problems, causes
decreased light transmission
through water resulting in
decreased plant reproduction,
interference with feeding and
mating patterns, decreased
viability of aquatic life,
decreased recreational and
commercial values, and
increased drinking water
costs. Nutrients, the second
most common nonpoint
source pollutant, promote the
premature aging of lakes and
estuaries. Pesticides and
herbicides hinder
photosynthesis in aquatic
plants, affect aquatic
reproduction, increase
organism susceptibility to
environmental stress,
accumulate in fish tissues,
and present a human health
hazard through fish and
water consumption. Other
Pretreatment
Beneath the streets of every city and
many smaller communities, a
system of sewers and pumps
conveys wastewater from homes,
factories, offices, and stores. This
disposed water, which may contain
a variety of domestic, commercial,
and industrial wastes, flows through
the sewers to a wastewater
treatment plant. There, pollutants
are removed and the cleansed water
is discharged into an adjacent river,
bay, lake, or ocean. The residues of
the treatment process (sludges) are
used either as soil conditioners or
are disposed as a solid waste.
Industrial plants are only one of
many sources of wastewater
discharged into municipal sewers.
However, the industrial wastewater
discharged by industry often is
contaminated by a variety of toxic
or otherwise harmful substances not
common to other sources. Industrial
wastewater often contains the
by-products of industrial processes,
such as cyanide from electroplating
shops and lead from the
manufacture of batteries. These
industrial wastes can pose serious
hazards because sewage collection
and treatment systems have not
been designed to treat them. The
wastes can damage the sewers and
interfere with the operation of
treatment plants; they may pass
through the systems untreated,
resulting in contamination of
nearby water bodies; and they can
increase the cost and environmental
risks of sludge treatment and
disposal.
The undesirable effects resulting
from the discharge of industrial
wastewater into municipal sewers
can be prevented. Industrial plants,
using proven pollution control
technologies, can remove pollutants
from their wastewaters before
discharging the wastewater into the
sewer system. This practice is
known as "pretreatment."
Industry already is pretreating its
wastewater in many communities.
The National Pretreatment Program,
a cooperative effort of federal, state,
and local officials, is implementing
this practice on a nationwide basis.
EPA identified 1500 municipal
wastewater treatment plants which
handled 82 percent of all industrial
wastewater discharged to municipal
treatment plants. We required that
they develop programs to develop,
implement, and enforce appropriate'
effluent limits for industries
discharging wastes into -their
system. As of July 1987, 95 percent
of these plants had developed these
pretreatment programs. Many of
these programs are just beginning to
be implemented. By reducing the
level of pollutants discharged by
industry into municipal sewage
systems, the program ensures that
industrial development vital to the
economic well-being of a
community will be compatible with
a healthy environment.
Limited or More
Expensive Sludge
Disposal Options "* ^-^
Exposure of Workers
to Toxic Substances
and Hazardous Fumes
Corrosion of
Collection Sys
or of the Sewage
Treatment Plant
Interference with
Plant Treatment
System
Pass-Through
of Toxic Pollutants::
to Surface Waters7
Problems that May Occur When Industrial Wastewaters are Discharged into
Sewage Treatment Systems. All these Problems can be Controlled through
Pretreatment.
I
71
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
nonpoint source pollutants
have similar impacts
including: increased
treatment costs of drinking
water, reduced commercial
and recreational values,
disrupted aquatic food chains,
and reduced reproduction
rates and life spans of aquatic
species.
Nonpoint sources are also a
major source of toxics,
among them pesticide runoff
from agricultural areas,
metals from active or
abandoned mines, gasoline,
and asbestos from urban
areas. Bottom sediments are
also significant toxic
contributors. They retain
substances discharged in the
past and release them to the
water and aquatic organisms
long after the discharge has
ceased.
Another source of surface
water pollutants is the
atmosphere. By attaching
themselves to small particles
of dust, toxic substances may
be transported far from their
sources and deposited in
surface waters through
precipitation. A recent study
demonstrated that certain
pesticides used only in Texas
and the southwest had been
transported in the
atmosphere to the Great
Lakes. The atmospheric
source of water pollution still
needs to be fully investigated.
The extent and intensity of
nonpoint sources of pollution
has oecome more evident as
better information is
collected and as we
successfully address point
sources. Or the 52 states and
territories ranking the
relative impacts of nonpoint
sources in 1986, 33 found
them to be a major problem
and 14 found them to be a
moderate problem.
Agricultural runoff is the
most common nonpoint
source of pollution, followed
by runoff from urban and
mining activities.
Many of the basic laws,
policies, and organizations
needed to manage our surface
waters are in place: state
standards for protecting
waters; a nation-wide
technology-based system of
pollution control, augmented
by pretreatment and a
growing number of water
quality-based controls; a
national network of federal,
state, and local agencies; and
a nucleus of trained
inspectors to ensure that the
controls are in place and
operating effectively. This
infrastructure, a capital
investment coupled with
resources at federal and state
levels, is our "core" program.
The 1987 Water Quality Act
built upon and in some cases
expanded this core program.
For example, the surface
water toxics provisions in the
act require us to go beyond
technology-based controls for
toxic pollutants to water
quality-based controls where
they are needed to restore
and maintain water quality.
In addition, a number of
provisions greatly strengthen
our base program, such as the
enhancement of our
enforcement powers through
the addition of administrative
penalty authority.
Since 1972, EPA, state and
local governments have
invested heavily in the
construction and upgrading of
municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. As a
result of these expenditures,
the nation's ability to treat
wastewater has improved
substantially. The population
served by secondary
treatment or better has
increased from 85 million (42
percent of the nation) in 1972
to 127 million (54 percent of
the nation) in 1986. Federal
expenditures through the
construction grants program
have resulted in the
completion of over 8,000
projects at 5,000 municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
The Water Quality Act of
1987 continues a shift to
eventual complete state and
local responsibility for the
construction, operation,
maintenance, and
replacement of municipal
wastewater treatment plants
One of the major changes
involves a transition from a
federal grants program to a
state revolving fund program
for financing municipal
wastewater treatment. Under
the state revolving fund
program, the federal
government can award initial
seed money to the states for
a water pollution control
revolving loan fund. Each
state will use its revolving
fund primarily to make loans
for local wastewater
treatment facility
construction, although
nonpoint source and
estuarine protection may also
be supported. The
repayments of principal and
interest from these loans will
be used to replenish the fund.
Setting and enforcing
NPDES permits remains the
cornerstone of the national
water pollution effort.
Currently, 39 states
administer their own NPDES
programs while EPA has the
lead implementation
responsibility in the
remaining states and on
Indian reservations. Even
with this federal-state
permitting and enforcement
partnership, about 10 percent
of all major facilities
(generally larger facilities
and/or facilities with
potentially harmful
discharge) are in significant
noncompliance with their
permit conditions. Facilities
that are not in compliance
with their permits are subject
to federal and state
enforcement action.
Enforcement actions range
from an informal phone call
to formal judicial proceedings
with possible financial
penalties.
Runoff from fields is major source of sediment and pesticide pollution
in rivers and lakes.
-------
m^
Biomonitoring
Plant and animal species have served
as reference points for environmental
quality throughout human history. For
example, miners used a crude form of
biomonitoring when they took canaries
with them into the coal mines. When
the canaries died from accumulating
methane, the miners knew it was time
to evacuate the mines. Disappearance
of valued plants or wildlife is also a
familiar indicator of environmental
problems.
In recent years, biomonitoring
techniques have become so reliable
that they are now being built into the
regulatory process. The Clean Water
Act specifically refers to biological
testing for assessing environmental
hazards, especially where the mix of
potential pollutants is complex.
Instrumental techniques such as
atomic absorption spectroscopy can
detect concentrations as small as
parts-per- trillion. However, they
cannot demonstrate effectively the
interaction of chemicals with each
other. They also are not sensitive to
other variables such as acidity,
hardness, solubility, exposure time, or
the effects on living organisms.
Biomonitoring integrates these
variables and can indicate when
chemicals have reached toxic levels,
even if the identity of the chemicals is
not known.
Biomonitoring allows us to assess
the cumulative effects on aquatic life
of multiple sources of pollution. With
biomonitoring, we can assess the
health of a waterbody as a whole.
Biomonitoring may be a controlled
laboratory experiment, where test
organisms are exposed to water
containing a specific chemical or a
complex mixture of chemicals. This
type of experiment, known as a
bioassay, is used to evaluate the
relative potency of a chemical or
mixture by evaluating its. effects on
living organisms under controlled
conditions. Another type of
biomonitoring takes place in the field.
Aquatic biologists look for
abnormalities in fish and aquatic
insects. Population diversity, size, and
structure, as well as physical
characteristics of the population may
indicate stress upon the ecosystem.
Biomonitoring, therefore, can serve
two major needs. First, it allows us to
screen waters for signs of stress, using
fewer resources than chemical
monitoring. Second, it can confirm the
results of chemical monitoring data. In
short, it is a very useful tool for
assessing the safety of the water for
living things.
•** *-».*? t Jfes4
^£afes..-__
Field biologists monitor the water quality of streams through collection of aquatic organisms.
73
-------
In an effort to improve
municipal compliance, EPA
and the states developed the
"National Municipal Policy"
jn January 1984. This policy
requires municipalities to
install secondary levels of
treatment by July 1988. At
the beginning of 1988, all but
22 of the 1500 facilities
targeted under the National
Municipal Policy had
achieved compliance, were
under enforceable schedules
for compliance, or had been
referred for judicial action.
By the mid 1980s it
became clear that stricter
control of nonpoint source
pollution was needed to meet
the goals of the 1972 Clean
Water Act. The Act provided
states with money to develop
plans for both point and
nonpoimvpollution control
(under section 208). Until
passage of the Water Quality
Act of 1987 there was no
provision to implement the
nonpoint source components
of these plans. States are now
required to identify and
assess waters impaired due to
nonpoint pollution and to
develop management plans
for these waters.
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
The major challenges facing
EPA are to implement the
new requirements embodied
in the Water Quality Act of
1987 while maintaining
existing water quality
program achievements.
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment
Since 1956 the construction
grants program has provided
financial assistance to
municipalities for
construction of wastewater
treatment plants. The
transition during the late
1980's to the
state-administered revolving
fund program will place
many additional
responsibilities on state
agencies, including the lead
role in designing and
managing programs for
funding construction projects.
The advantage of state
revolving fund programs and
other alternative financing
approaches is that each can
be tailored to address specific
state needs.
Toxics
Much remains to be done to
address the impact of toxic
pollutants as EPA and the
states implement and enforce
toxics control programs over
the next few years. Efforts
will focus on upgrading state
programs for monitoring,
adopting water quality
standards for toxic pollutants,
identifying impaired waters,
and preventing degradation of
existing water quality. As
state programs are upgraded,
improved toxic controls will
be implemented by
establishing more stringent
NPDES permits based on
ambient water quality
considerations, and through
implementation and
evaluation of the
pretreatment program. The
1987 amendments deal with
toxic pollution discharges to
surface waters. An important
objective is to assure that
wastewater treatment plants
fully implement, enforce, and
evaluate the effectiveness of
pretreatment controls.
Sludge Disposal
Sludge cleaning and disposal
is one of our most significant
environmental challenges.
Based on statutory and
regulatory requirements,
states will need to develop a
comprehensive approach to
reducing the health and
environmental risks while
maximizing the beneficial
uses of sludge.
Stormwater
Stormwater transports
pollutants into waterbodies
from city streets, farmlands,
and construction sites.
Particularly intense storms
often cause sewer overflows.
In cases where storm sewers
are combined with municipal
sewage systems these
overflows can result in
untreated sludge being
discharged into waterbodies.
Our initial challenge will be
to develop a permit program
for Stormwater discharges
from industrial activities and
for separate municipal sewers
for Stormwater.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
The principal nonpoint
source pollution challenge
will be the development^and
implementation of effective
state programs. The Water
Quality Act of 1987
established two new
requirements: (1) state
reporting on waters impaired
due to nonpoint sources, the
types of sources causing the
problems, and state and local
control programs; and (2)
state programs for controlling
nonpoint source pollution
including methods and a
time frame for remedying
problems.
Better evaluative
techniques are required to
estimate nonpoint source
impacts; appropriate best
management practices must
be implemented; and close
cooperation is need among
Storms wash plastic litter into rivers and lakes.
74
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
the many federal, state, and
local agencies involved to
ensure we effectively address
nonpoint pollution.
Keeping Up with Change
Conventional pollutant
contamination is being
controlled, but the efforts
fsnerally are just enough to
eep pace with population
growth. Water quality has
been restored in many
instances, but these waters —
along with previously
unpolluted, high quality
waters — remain threatened
from the effects of economic
and population growth. Much
of the technology installed in
the 1970s is aging and must
be maintained at great
expense. We are challenged
to maintain past gains while
finding means to address new
and emerging issues.
Clean Water Act
Enforcement:
Los Angeles
The Clean Water Act requires that cities meet
stringent standards for treating waste-water from \
their sewage systems. EPA's National Municipal
Policy, issued in 1984, makes clear that cities that
fail to install needed treatment equipment will be
forced to meet court-enforceable compliance .'•
schedules. EPA has undertaken more than 150
lawsuits under the policy, suing cities in 20 states,
plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. The agreement reached
between EPA and the City of Los Angeles, entered :
as a federal court order, is an example of the
success of EPA's National Municipal Policy.
EPA first sued Los Angeles for violating its .-•'''
discharge permits in 1977. After almost ten years ',
of construction problems, funding holdups, and
other delays, however, the city's main treatment
facility, the Hyperion plant, was still pumping
more than a million gallons of sewage sludge into
Santa Monica Bay every day. In addition, the
Hyperion plant was consistently in violation of its
permit limits for suspended solids, oil, grease, and
occasionally chlorine and various metals. •
Under the 1987 agreement, Los Angeles had to
pay the highest civil penalty assessed to a city
under the Clean Water Act up to that time
($625,000). It also must carry out a storm water
control project that may cost as much as $3.3 :
million. Most importantly, the city committed j
itself to wastewater treatment and management
improvements that could cost more than $2.3 '•':
billion over the next 12 years. The city ended the
ocean discharge of sludge in December 1987, and
agreed to build a sludge treatment and disposal
process known as the Hyperion Energy Recovery
System by June 1989.
Water related environmental
data are essential for sound
management decisions. We
must be able to characterize
water quality problems and
trends in order to identify the
most serious or sensitive
problem areas. Water quality
information is also important
in developing the appropriate
mix of management and
technical solutions to
problems. Finally,, we must
collect information that will
allow us to revise programs
to achieve our environmental
goals. This is a complex and
costly process, but it is one
that we are committed to
accomplish.
As states assume primary
responsibility for wastewater
treatment plants, EPA's role
will be to ensure a smooth
transition to the State
Revolving Fund program and
that the CWA objectives are
achieved. EPA will continue
to provide substantial
assistance to states and
communities on effective
wastewater treatment, sludge
management technologies,
and local financing
approaches. At the same
time, the existing wastewater
treatment infrastructure
must be protected. EPA will
help strengthen local
municipal wastewater
treatment operations and
maintenance programs,
especially in regard to sludge
and toxics problems.
The states will be required
to review and upgrade
standards for toxics, to adopt
specific criteria for certain
toxic pollutants, and to
complete upgrading of their
programs for preventing
water degradation. Permits
incorporating limits for toxic
pollutants will be issued, and
compliance with these
permits will be enforced.
The NPDES permit
program will be expanded to
meet stormwater and sludge
requirements. ;EPA is in the
process of revising
regulations to add new
permit application
requirements for stormwater
discharges from large (over
250,000 population) and
medium sized (between
100,000 and 250,000)
municipalities. EPA will
develop technical
requirements for sludge use
and disposal, and will work
with states to ensure that
appropriate regulations and
guidance are developed for
state sludge management
programs.
EPA is working with states
as they develop State Clean
Water Strategies. These
strategies will establish
priorities for addressing the
remaining point and
nonpoint source water
quality problems in surface
waters, streams, rivers, lakes,
wetlands, and estuaries. The
State Clean Water Strategies
will serve as the road map for
the states and EPA to
identify the remaining
troubled or threatened waters
and find the most effective
route to address them.
Although the Water
Quality Act of 1987 provides
for expanded enforcement
authorities, it does not
modify the existing industrial
and municipal permit limits
which must be enforced. The
NPDES enforcement program
priority continues to be
implementation of the
National Municipal Policy,
ensuring municipalities are
in compliance with
secondary treatment
requirements. However, all
point sources must continue
to meet in-place water
quality and technology-based
requirements. Enforcement is
critical to maintaining the
progress we have achieved.
EPA will continue to
maintain and enhance
existing enforcement
capacity.
75
-------
76
-------
77
-------
LAND
Historically, land has been
used as the dumping
ground for wastes, including
those removed from the air
and water. Early
environmental protection
efforts focused on cleaning up
air and water pollution. It
was not until the 1970's that
there was much public
concern about pollution of
the land. We now recognize
that contamination of the
land threatens not only
future uses of the land itself,
but also the quality of the
surrounding air, surface
water, and ground water.
The biggest challenge for
the next decade is to reduce
the amount of waste. We
must invest in recycling
programs, more efficient
production processes,
substituting less harmful
products, and reducing
unnecessary wastes like
excess packaging. Some
amount of waste, however,
can not be avoided. Waste
must be properly managed to
make as little impact on the
environment as possible.
Improper handling, storage,
and disposal of chemicals can
cause serious problems. Most
of us are familiar with these
examples:
• Gasoline leaks from
underground storage tanks
caused a gas station
explosion in Council Bluffs,
Iowa.
• In Love Canal, New York,
and Times Beach, Missouri,
improper land disposal of
hazardous wastes resulted in
contaminated land and water
in the surrounding
communities.
• Hundreds of drinking
water wells have been
contaminated by improper
waste disposal throughout
the U.S.
• A barge carrying 90 tons of
garbage from the
northeastern U.S. travelled
for several months in the
Caribbean and Gulf of
Mexico as its operators
searched for a place to
dispose of the cargo in an
appropriate manner.
• Accidental release of the
gas methyl isocyanate killed
2,800 people in Bhopal, India.
To address the causes of
these and other problems,
Congress enacted legislation
to clean up problem waste
sites, address leaks from
underground storage tanks,
and regulate hazardous waste
handling. Additional
legislation promoted planning
for chemical emergencies and
the public's right to know
about storage and use of
chemicals in their
communities.
This chapter begins with
an overview of waste
generation and disposal
issues; EPA's legislative
authorities to address
hazardous substance storage
and disposal; EPA's approach
to waste management, clean
up, and preparedness for
chemical emergencies; and a
summary of progress
achieved so far. The
remainder of the chapter
describes four key problems
facing the nation and EPA's
plans to address those
problems.
78
-------
AN OVERVIEW
More than six billion tons
of agricultural,
commercial, industrial, and
domestic waste are produced
in the United States each
year. Most waste presents
few health or environmental
problems. Half the total, for
example, is agricultural
waste, primarily crop
residues, most of which is
plowed back into the land.
Other waste, particularly that
from industrial sources, can
imperil both public health
and the environment (Figure
L-l). Leaks from underground
storage tanks and chemical
emergencies also contribute
to contamination of the land
and ground water.
If not properly disposed,
even common household
wastes can cause
environmental problems
ranging from foul-smelling
smoke from burning trash to
breeding grounds for rats,
flies, and mosquitoes. Even at
properly run'disposal sites,
land contamination can
contribute to air and water
pollution because small
quantities of toxic substances
such as pesticides, paints, or
solvents may be dumped
with other household wastes.
Rain water seeping through
the buried wastes may form
"leachate" that percolates
down through soil and may
contaminate ground water.
Other organic wastes such as
garbage and paper products
decompose and can form
explosive methane gas.
Industrial wastes may
present particularly
troublesome problems. Many
components of these wastes,
such as dioxins, may present
serious health or
environmental threats by
themselves; others are
hazardous only in
combination with other
substances. Potential health
effects range from headaches,
nausea, and rashes, to acid
burns, serious impairment of
kidney and liver functions,
cancer, and genetic damage.
Congress enacted several
laws to regulate the
generation and disposal of
hazardous wastes. These laws
are aimed at three basic
objectives:
• Proper management and
disposal of wastes being
Generated now, and that will
e generated in the future.
• Cleanup of sites where the
results of past disposal
practices now threaten
surrounding communities
and the environment.
• Minimizing generation of
wastes and recycling
materials where possible to
lessen the burden on the
environment.
FIGURE L-l
6 Billion Tons of Waste
Are Generated in the
U.S. Each Year
(excludes high-level
radioactive waste)
Municipal 3.1%
Utility 1.2'
Industrial 6.4%
Mining/muling
39% .
(includes uranium
Agriculture 50.3%^ mill tailings!
Source: Office of Solid Waste, USEPA
Regulating Waste
Management
Developing methods for
proper disposal of the wastes
Americans generate in their
daily lives has been a focus of
federal legislation for some
time. In 1965, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act was
enacted to fund research and
technical assistance for state
and local planners.
In 1970, the program was
expanded by enactment of
the Resource Recovery Act.
This law promoted the
development of sanitary
landfills and encouraged a
shift from disposal toward
conservation, recycling, and
newer control technologies.
As the potential
environmental problems
posed by disposal of wastes
generated by chemical and
other industrial processes
became clearer, Congress
passed the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA
promotes "cradle-to-grave"
management for hazardous
waste, from their point of
feneration to their final
isposal location. The
program works through
requirements for hazardous
waste generators,
transporters, and treatment,
storage, and disposal
facilities.
RCRA was amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) in
1984. The amendments
altered the focus of waste
management in many ways.
HSWA required EPA to focus
on permitting land disposal
facilities and eventually
phasing out land disposal of
some wastes. It expanded the
RCRA-regulated community
to include businesses that
generate small amounts of
hazardous waste. Recycling
and waste minimization
provisions also were included
in the Act as promising
methods of reducing the
overall amount of waste
generated. .
HSWA also addressed
previously exempted
underground storage tanks
containing petroleum and
some hazardous substances.
With these provisions,
Congress gave EPA the
responsibility under RCRA
for regulating the storage of
gasoline and other
commercial products rather
than only wastes.
Cleaning Up Existing
Waste Problems
The problem of past
hazardous waste disposal was
brought to national attention
in a series of incidents and
the resulting news stories in
the late 1970s. The first
major incident was Love
Canal in Niagara Falls, New
York, where people were
evacuated from their homes
after hazardous waste buried
for over 25 years seeped to
the surface and into
basements. Times Beach,
Missouri represents another
prominent story of hazardous
waste mismanagement.
There, oil contaminated with
dioxin was used on roads and
subsequently contaminated
the soil and ground water in
the community.
It soon became clear that
hazardous waste problems
caused by past
mismanagement were outside
of existing environmental
statutes. A survey requested
by a Congressional
committee found that
one-third of the 3,383 waste
disposal sites used since 1950
by the 53 largest U.S.
chemical companies were not
covered under federal
regulations.
The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of
1972 established a fund of
$35 million for the cleanup
of hazardous substances and
79
-------
oil released into navigable
waters. However, no similar
fund existed for addressing
hazardous waste releases
solely on land. In response to
this need, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), or
"Superfund," was enacted in
1980. CERCLA authorized
SI.6 billion over five years
for a comprehensive program
to clean up the worst
abandoned or inactive waste
sites in the nation. CERCLA
funds used to establish and
administer the cleanup
program are derived primarily
from taxes on crude oil and
42 different commercial
chemicals.
The reauthorization of
CERCLA is known as the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA). These amendments
provided $8.5 billion for the
cleanup program and an
additional S500 million for
cleanup of leaks from
underground storage tanks.
Under SARA, Congress
strengthened EPA's mandate
to focus on permanent
cleanups at Superfund sites,
involve the public in decision
processes at sites, and
80
encourage states and tribes to
actively participate as
partners with EPA to address
these sites. SARA expanded
EPA's research, development
(especially in the area of
alternative technologies), and
training responsibilities.
SARA also strengthened
EPA's enforcement authority
to get others to clean up
hazardous waste problems for
which they are responsible.
Emergency Planning and
Community
Right-to-Know
In the process of amending
CERCLA, Congress passed
the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know
Act, known as Title HI. Title
HI was enacted to promote
the public's awareness of the
hazardous or toxic chemicals
used or produced by industry.
It also mandates that each
community be prepared to
respond to emergencies
resulting from release or
explosion of chemicals.
Industrial and commercial
facilities also will be required
to report annually on the
quantities of substances
present in their facilities and
released to the environment
on a routine basis.
SOURCES OF THE
PROBLEM AND EPA'S
APPROACH
As Figure L-l shows, every
major sector of the economy
contributes to producing
waste in the United States.
The kinds of wastes produced
by these sources and their
effects vary greatly. As a
result, wastes need different
levels and types of control.
The principal sources of
waste are discussed below.
Industrial Hazardous
Wastes
The chemical, petroleum,
metals, and transportation
industries are major
producers of hazardous
industrial waste (see Figure
L-2). Ninety-nine percent of
the hazardous waste
produced and managed under
the RCRA program is
produced by facilities that
generate large quantities
(more than 2,200 pounds) of
hazardous waste each month.
A much smaller amount of
hazardous waste, about one
million tons per year, comes
from small quantity
generators that each produce
between 220 and 2,200
pounds of waste per month.
These include automotive
repair shops, construction
firms, laundromats, dry
cleaners, and equipment
repair shops. Over 60 percent
of these wastes are derived
from lead batteries. The
remainder includes acids,
solvents, photographic
wastes, and dry cleaning
residues.
The large majority of
hazardous waste is managed
in the more highly
industrialized areas of the
United States, particularly
those areas with active
chemical and petroleum
industries. The quantity of
RCRA-regulated hazardous
waste handled in the Rocky
FIGURE L-2
The Chemical Industry Manages the Bulk of
Hazardous Waste in the U.S.
National Security 0.4%
Electrical Equipment 0.4%
Transportation Equipment
Fabricated Metals 1% I Petroleum Refinery 7%
Primary Metals
Source: National Screening Survey at Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage Disposal and
Recycling Facilities, Office of Solid Waste, USEPA
-------
Mountains and the far west
is much smaller than the
amount in the eastern,
southern, and midwestern
states.
EPA and the states share
responsibility under RCRA
for management of newly
generated industrial
hazardous waste. The ideal
solution to the hazardous
waste problem would be to
not create these wastes right
from the start. By employing
more efficient production
processes and substituting
less harmful products we can
lessen the risks posed by
these wastes. Moreover,
under RCRA there are
permitting and inspection
procedures to ensure that
wastes are managed
appropriately.
Under CERCLA, the
Agency has established a
comprehensive, national
program for identifying sites
that may pose threats,
evaluating these to determine
which are the most critical,
and implementing remedies
that reduce the threats.
CERCLA authorizes EPA to
act directly to clean up
hazardous waste disposal
sites where public health,
welfare, or the environment
is endangered.
Municipal Wastes
Municipal wastes include
household and commercial
wastes, demolition materials,
and sewage sludge.. Solvents
and other harmful household
and commercial wastes are
generally so intermingled
with other materials that
specific control of each is
virtually impossible.
Leachate resulting from rain
water seeping through
municipal landfills may
contaminate underlying
ground water. While the
degree of hazard presented by
this leachate is often
relatively low, the volume
produced is so great that it
may contaminate
ground water. EPA issues
requirements for municipal
facilities under its program to
regulate nonhazardous waste.
State and local governments
then are responsible for
ensuring compliance.
Industrial societies with
smaller farming populations
and higher incomes produce
considerably more waste per
person than do developing
countries. Figure L-3 shows
the amounts of refuse
generated per capita for
selected cities. The United
States produces the most
waste per person among
industrial nations. Taking
certain materials out of those
headed for the dump and
recycling them is one way to
manage the large volumes of
waste generated. EPA
encourages state and local
governments to set up
recycling programs, and has
set a four year goal to achieve
a nationwide 25 percent rate
of recycling of nonhazardous
wastes at their source.
Sewage sludge is the solid,
semisolid, or liquid residue
produced from treating
municipal wastewater. Some
sewage sludges contain high
levels of disease-carrying
microorganisms, toxic
FIGURE L-3
Refuse Generation Rates in Selected Cities
(circa 1980)
City Per Capita Waste Generation Bate
(pounds per day)
metals, or toxic organic
chemicals. Because of the
large quantities generated,
sewage sludge is a major
waste management problem
in a number of
municipalities.
In the past, sewage sludge
was regulated as a solid
waste under RCRA or a
variety of other laws. The
1987 Water Quality Act
provides for a comprehensive
program to reduce
environmental risks and
maximize the beneficial uses
of sewage sludge. The options
for using and disposing of
this sludge include land
application, landfilling, ocean
disposal, incineration, and
marketed products. In 1987,
the Agency proposed
regulations for sewage sludge
in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits (see
Water Chapter) and
established requirements for
state sludge management
programs.
Industrial Cities
New York, United States 4.0
Tokyo, Japan 3.0
Paris, France 2.4
Hong Kong 1.9
"Rome, Italy 1.5
Low-Income Cities
Lahore, Pakistan 1.3
Medellin, Colombia 1.2
Calcutta, India 1.1
Manila, Philippines 1.1
Kano, Nigeria 1.0
Source: Cynthia Pollock/'Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential for RecycSng" (WorldWatch Paper.
April1987| . -
Mining Wastes
A large volume of all waste
generated in the United
States is from mining coal,
phosphates, copper, iron,
uranium, and other minerals
and from ore processing and
milling. These wastes consist
primarily of overburden, the
soil and rock cleared away
before mining, and tailings,
the material discarded during
ore processing.
Mining wastes are a source
of environmental problems
particularly in a few western
and southwestern states.
Although mining wastes are
generally considered to
present low hazards, they
present a disposal problem
because of the estimated 2.34
billion tons generated per
year. Runoff from these
wastes increases the acidity
of streams and pollutes them
with toxic metals.
Furthermore, the tremendous
amounts of overburden
generated in surface mining
can pose local management
problems.
Coal mining wastes are
controlled at the federal level
by the Department of the
Interior under the Surface
Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977.
Under federal law, EPA has
specific responsibilities for
uranium mill tailings. EPA's
primary role is to assess the
effects of these wastes on the
environment and, if
necessary, propose additional
controls. The Agency is
currently developing a
regulatory program under
RCRA for mining wastes.
-------
A Few Important
Definitions
Radioactive Wastes
Radioactive materials are
used in a wide variety of
applications, from generating
electricity to medical
research. The U.S. has
produced large quantities of
radioactive wastes that can
pose environmental and
nealth problems for many
generations.
The Department of Energy,
the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the states, and
EPA share responsibility for
managing radioactive wastes.
EPA issues radiation
standards that set limits on
the levels of human exposure
to radiation or on quantities
of radioactive materials that
may be released into the
environment. In addition, the
Agency develops
recommendations for federal
agencies that handle
radioactive wastes, and
provides technical assistance
to other federal agencies and
states for carrying out their
radiation protection
programs.
To reduce the risks from
low-level radioactive wastes,
EPA published criteria to
help select low-level waste
disposal sites. In 1985, the
Agency issued environmental
standards for the
management and disposal of
high-level radioactive wastes.
The Agency currently is
re-evaluating some of the
technical aspects of these
regulations.
The Agency also conducts
emergency and routine
monitoring of radiation levels
in the environment. For
example, several ongoing
programs monitor radiation
levels in air, precipitation,
surface and drinking water,
and milk samples. EPA also
coordinated offsite
monitoring activities during
cleanup of the damaged
Three Mile Island nuclear
reactor in Pennsylvania, and
closely tracked radiation
levels after the Chernobyl
nuclear accident.
Other Wastes
Of the six billion tons of
waste generated each year,
more than half are from
agriculture and forestry. Most
of this waste poses relatively
small health and
environmental hazards. Much
of forestry waste is now
burned for energy, and
agricultural waste is mostly
E lowed back into the fields or
urned. Some agricultural
wastes, such as unused
pesticides and empty
pesticide containers, do
require safe treatment and
disposal and are regulated by
EPA. (See "Pesticides:
Human Health Concerns" in
the Toxics Chapter.)
Utilities also contribute to
the nation's waste
production. The principal
wastes produced by electric
power plants are sludges from
processes designed to prevent
air and water pollution.
Ninety percent (over 70
million tons annually) of all
combustion waste generated
in the U.S. is from coal-fired
power plants. These wastes
are generated in large
amounts but generally are of
low risk. Under RCRA, EPA
is responsible for determining
whether there is a need to
regulate the sludges resulting
from air pollution control
equipment at these plants.
The Agency is currently
studying the effects of these
wastes to determine the
extent of regulation needed.
Underground Storage of
Substances
Leaking underground storage
tanks are another source of
land contamination that can
contribute to ground-water
contamination. The majority
of these tanks do not store
waste, but instead store
petroleum products and some
Definitions of hazardous substances are not as
straightforward as they appear. For purposes of
regulation, Congress and EPA have defined terms
to describe wastes and other substances that fall
under Regulation. The definitions below show the
complexity of our regulatory task.
Hazardous Substance (CERCLA) - Any substance
that, when released into the environment, may
present substantial danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Designation as a
hazardous substance grows out of the statutory
definitions in several environmental laws: the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Currently there are 717 CERCLA
hazardous substances.
Extremely Hazardous Substances (CERCLA as
amended) - Substances which could cause serious,
irreversible health effects from a single exposure.
For purposes of chemical emergency planning,
EPA has designated 366 substances as extremely
hazardous. If not already so designated, these also
will be listed as hazardous substances.
Solid Waste (RCEA) - Any garbage, refuse, sludge,
or other discarded material. All solid waste is not
solid; it can be liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material. Solid waste results from
industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations and from community activities. Solid
waste can be either hazardous or nonhazardous.
Howler, it does not include solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage, certain nuclear
material, or certain agricultural wastes.
Hazardous Waste (RCRA) - Solid waste, or
combinations of solid waste, that because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics, may pose a hazard to
human health or the environment. Under RCRA,
these wastes are -further defined by characteristics
described in the section, "Preventing Future
Contamination From Improper Waste Disposal."
Nonhazardous Waste (RCRA) - Solid wastes,
including municipal wastes, household hazardous
waste, municipal sludge, and industrial and ,j-,0
commercial wastes that are not hazardous.
hazardous substances. Most
of the tanks now in place are
bare steel and subject to
corrosion^ Many are old and
near therend of their useful
lives. Hundreds of thousands
of these tanks are thought to
be leaking, with more
expected to develop leaks in
the next five to ten years.
Leaking tanks can
contaminate local
ground-water supplies, may
endanger local drinking water
systems, or may lead to
explosions and fires.
-------
PROGRESS
To DATE
Regulations developed to
implement the requirements
of RCRA and its
amendments now provide the
basis for environmentally
sound management of the
millions of tons of hazardous
waste generated each year. In
addition, under CERCLA,
EPA and the states are
investigating potentially
hazardous disposal sites. The
most serious of these sites
are being cleaned up.
Congress has given EPA new
responsibilities for
controlling pollution from
underground storage tanks,
and the Agency is assisting
communities in preparing for
chemical emergencies.
Preventing Improper
Management of Waste
Since the passage of RCRA
and the 1984 HSWA
amendments, one of EPA's
greatest accomplishments has
been to establish the
framework to properly
manage hazardous wastes as
they are generated and to
minimize associated risks to
humans and the
environment.
We are enforcing basic
requirements governing
waste storage, treatment, and
disposal and have granted or
denied final operating
permits to hundreds of
hazardous waste facilities.
Rather than trying to meet
the strict HSWA
requirements for receiving an
operating permit, many land
disposal facilities have
chosen to stop managing
hazardous waste. EPA
continues to work with the
states and operators of these
facilities to ensure no waste
Eroblems are left when the
icilities close.
EPA and the states are
taking the following steps to
ensure that currently
generated waste will not
result in additional
multi-million dollar cleanup
problems.
• The land disposal
restrictions program (land
ban) required under HSWA is
being implemented. Wastes
that do not meet specified
treatment standards will be
banned from land disposal
over the next several years.
• Wastes from cleaning up
Superfund sites are being
transported only to approved
and frequently inspected
RCRA hazardous waste
facilities.
• Efforts to encourage waste
minimization have been
increased. By outlining short-
and long-term goals and by
further developing policies,
EPA hopes to decrease the
amount of waste generated in
the nation.
Cleaning Up Releases of
Hazardous Substances
Under CERCLA, EPA and the
states take responsibility for
cleaning up hazardous sites
where there are no
responsible parties or where
those responsible for the spill
or leak do not agree to a
settlement for cleanup.
Under these circumstances,,
cleanup costs are paid
directly from the $8.5 billion
Superfund with a minimum
of 10 percent contribution
from the state. The federal
government will later sue the
responsible parties to recover
cleanup costs. Cleaning up
one Superfund site often
takes years and can cost
millions of dollars.
Working with the states,
the public, and tribal
governments, the Agency has
identified approximately
30,000 sites where there is a
potential of release of
hazardous substances. Initial
investigation of the vast
majority of these sites has
determined that:
• 1177 have completed the
Superfund screening process
and have been included or
proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List;
• more than 8,000 sites
require no further action
under Superfund; and
• the rest await a final
decision.
The Agency has
investigated in detail over
two hundred sites and has
selected remedies to the
contamination problems.
Over 1,000 short-term
actions to address immediate
threats have been started
throughout the United States.
Under RCRA, corrective
actions are conducted to
clean up all operating or
closing RCRA facilities that
released hazardous waste
threatening health or the
environment. The Agency
has pursued corrective action
by identifying facilities
subject to the provisions of
RCRA, identifying possible
releases from these facilities,
and requiring cleanup
through permits or
enforcement orders. EPA has
completed initial assessments
at 400 active RCRA facilities
and estimates that a
minimum of 60 percent will
require further investigation.
Pollution From
Underground Storage
Tanks
An estimated five to six
million underground storage
tanks in use in the United
States contain petroleum
products or hazardous
chemicals. Approximately
two million of these tanks
may be leaking and will
come under RCRA regulation
this year. EPA is developing
regulations for new and
existing underground tanks
that address leak prevention
and detection, corrective
action, record-keeping, and
reporting of leaks or spills. In
addition, regulations are
pending that require owners
of these tanks to show they
can pay for cleanup of leaks.
States and EPA will be
responsible for implementing
this program. Some states
have already moved ahead of
the federal government in
regulating underground
tanks.
Chemical Emergency
Planning
Title III is a relatively new
law directed at chemical
emergency planning and
community right to know.
EPA has already made
significant progress in
carrying out the mandates of
this law. The Agency is
establishing a data base,
accessible to the public, with
comprehensive information
on chemical releases to all
environmental media. In
addition, we are helping state
and local governments use
the information in the data
base to plan for chemical
emergencies, and have
published a list of 366
Extremely Hazardous
Substances for release
reporting and emergency
planning purposes.
83
-------
EPA, the states, and industry
face many significant land
pollution challenges. Four
major challenges discussed in
this chapter are:
• Preventing future
contamination from improper
waste disposal. Focusing on
major generators, and storage,
treatment, and disposal
facilities, EPA is taking steps
with the states to ensure me
proper managementrof
hazardous and municipal
wastes. We are regularly
informing citizens and large
and small businesses of the
necessity to dispose of waste
properly, and we will
continue to enforce
compliance with the laws.
Encouraging waste
minimization at production
facilities and recycling in
businesses and homes will
also be high priorities.
• Cleaning up of releases of
hazardous substances. One of
the Agency's highest
priorities is to clean up the
many uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites across the
country. The rate at which
these sites are addressed,
making use of the new
authorities of SARA and
HSWA, is accelerating.
• Tackling pollution from
underground storage tanks.
Focusing on a recently
recognized problem, EPA will
continue to develop programs
to assist the states in
managing underground
storage tanks. The vast
number of these tanks,
coupled with the need to
replace many of them, make
this both^a communications
and a technological
challenge. EPA will help
states ge"t started on cleaning
up contaminated land and
water where leaks have
already occurred, and ensure
that new tanks have
Erotection to prevent future
jaks.
• Chemical Emergency
Planning and Community
Right to Know. EPA will
continue to work with state,
tribal, and local agencies and
citizens to ensure that
facilities in each community
provide full information
about the presence and
release of toxic chemicals in
their communities. The
Agency will also support
state, tribal, and local
emergency planning activities
to mitigate the potential
effects of any accidental
releases that may occur.
Hazardous SuBstances Around the House
(he. proliferation of new
chemicals in our society, the types
tin,d number^ of ^Qnsjjmer products
I have risen sharply. 'Products such as
medicines, insecticides, cleaners,
faints, and plastics, contain a
vdrlety of chemicals. Once the
useful life of these products is over,
they become wastes, some of them
hazardous,
Household hazardous materials
can be properly handled by
carefully following label directions
fdfuse and disposal. Local health,
waste management, or fire
department officials are good
sources for advice on disposal
options. For example, used motor oil
can be returned to a collection
Wnfer to be burned as fuel or
/ .......... f e^ttfined, for use as ..... g_lubricant. If
not properly handled, household
hazardous wastes can contaminate
wafer if poured into storm drains,
streams, rivers, lakes, or on the
gfound*
Common Household Hazardous
Materials
H«re is a partial list of some of the
household products that may be
hazardous if not used or disposed of
properly.
the kitchen and bathroom:
.......... ......
shes
.. - -
and metal cleaners _and
- discarded medicines
• In the garage:
- oil and fuel additives
- grease and rust solvents
- carburetor and fuel injection
cleaners and starter fluids
- outdated chemistry sets
• In the workshop:
- paint thinners, strippers and
removers
- adhesives
• For the lawn and garden:
- herbicides
- pesticides
- fungicides and wood
preservatives
Like garbage, sewage, or any other
type of waste, the less household
hazardous waste there is, the less
the threat to our environment and
public health. One of EPA's goals is
to reduce the amount of hazardous
and nonhazardous waste produced.
Homeowners are encouraged to buy
only as much of a product as
needed, and to recycle when
possible. Leftoverjpaint can be given
to a neighbor, for example. Another
way to minimize waste is by using
less toxic substitutes that work for
several household jobs.
Alternatives to detergents, polishes
and potions.
Although not infallible, these
methods have been found to be
iiin effective and economical.
Dram Cleanser - Pour boiling water
down drain. Two handfuls of salt
followed by boiling water should
clear most pipes.
Cleanser - For sinks, salt is an
excellent scouring agent and
possesses disinfecting qualities. For
ovens and refrigerators, baking soda
is a good cleanser and freshener.
Chrome, Stainless Steel Cleaner -
Dip dry cloth into flour and rub on
surface.
General Furniture Polish - 1/2 cup
vinegar, 1/2 cup rubbing alcohol, 1
cup linseed oil. Shake well before
applying. Test in small area before
total application.
Air Freshener - Bowls filled with
white vinegar placed next to stove
lessens cooking odors.
Moth Repellent - Cover surface of
apple or orange with cloves. Cover
with white tissue and let dry for
two weeks in dry, airy place.
Unwrap and hang in closet. Cedar
wood chips also repel moths.
Insect Repellent - Companion
planting, including certain plants
throughout and around the garden
can repel a variety of insects. Some
of tliese plants: nasturtium, (
marigolds, rosemary, petumas~,~nnd
garlic.
Slug and Snail Poison - Pour beer in
flat containers and place below
ground level in infested area.
84
* Adapted from Household Alternatives for a Safer Environment — Connecticut Fund for the Environment
-------
Preventing Future Contamination
from (Improper Waste Disposal
Solidified chemicals at an abandoned hazardous waste site.
THE
PROBLEM
The nation's waste disposal
programs focus on two
categories of wastes:
hazardous wastes, and
municipal and other
non-hazardous wastes. The
disposal problems associated
with each waste category are
summarized below.
Hazardous Wastes
Before the early 1970s, the
nation paid little attention to
industrial production and the
disposal of the waste it
generated, particularly
hazardous waste. In fact,
until the passage of RCRA in
1976, there was no federal
legislation dealing with the
problems of hazardous waste
management. As a result,
billions of dollars must now
be spent to clean up disposal
sites neglected through years
of mismanagement.
Every year about 3,000
facilities manage 275 million
metric tons of RCRA
hazardous waste in the
United States. For the
purposes of RCRA regulation,
EPA may identify a waste as
hazardous, if it poses a fire
hazard (ignitable); dissolves
materials or is acidic
(corrosive); is explosive
(reactive); or otherwise poses
danger to human health or
the environment (toxic)
(Figure L-4). Figure L-5 shows
that most hazardous waste
results from the production
of widely used goods such as
polyester and other synthetic
fabrics, kitchen appliances,
and plastic milk jugs. A
small percentage of
hazardous waste (less than
one percent) is comprised of
the used commercial
products themselves, -
including household cleaning
fluids or battery acid.
Wastes that are-improperly
disposed can pose dangers to
human health ranging from
headaches to, cancer.
FIGURE L-4
Examples of Wastes and Hazardous Waste
Characteristics They Exhibit
Toxicity
• some pesticide
waste j
• substances with •
high levels of
mercury, lead, 3
aresenic, etc. i
Ignitaliility
• solvents
• oils
Corrosivity
• acid wastes
Reactivity
• water from
TNT operations
• used pickle
liquor (to clean
steel during its
manufacture]
• used cyanide
solvents
85
-------
Hazardous wastes also could
damage the environment, for
example, by seeping into
surface waters and killing
fish or other organisms.
Reducing the risks of
exposure to hazardous
materials by proper disposal
will help assure our nation's
long-term environmental
well being.
Approaches to
Management of
Hazardous Wastes
Proper management to reduce
the risks of hazardous wastes
requires a mix of waste
minimization, treatment, and
disposal. Waste minimization
is the most desirable
approach, in that it reduces
the amount of waste and
therefore reduces the risk that
they pose. Many companies
have changed their
production processes or have
begun to use less hazardous
products. As a result, they
are generating less hazardous
raw materials, and may lower
their hazardous waste
handling costs. Where waste
minimization is not feasible,
treatment or proper disposal
is an additional tool for
limiting the risks from
hazardous wastes.
Choosing wisely among
these options will ensure that
waste is managed in the most
economical way with full
protection of human health
and the environment. One of
the great ironies in hazardous
waste management, however,
is the difficulty in the siting
and construction of new
management facilities
because of public opposition
to having such facilities in
their communities. The lack
of nearby disposal capacity
means that producers of the
waste can be forced to ship
them long distances to a
disposal facility. For instance,
in 1986 Connecticut opted to
send the majority of its
hazardous waste to Canada,
Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey.
The number of facilities
available for managing
hazardous wastes is shrinking
steadily. Many facilities that
do not have the financial and
technical means to ensure
continued safe management
* i- &
ifl Si if Till h nmnffl ITf if il I t
Products , .. . ,
lsWe"Use " ™"e potentia'ly hazardous
' ; ' ~~~ BB553BE8SI8!? tIie>L§enerate»"»^
5rgan|c chlorine compounds, organic
glgegs^^ lllelMlfl (l(i¥1 „„ l(l|l ,„, , l(l „„ r „
Jjganic chlorine, compounds, organic
nosphate compounds
jc solvents and residues heavy
> (mercury and zinc, for
:i:=|_g*in|5
pigments, solvents,
,„ ..,
'. Oi
, ine, and Oil, phenols and other organic
p, petroleum cpmpounds, heavy metals, ammonia,
lU'cts _ ' ni i i ^'silt acids, caustics
*Jea,yy, metals^, fluorides, cyanides,
irSfl nnrf j^jj^Opp cjeanejs, solvents,
s, abrasives, plating salts, oils,
heiiols
her
i n
_He,!,yv metals, organic solvents
Textiles Peavy metals, dyes, organic chlorine
~'~"", solvents
are closing. Their closure
from environmental and
health standpoints is a
welcome outcome, but if too
many facilities close, there
will be inadequate capacity
remaining for correctly
managing hazardous waste.
Nonhazatdous
Solid Waste
The bulk of "nonhazardous"
wastes actually fall
somewhere between
hazardous and non-hazardous
waste (like most municipal
waste). Nonhazardous waste
includes: industrial refuse,
sludges from wastewater
treatment facilities, and other
discarded materials from
commercial, mining,
agricultural, and community
FIGURE L-6
Paper and Yard Waste
is More than Half of our Trash
Source: Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, 1980
Source: Office of Solid Waste, USEPA, 1986
-------
Treatment and Disposal
of Hazardous Wastes
activities. The quantity of
solid wastes generated
annually is several orders of
magnitude greater than the
amount of hazardous waste.
For example, approximately
2.34 billion tons of mining
wastes are produced
annually. This alone amounts
to more than five times the
amount of hazardous waste
managed each year.
Municipal waste is a
substantial part of the waste
generated in the U.S. every
year. Americans throw out
more trash every day than
any other nation. On average,
we discard about 4 pounds of
trash a day, compared to the
average Japanese who throws
out 2.5, or the average
Norwegian who throws out
1.7 pounds per day.
Approximately 158 million
tons of municipal solid
wastes were discarded in
1986. As shown in Figure
L-6, paper products and yard
wastes make up about 59
percent of all municipal solid
waste.
The United States has
relied on landfills for the
disposal of almost 160
million tons of municipal
waste generated every year.
But in recent years, questions
have arisen whether land
disposal alone affords the
best disposal solution
possible. Unless the wastes
are carefully managed, they
may contaminate drinking
water supplies, release toxic
vapors into the air, create
explosive conditions near
landfills, or otherwise
threaten public health. Many
municipal landfills are now
close to overflowing and
almost 70 percent of all such
landfills are expected to reach
capacity in 15 years.
Furthermore, communities
where old landfills have
reached capacity are having
trouble siting new landfills.
The recent Islip, New York
"garbage barge" odyssey
further highlights the
difficulties arising from the
generation and management
of trash.
Treatment and disposal differs for
organic and inorganic substances.
Organic substances are made
principally of carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen. Some of these materials can be
broken down into relatively harmless
substances such as water and carbon
dioxide. In contrast, no matter what
type of treatment is used on certain
inorganic substances, they can only be
broken down into components that
still pose a potential risk. For instance,
metals can never be broken down
beyond their basic metallic elements,
therefore, they ultimately require land
disposal.
Landfilling of wastes is the last stop
in the waste management chain and is
one method of waste disposal. Only a
small portion of waste is ultimately
land-filled. The long-term goal of a
landfill is to serve as an indefinite
holding place for wastes and to
minimize the potential of exposure.
Hazardous wastes often are disposed of
by injection as a liquid into the
ground in specially designed wells.
Approximately 20-35 million metric
tons (about 10 percent by weight) of
dilute, hazardous waste is disposed of
annually into deep-well injection
systems. These wells penetrate to
depths well below drinking water
sources where natural brine makes
water unusable.
The vast majority of the hazardous
waste managed annually is treated in
man-made surface ponds (or
impoundments) and wastewatei
treatment plants. The volume of
wastewater disposal into surface
waters is great, but these wastewaters
can be regulated by the Clean Water
Act (see section titled "Surface Water"
in the Water Chapter). A relatively
small amount — about 2 million
metric tons -— is incinerated. A
number of different treatment
technologies are used on hazardous
wastes to render them less toxic before
final disposal:
• Wastewaters are made less
hazardous by biological
decomposition, chemical
neutralization, precipitation, or steam
stripping. Steam stripping converts the
hazardous constituents to gas, which is
then captured in air pollution control
equipment.
• The only alternative for metals and
inorganics is recycling or solidification.
Solidification involves combining the
waste with a stabilizing agent, such as
cement, to create a solid, impermeable
material which lessens the likelihood
of leaching into the soil.
• Enclosed incinerators primarily burn
liquid organic waste and some sludges
at high enough temperatures so that
virtually complete combustion takes
place.
87
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
EPA and the states share the
responsibility for regulating
newly generated hazardous
waste under RCRA. RCRA
was created to minimize the
risks from hazardous wastes
at all points in their life
cycle, from their generation
to their disposal. It was also
designed to require
safeguards; to encourage the
proper disposal of municipal,
commercial, and industrial
waste; to eliminate or reduce
waste; and to conserve
energy and natural resources.
Hazardous Waste and
"Cradle to Grave"
Management
RCRA involves a "cradle to
grave" effort covering the
generation, transportation,
storage, treatment, and
disposal of newly generated
hazardous waste. EPA's
system includes five basic
elements:
* Identification —
Generators and the types of
waste that they produce must
be initially identified.
• Tracking — A uniform
"manifest'" describing the
waste, its quantity, the
generator, and receiver, must
accompany transported
hazardous waste from the
point at which it is generated
to its final off-site destination
and disposal (see Figure L-7).
• Permitting — All
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
will be issued permits to
allow EPA ana the states to
ensure their safe operation.
There are about 7,000
facilities that must receive
permits in order to continue
operating.
* Restrictions and controls
— Hazardous waste facilities
must follow EPA's rules and
guidance specifying
acceptable conditions for
disposal, treatment, and
Storage of hazardous wastes.
• Enforcement and
compliance — Generators,
transporters, and facilities are
penalized if they do not
comply with the regulations.
The cradle to grave system
works through requirements
for hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Key to this
system are RCRA operating
permits. Basic operating
permits identify
administrative and technical
standards with which
facilities must comply. For
example, the permits require
operators of hazardous waste
landfills to keep thorough
records of the types and
quantities of wastes they
manage.
The number of permits
FIGURE L-7
The Hazardous Waste Manifest Trail
UNIFORM
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1
EPA or State Agency
A one-page manifest must accompany every waste
shipment. The resulting paper trail documents the
waste's progress through treatment, storage and
disposal. A missing form alerts the generator to
investigate, which may mean calling in the state
agency or EPA.
Note: A manifest is unnecessary for waste treated and disposed oi
EPA processes is very large.
There are 1,460 land disposal
facilities that need permits to
continue operating. As of
April 1, 1987, 170 had their
permits issued. In addition,
most of the 1,100 facilities
that are closing will need
post-closure care. Incinerators
and storage facilities must
also be permitted.
Operators of land disposal
facilities must monitor
ground-water quality near the
facility and report
contamination problems to
the state or EPA. They must
comply with restrictions
regarding the handling of
certain types of wastes and
waste containers. For example,
a liquid waste must be
solidified before being
disposed of in a landfill.
Owners and operators must
comply with strict rules not
only during, but also after
closure of a unit if
contaminants are left in
place. The rules include
construction of a protective
cover or "cap," ground-water
monitoring for thirty years,
erosion control, prevention of
rainfall entry, and security
requirements.
The most recent revisions
to RCRA, the 1984
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA),
greatly strengthened the
hazardous waste program.
Some of the major changes
were:
• Recognizing that technical
requirements (such as liners)
and operating requirements
do not always sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment from exposure
to contaminants which are
land disposed, HSWA
authorized EPA to require
treatment of all hazardous
wastes to EPA-specified
levels or methods before their
disposal on the land. As a
result of this "land ban" and
other regulations, there will
be more treatment of
hazardous wastes.
8S
-------
Lineis ate one of the design requirements for surface impoundments.
• Although treatment of
hazardous waste will become
routine, there will always be
a need for landfills to isolate
safely the unusable leftovers
of treatment such as
incinerator ash, stabilized
wastes, and sludges from
sewage treatment facilities.
HSWA establishes more
stringent requirements for
hazardous waste land
disposal facilities, including
double liners, leachate
detection and collection
systems, and ground-water
monitoring. As a result of
these stringent new
permitting requirements,
about 1,000 active land
disposal facilities will no
longer handle hazardous
waste.
• Approximately 100,000
small-quantity generators
(businesses generating
220-2,200 pounds of waste
per month) are no longer
exempt from RCRA's
hazardous waste
requirements. 1.15,000
hazardous waste generators
will now be regulated,
whereas before HSWA only
15,000 were regulated. The
new small businesses to be
regulated by EPA include
vehicle repair shops, metal
manufacturing and finishing
operations, laboratories,
printers, laundries, and dry
cleaners. Before HSWA, they
could discard their waste at
the same landfills where
communities dispose of their
garbage. Now these
businesses will be required to
dispose of hazardous wastes
at EPA-permitted facilities.
• Facility owners are
required by RCRA to clean
up leaks of wastes that occur
at their facilities. HSWA
broadened this requirement
and EPA is implementing its
new authorities (see section,
"Cleaning Up Releases of
Hazardous Substances" in
this chapter).
EPA continues to refine the
process set up to manage
hazardous wastes under
RCRA. Recently the
restrictions on land disposal
have increased, particularly
for those wastes named by
Congress in HSWA. Several
new regulations for
permitting and closure have
been finalized and others are
underway. We will
streamline the permit
process, to help issue them
more expeditiously.
EPA's general enforcement
strategy has been to focus
attention on facilities whose
violations pose the greatest
threat to human health and
the environment. Inspections
are an important tool in
ensuring compliance; they
focus on ground-water
monitoring, corrective action,
closing facilities, and federal
facilities for priority
attention. EPA is also
emphasizing criminal
enforcement as the limited
number of legal disposal'
options may prompt illegal
disposal activities.
Reducing Hazardous
Waste:
Environmental Quality
with Economic Benefits
"The Congress hereby declares it to be
the national policy of the United States
that, whenever feasible, the generation
of hazardous waste is to be reduced or
eliminated as expeditiously as
possible."
HSWA, 1984
Many companies have discovered that by
generating less waste, they can reduce costs
through lower waste storage and transportation
expenses, fewer administrative and reporting
burdens, less Hkelihood of financial liabilities
from accidental releases, and lower insurance
premiums. Insurance, however, is often not
available to waste generators. EPA has developed
a handbook to help waste generators better
understand and calculate such returns on
potential waste minimizing investments, and is
assisting industry in identifying where their waste
minimization opportunities may lie. Here are
examples of waste minimization successes.
Product Substitution. The Department of Defense
has developed a process in which small plastic
beads are air blasted at the surface of an airplane
to remove paint. This removes the need for
hazardous solvents. The department estimates
that this process has decreased the amount of
hazardous waste from 10,000 pounds of wet
sludge to 320 pounds of dry paint chips and
decomposed plastic material per aircraft. In
addition, the amount of work required per aircraft
to remove the paint by air blasting is eight times
less than by traditional methods.
• Process Efficiency. A California chemical plant
changed the reactor rinse and cleaning procedures
in its resin-manufacturing operations. This
reduced the use of organics by 93 percent.
Previously, phenol used in the manufacturing
process was allowed to drip into the plant's
sewage treatment system. The company now
recovers the water-phenol mixture for reuse.
Resource Recovery. An assessment of a
steel-making facility showed that calcium fluoride
(fluorspar) in the sludge generated during
neutralization of the pickling line wastewater
could be recovered. By recycling the fluorspar, the
company would save a substantial amount of
money spent to buy it, and also reduce by thirty
percent the volume of sludge requiring disposal.
-------
Management of
Nonhazardous Waste
Recycling, land application,
arid permanent disposal are
the three major ways in
which nonhazardous wastes
may be disposed. Recycling
involves reusing materials,
recovering components of
materials that can be reused,
erf making materials into new
products. EPA estimates that
In 1986, 11 percent of
municipal wastes were
recycled (see Figure L-8).
Certain wastes — like
sludges and wastewaters —
can be applied to the land
arid thereby incorporated into
th^e soil. In some instances,
the soil is used for
agricultural purposes. The
major method of permanent
disposal for nonhazardous
wastes is in landfills. Many
landfills have elaborate
systems to contain the
wastes and to monitor the
contents and ground-water
quality.
States are responsible for
administering nonhazardous
waste management programs.
EPA currently is focusing on
the new HSWA requirements
for management or
nonhazardous waste. For
example:
• The Agency will soon
revise the criteria for
municipal solid waste
landfills. At a minimum, the
criteria now being developed
for these facilities wjll
require ground-water
monitoring, location
restrictions, and corrective
action as appropriate. States
\will be required to
incorporate the revised
criteria into their programs.
• EPA will study and
determine the need for more
comprehensive requirements
for municipal waste
incinerators.
• The Agency has written
guidelines to assist other
federal agencies in the
purchase of products made
with a certain percentage of
recycled material such as
paper, retread tires, and
used oil.
EPA also is evaluating the
need for new federal controls
of certain wastes produced
during mining activities,
wastes from oil, gas, and
geothermal energy
production, and coal-fired
utility wastes. We are
investigating these wastes
because their great volume
and low toxicity exempted
them from hazardous waste
regulations under RCRA. We
are studying them thoroughly
to determine if they should
be regulated as hazardous
waste.
FIGURE L-8
Recycling Is Becoming a
More Important Option
for Municipal Waste
Disposal
ULandfilled
f™! incinerated
• Recycled
Source: Office of Solid Waste, USEPA,
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
How much to regulate is a
very difficult issue.
Under-regulation may foster
poorly managed hazardous
waste, and over-regulation
may put economic burdens
on those regulated and,
ultimately, the consuming
public. The Agency is
constantly striving to refine
the regulatory process to find
the optimal balance as it
issues permits for land
disposal facilities and
enforces regulatory
requirements. Incentive
approaches and other
non-traditional control
techniques can supplement
regulation, especially where
numerous small sources
contribute to the problem.
For almost all aspects of the
program, success depends
upon constructively
involving the public and
getting information to those
who need it.
Issuing Permits
The large numbers of
facilities to be permitted
present a difficult challenge,
especially given the technical
and legal complexities of the
task. Commercial land
disposal facilities and
incinerators are the most
difficult to permit because of
frequent local opposition.
Communities often feel
threatened by commercial
treatment facilities located
close to their homes.
Thorough assessments of
each site are needed in order
to develop operating
requirements for permits.
Specialists trained in
engineering, hydrology, and
chemistry are called on to
develop site-specific permit
conditions to minimize the
risks. Much effort is devoted
to coordinating the activities
of these specialists.
Enforcement
Before HSWA, land disposal
facilities were inspected
annually for compliance with
RCRA. Treatment and
storage facilities were
inspected less regularly.
Now, all federal- or
state-operated facilities must
be inspected annually, and
other commercial facilities at
least every two years. If a
serious violation has
occurred, EPA or the state
will issue an administrative
order or initiate a civil or
criminal law suit to make
sure the facility is returned
to compliance.
Involving the Public
Public participation in
hazardous waste management
is an integral part of the
regulatory system. EPA tries
to make sure the public has
access to information and is
given the opportunity to
comment on EPA's actions,
including permitting. Public
notices, a 45-day comment
period, and fact sheets are
required during the permit
process. Also, the 1984
amendments require that
authorized states disclose
information to the public
about compliance,
enforcement, and the results
of inspections.
Communicating to the public
what this information means
and coordinating with
interested groups is an
important part of the process.
Information
Dissemination
Lack of information has been
a barrier to companies who
want to set up waste
minimization or recycling
programs. Identifying waste
minimization opportunities
can require specialized
engineering knowledge that
many small- or medium-sized
companies do not have and
may not be able to obtain
independently. Improving
information dissemination
will help such companies
reduce the wastes they
generate.
90
-------
Recycling to Reduce Large Quantities of Wastes
Recycling is an increasingly
attractive option for handling our
municipal wastes as municipal
dumps fill up and communities
become more resistant to new
landfills and incinerators. Other
countries such as Japan already
have a recycling system in place.
Japan recycles 50 percent of its
wastes, and in one community they
have shown that recycling can
reduce garbage volume by as much
as 65 percent.
In the United States, a few states
have mandatory, statewide
recycling laws (see map). In these
states, residents have their
recyclables picked up at the curb,
much like regular garbage
collection. A few states have new
laws yet to be implemented, and as
many as 8,000 localities have their
own programs. Nine states have
"bottle bills," whereby consumers
pay a small deposit on cans and
bottles, which is returned to them
upon redemption. The cans and
bottles then are collected by the
distributor and recycled. Many
states are considering taxes on both
packaging and products made with
nonrecyclable materials. These
materials make up 33 percent of the
garbage we throw out.
The federal government, to
encourage use of recycled materials,
will soon purchase paper and paper
Recycling paper increases energy savings by 95% and reduces solid waste.
products containing the highest
possible percentage of recycled
materials. It is also .considering
purchasing cement and concrete
made with incinerator ash and
asphalt made from used tires and
re-refined lubricating oils. EPA has
recycled its own office paper for
years and has plans to start
recycling newspaper, bottles, and
aluminum cans.
There is strong momentum for
recycling around the country. EPA
plans to capitalize on it through
educational programs, providing
technical assistance, encouraging
market forces, and helping states
develop solid waste/recycling plans.
Recycling Laws by State
States with a statewide recycling law
States with a bottle bill
States with both a bottle bill
and statewide recycling laws
I I States where legislation is pending
Note: New York is a bottle bill state and has pending
legislation for mandatory recycling
91
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
EPA must meet the
permitting and other
regulatory deadlines of
HSWA. Between 1988 and
1990, the land disposal
restrictions program will be
In full force. The deadline for
issuing waste incinerator
permits is 1989. The statute
requires all land disposal
facilities to be permitted by
the end of 1988.
1 As part of the HSWA
implementation process, the
Agency will continue to
revise facility performance
standards, For certain land
disposal units, double liners
and leak detection systems
sire required in addition to
Other requirements such as
ground-water monitoring. We
fllso are writing regulations
that will ban certain
management practices and
types of facilities from being
located in sensitive
environments. The Agency
will also make existing
incinerator regulations more
stringent to address the
potential problems caused by
products of incomplete
combustion. To this end, we
are conducting various
Analyses that could
ultimately lead to
amendments to existing
Incinerator regulations.
EPA is proposing a
correction in the permit
modification system to allow
more flexibility for hazardous
'Waste facilities to respond to
changing wastes, to perform
corrective action activities,
and to make improvements.
There is a streamlined
process for the issuance of
permits for research,
development, and
demonstration facilities to
encourage the growth of new
technologies. Other planned
activities in the hazardous
waste area include listing of
new wastes to be categorized
as "hazardous," controlling
air emissions Jrom hazardous
treatment facilities, and
determining the hazards from
certain wastes previously
considered nonhazardous.
'EPA will soon revise the
criteria for the construction
and placement of municipal
waste landfills. The new
criteria will require
ground-water monitoring,
location restrictions near
critical wildlife habitat or in
areas likely to flood, and
provisions to address any
spills or leakage from these.
EPA will continue to
endorse and support
voluntary collection
programs for household
hazardous wastes. Other
possibilities for agency
involvement in the
municipal waste area are
increased technical assistance
to states and localities,
reduction of wastes at the
source, and recycling of
aluminum, newspaper, office
paper, and glass.
Hazardous Waste Management in
Anchorage, Alaska
Anchorage developed one of the
country's first household and business
hazardous waste collection programs.
The program was started in 1983 with
the city's first annual hazardous waste
cleanup week. Since then, the program
has collected about 800 drums — or
more than 30,000 pounds of hazardous
wastes —from generators who produce
too little waste to be regulated by
RCRA.
Because enforcement is difficult,
hazardous wastes from small
businesses often end up in sewers and
in the garbage or are dumped illegally.
Proper hazardous waste disposal in
Anchorage is a particular concern
because the nearest approved disposal
facilities are over 2,000 miles away in
the lower 48 states, disposal costs are
extremely high, and the-Arctic
environment is fragile and hence very
sensitive to contamination.
During one week every year,
individuals and businesses bring their
hazardous wastes to a central
collection point where they are
packaged properly and shipped to
EPA-approved facilities. These annual
cleanups, however, are only a partial
solution. During the 51 weeks when
the wastes are not collected, generatpr^
may be improperly storing them or,
worse, dumping them illegally.
for this reason, Anchorage is
designing both a collection program
and storage facilities that will provide
a year-round means for the safe
management of hazardous wastes from
households and very small-quantity
generators. A warehouse type structure
will be used to store the wastes. The
wastes will be analyzed, packaged,
and stored with compatible materials
in specially designed containers. When
enough wastes are collected, they will
be shipped to approved facilities in the
lower 48 states. A drop-off station for
up to five gallons of household
hazardous wastes will be located at an
in-town solid waste transfer station.
A major emphasis of the Anchorage
program has been public education
and awareness. A hazardous waste
school curriculum has been prepared
for grades four through six for use in
the Anchorage School District. The
curriculum gives students an
opportunity to see what happens when
hazardous wastes (food coloring) are
introduced into a simple hydrological
model (terrarium with clay and sand
layers and a water table). The
curriculum also shows students how to
conduct a home survey with their
parents to identify hazardous products
and methods used for disposal. Taken
together, these steps should go a long
way toward encouraging safe disposal
of hazardous wastes by both
businesses and individuals. , ,
92
-------
LAND
Cleaning Up Releases of
Hazardous Substances
THE
PROBLEM
Uncontrolled disposal sites
containing hazardous wastes
and other contaminants
present some of the most
serious environmental
problems our nation has ever
faced. These sites can
contaminate ground water,
lead to explosions, and
present other dangers to
people and the nearby
environment. In many cases,
the people who disposed of
the waste were unaware of
the problems that the sites
eventually would create for
public health and the
environment.
Most of the abandoned or
inactive waste sites and
many of the active hazardous
waste facilities where
hazardous wastes have
escaped are linked in some
fashion to the chemical and
§etroleum industries (see
iscussion of sources in the
section, "Preventing Future
Contamination from
Improper Waste Disposal").
Many of the sites were once
municipal landfills that may
have become hazardous
simply as a result of
accumulated pesticides,
cleaning solvents, and other
chemical products discarded
in household trash. A few
sites are the result of
transportation spills or other
accidents. We have identified
radioactive materials as one
of the hazards, at
approximately twenty sites.
Many inactive waste sites
are located in
environmentally sensitive
areas such as floodplains and
wetlands. A number also are
located close to populated
areas. These sites threaten
drinking water supplies when
rain and melting snow seep
through the site's surface and
carry chemicals that
contaminate nearby streams,
lakes, and underground
waters. At some sites, air is
contaminated as toxic vapors
rise from evaporating liquid
waste or from uncontrolled
chemical reactions. Some
pollutants, such as metals
and organic solvents, can
damage vegetation, endanger
wildlife, and threaten the
health of people who
unknowingly drink
contaminated water. For
other pollutants, the extent
of the danger is not known.
Approximately 30,000
potentially contaminated
sites that may pose a threat
to human health or the
environment have been
identified nationwide. In
addition, hazardous waste has
leaked from some active
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
now regulated under RCRA.
93
-------
EFFORTS
to DATE
Cleanup under
Superhmd
Under CERCLA, responsible
parties clean up sites
themselves with EPA or state
oversight. EPA and the states
also can start actions to clean
up sites after attempts at
negotiation with the
companies that created the
problem have failed or there
is an emergency. The
government will later sue
those companies to recover
the costs of cleanup.
To implement CERCLA,
the Agency designed a
process that begins with site
discovery. The basic steps are
to assess the nature and
degree of contamination,
determine the relative threat,
analyze the potential cleanup
alternatives, and take actions
to clean up the site.
The process also provides
for emergency cleanup of
contamination. When a site
is determined to present an
immediate danger to public
health, welfare or the
environment, EPA will step
in with funds to take any one
of several actions to alleviate
the threat. For example, we
may provide an alternate
\yater supply, put up fencing,
remove discrete sources of
contamination on the surface
{e.g., drums) or in severe
cases, temporarily relocate
residents until the danger is
eliminated. These "removal
actions" can take place when
a Site is first discovered or at
ahy time other work is being
conducted at the site and a
threat is encountered.
Removal actions under
Superfund are valuable for
ajileviating short-term threats
ahd support long term efforts.
JVIany of the sites where
removal actions are taken
need no further EPA action.
It further action is needed,
E.PA actions will be designed
to achieve long-term cleanup.
The Superfund process
begins with site discovery.
Sites may be brought to
EPA's attention as a potential
problem in a number of
ways. For example, a hunter
may come across a site where
waste was dumped illegally;
residents may notice a bad
taste in their drinking water
or a foul odor,- or there may
be an explosion or fire which
alerts authorities to a
problem. The approximately
30,000 potentially
contaminated sites identified
range from a closed-down
hazardous waste incinerator
in Maine to a leaking
underground pipe in Florida.
After discovering a site,
EPA or the state conducts a
Preliminary Assessment to
determine whether there is
an imminent threat which
would require immediate,
emergency attention or
whether additional
investigation or further
action is needed. Even when
it is determined that no
further action is needed at a
site because no hazard
appears to exist, the site
remains in the Superfund
inventory for record keeping
and future reference. To date,
the Agency has completed
over 27,000 Preliminary
Assessments.
If the Preliminary
Assessment at a site
indicates that further
investigation is necessary, a
more detailed Site Inspection
is conducted. The results of
the Site Inspection are
evaluated, using the Hazard
Ranking System. This is a
FIGURE L-9
The Number of Superfund NPL Sites Varies Widely from State to State
Numbers are actual and proposed sites on EPA's National Priorities List as of June 1988
Total-1177
Puerto Rico - 9
Guam-1
Alaska - 1
Hawaii • 6
DC-0
Priority hazardous waste sites per state
94
Source; National Priority List, Supplementary Lists and
Supporting Materials, June 1988, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (Superfund), USEPA
-------
technical evaluation which
considers how contamination
at a site could affect people
or the environment. By
factoring in criteria such as
how many people may be
exposed to chemical
contamination from the site,
the scoring system helps to
set cleanup priorities for the
Superfund program.
Currently, sites that score
28.5 or above, using the
Hazard Ranking System, are
placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL), EPA's
official list of hazardous
waste sites warranting
attention under Superfund.
Additionally, each state may
propose to list a top-priority
site.
Since the Superfund
program was established in
1980 almost 9,000 sites have
been determined to require
no further action from EPA
and over 8,000 Site
Inspections have been
conducted. One thousand,
one hundred and
seventy-seven sites have been
listed or proposed for listing
on the NPL. The location of
these sites is shown in Figure
L-9. Except for removal
actions, listing on the NPL is
a prerequisite for cleanup
activities that would use
federal Superfund money.
For sites included on the
NPL, further in-depth study
defines the nature and extent
of contamination. Such
studies have been initiated at
over half of the sites
currently listed on the NPL.
In many cases states and the
parties responsible for the
site contamination have
taken the lead in conducting
these studies.
After the public has had an
opportunity to comment on
the in-depth study, the most
effective.remedy for
long-term cleanup is
determined. Before selecting
a remedy, EPA or the
responsible state considers
whether the remedy would
comply with the federal and
state cleanup standards, the
cost-effectiveness of the
action, and the mandate to
use treatment to the
maximum extent practicable.
Some commonly used
remedies are incinerating
contaminated soils to
permanently destroy
contaminants, depositing
contaminated materials in a
landfill that is designed to
prevent any movement of the
contaminants from the fill,
and pumping arid treating
contaminated ground water
to clean up an aquifer.
To date, over 140
long-term cleanups have been
initiated at Superfund sites
across the nation. EPA works
with the state or responsible
parties to develop the
site-specific cleanup plan.
After the Superfund action is
completed, the state takes
responsibility for long-term
maintenance of the site to
ensure that the remedy
continues to work.
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorizatioii Act of 1986
The 1986 amendments of CERCLA,
known as the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
authorized $8.5 billion for both the
emergency response and longer term
(or remedial) cleanup programs. The
Superfund amendments focused on:
• Permanent remedies - EPA must
implement permanent remedies to the
maximum extent practicable. A range
of treatment options will be considered
whenever practicable.
• Complying wdth other regulations -
Applicable or relevant and appropriate
standards from other federal, state, or
tribal environmental laws must be met
at Superfund sites where remedial
actions are taken. In addition, state
standards that are more stringent than
federal standards must be met in
cleaning up sites.
• Alternative treatment technologies -
Cost effective treatment and recycling
must be considered as an alternative
to the land disposal of wastes. Uridex
RCRA, Congress banned land disposal
of some wastes. Many Superfund site
wastes, therefore, will be banned from
disposal on the land; alternative „
treatments are under development and
will be used where possible.
• Public involvement - Citizens living
near Superfund sites have been
involved in the site decisionmaking
process for over five years. They will
continue to be a part of this process.
They also will be able to apply for
technical assistance grants that may
further enhance their understanding of
site conditions and activities. :
• State involvement - States and tribes
are encouraged to participate actively
as partners with EPA in addressing
Superfund sites. They will assist in
making the decisions at sites, can take :
responsibility in managing cleanups, :'
and can play an important role in
oversight of responsible parties. ;
• Enforcement authorities - Settlement
policies already in use were 1
strengthened through Congressional ;
approval and inclusion in SARA. >.
Different settlement tools, such as de
minimis settlements (settlements with
minor contributors), are now part of '
the Act.
• Federal facility compliance -
Congress emphasized that federal •
facilities "are subject to, and must
comply with, this Act in the same _..
manner and to the same extent... as ^
any non-government entity."
Mandatory schedules have been
established for federal facilities to ^
assess their sites, and if listed on the j
NPL, to clean up such sites. We will be ;
assisting and overseeing federal
agencies with these new requirements. .:
The amendments also expand <
research and development, especially ]
in the area of alternative technologies. :|
They also provide for more training for :
state and federal personnel in
emergency preparedness, disaster ,
response, and hazard mitigation. ,
1.LJ
95.
-------
FIGURE L-10
Superfund Emergency Actions Were Taken To
Address Many Environmental or Public Health
Threats *
Over 1,000 short-term
actions to address immediate
threats have been initiated
(see Figure L-10). By the Fall
of 1987, the Agency reached
agreements with responsible
parties for 184 removal
actions.
Identification of
Responsible Parties
Throughout the Superfund
process, EPA tries to identify
the companies or individuals
whose wastes caused or
contributed to the problem.
The parties responsible for
the contamination must
either clean up the site or
reimburse EPA for cleaning it
up. Identifying the
responsible parties is not
always easy and in some
cases involves substantial
investigation. For example,
over 400 narties are under
investigation for contributing
contamination to one
particular site.
In many cases, responsible
parties have conducted the
cleanup work at a site with
EPA and state oversight.
Figure L-ll shows that 19
percent of emergency actions
and 38 percent of long-term
actions are funded by
responsible parties. Since
1980, responsible parties have
agreed to conduct 444
cleanups at a total cost in
excess of S642 million. EPA
also has recovered more than
SSI million in compensation
for cleanups it has performed,
and has suits pending for
another S254 million. If a
responsible party refuses to
comply with an EPA order
and EPA cleans up the site,
EPA may choose to seek
"treble damages," tripling the
amount of the cleanup costs
due the government.
Public Involvement
The Superfund site cleanup
process encourages public
involvement. At public
meetings, citizens can raise
issues and ask questions of
EPA and state officials. The
public has an opportunity to
comment on proposed plans
for all long-term actions.
Direct Contact with
Hazardous Waste
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfundl, USEPA
" More than one threat may be present at a specific site. Consequently the number of threats
is greater than the number of sites or actions.
public meetings. For NPL
sites, community groups may
obtain technical assistance
grants to help them interpret
technical information related
to cleanups at Superfund
sites.
Each Superfund site has a
community relations plan
tailored to the needs of the
affected community. The
plan may include publication
of a newsletter, site tours,
and regularly scheduled
FIGURE L-ll
Cleanups can be Financed by the Superfund or by
Responsible Parties
Removal Activities
Removal started OR initial remedial
measure started at a site
Remedial Activities
Remedial design started OR remedial
actions implemented at a site
Cleanup Under RCRA
The 1984 RCRA
amendments authorized EPA
to compel owners of RCRA
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities |
to clean up releases of
hazardous wastes and
constituents at their
facilities. EPA has designed a
process called "corrective
action" to clean up these
releases. It builds upon the
knowledge gained from
implementing Superfund and
is consistent with the
Superfund site cleanup
process.
In this cleanup effort, EPA
first examines historical data
on the facility's operations to
identify releases. Additional
studies are done to determine |
the nature and extent of any
identified releases. If the data
indicate the release .may pose
a threat to health or
environment, the Agency
will draft corrective action
requirements in a permit or
order.
EPA recently issued its
strategy for corrective action
and will begin proposing
regulations shortly. Among
the most important decisions
will be determination of
when corrective action is
needed, and to what level
cleanup is needed.
The steps in corrective
action will be imposed
through permit conditions or
through enforcement orders
(see section on "Preventing
Future Contamination From
Improper Disposal"). Priorities|
for action will be established
yearly and will focus on
those facilities that pose the
greatest overall threat to
human health and the
environment. We have
decided initially to targets
limited number of facilities
rather than address all
facilities that may require
action simultaneously.
"PRP - Potentially Responsible Parties who have agreed to pay for or conduct a cleanup
needed at the site, through negotiations or EPA enforcement action.
FUND - Sites where Superfund monies will/or have been used to clean up the site.
Responsible parties may be bankrupt or defunct. If possible, EPA will sue to recover cost at a
later date.
Source: Superfund Progress Report of September 30, 1987, USEPA
96
-------
The Steps in Cleaning Up
an Uncontrolled Waste Site
After someone alerts EPA about a potential problem
site, what happens^ If the site is found to present.a
release or threat of release to public health or the
environment that must be addressed quickly, EPA
may take emergency measures to remove the threat.
These removal actions range from installing security
fencing to digging up and removing wastes for safe
disposal at a RCRA approved facility. Such actions
may be taken at any site, not just those on the
National Priority List (NPL). These actions can take
place at any time during investigation or cleanup at
a site when a determination is made that response
should not be delayed.
1. Identification and Preliminary Assessment
'If response can be delayed without endangering
public health and the environment, we can take
additional time to evaluate the site further. We
collect all the available information on the site from
our files, state and local records, and U.S. Geological
Survey maps. We analyze the information to
determine the size of the site, parties most likely to
have used it, local hydrological and meteorological
conditions, and the impact of the wastes on the
environment.
2. Site Inspection
Inspectors then go to the site to collect sufficient
information to rank its hazard potential. They look
for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation. They may
take samples of soil or water. Inspectors analyze the
ways hazardous materials could be-polluting the
environment, for example, through runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if the public
(especially children) have access to the site.
3. Ranking Sites for the National Priorities List
Sites are evaluated according to the type, quantity,
and toxicity of wastes at the site, the number of
people potentially exposed, the pathways of
exposure, and the importance and vulnerability of
the underlying ground-water supply. This
information is used to determine the Hazard
.. Ranking System score. If the score is 28.5 or above,
the site may be proposed for listing on Superfund's
National Priorities List. Each state may also propose
one site for listing if it is the top priority site in the
state.
4. Negotiating with Potentially Responsible
Parties
After the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination are identified, EPA notifies them of
their potential liability. We then negotiate with
them to reach an agreement to undertake
the studies and subsequent cleanup actions needed
at the site. If negotiations are not successful, EPA
may use its enforcement authorities to require
responsible parties to take action, or the Agency may
choose to clean up the site and seek to recover costs
at a later date.
5. Remedial Investigation
The objective for hazardous waste sites placed on
the NPL is long-term cleanup. To select the cleanup
strategy best suited to each unique site, a more
extensive field study or remedial investigation is
conducted by EPA, the state, or the responsible
parties. This study includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate precise data on the
types and quantities of wastes present at the site, the
soil type and water drainage patterns, and resulting
environmental or public health risks.
6. Feasibility Study and Cleanup
Cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the
needs of each individual site. The feasibility study
analyzes those needs and evaluates alternative
cleanup approaches on the basis of their relative
effectiveness and cost. Remedial actions must use
permanent solutions and alternative treatment to the
maximum extent practicable. They may include
technologies such as ground-water treatment or
incineration.
7. Post-Cleanup Responsibilities
After cleanup, the state is responsible for any
long-term operation and maintenance required to
prevent future health hazards or environmental
damage.
•97
-------
Long-Term Cleanup at
a jSyperfund Site in
Massachusetts
The Baird et> McGuire Superfund site encompasses
a 20-acre area south of Boston in Holbrook,
Massachusetts.FOI OKI" 20 years at the site, a
company formulated and produced soaps,
disinfectants, floor waxes, pesticides, and
herbicides,
Qver 100\QQO gallons of hazardous materials
wefe storedkjn_a nurnberofr tanks at, theusite.rOf
i^ possible $vp^und'priority 'pollutants, 100
have been found there, the town's wellfield has
been contaminated, and three of its public water
supply wells have had to be closed.
.... In1984, EPA began a series of extensive
emergency removal actions at_the Baird et)
McGuire site, EPA removed 50 truckloads of
contaminated soil, installing a ground-water
recifSiilation system, temporarily capping part of
the sjte, and closing sluice gates on a nearby
leseryoir. In addition, a 5,700-foot fence was
installed around the site after dioxin was
discovered.
At the same time the imminent threats were
being stabilized, EPA conducted a remedial
investigation and feasibility study to determine
the nature and extent of site contamination.
When the studies of the site began, the
community became actively involved in the
cleanup process. A Citizens Advisory Committee
vfai formed, and the EPA site manager presented
Information and answered questions at biweekly
meetings.
After completing the remedial investigation and
feasibility study in 1986, EPA selected a remedy
to address permanently the remaining
contamination at the $ite, Thejemgdy calls for
Incineration of contaminated soils, ground-water
treatment, and wetland restoration. Because no
responsible parties were able to pay for the
cleanup, federal and state dollars will be used to
-------
• The Agency must strive to
develop and implement
permanent remedies to the
maximum extent practicable
that meet relevant
environmental and public
health standards. The
development and use of
technologies such as
bioremediation (see highlight)
that cost-effectively destroy
hazardous wastes, will be a
key to meeting this
challenge.
• Through the 1986
Superfund amendments,
many enforcement tools are
available to us to encourage
responsible parties and
facility owners to comply
with the law. The challenge
will be to use these tools
effectively to reach
settlements with parties and
recover the costs of cleanups
funded by EPA.
• The RCRA corrective
action authorities are broad
and the universe of facilities
to which they may apply is
diverse. The challenge is to
recognize the diversity and
provide sufficient flexibility,
while protecting human
health and the environment.
Interstate 70 Acid Spill
Near Wheeling, West;
Virginia
A truck carrying a 40,000-pound load of bottled
concentrated acids crashed on a major interstate
near Wheeling, West Virginia, spilling hazardous
substances. Toxic fumes were generated by
interaction of the acids, endangering nearby
schools, residences, and a trout stream.
Given the urgency of the situation which was
exacerbated by severe weather conditions, the
EPA official in charge promptly began a
Superfund-financed response. Several measures
were taken in response to the incident.
Incompatible chemicals that could explode if
mixed were isolated. Damaged containers were
repackaged for disposal. Acids spilled on the
ground and near a drain were neutralized to
prevent further damage, and contaminated soil
was excavated for proper disposal.'The threat was
expeditiously eliminated, and public health and
the environment were protected.
Using Biological
Organisms to Clean
Up Hazardous Waste
Tests dating to the early 1970s have demonstrated
the success of using biotreatment to address
contamination. More recent tests indicate that
techniques using micro-organisms to "eat"
hazardous waste may be a promising solution for
disposing of many organic wastes and cleaning up
contaminated ground water. Where cleaning up
one site with bioremediation may cost $45-50
million, it may cost $140 million if a lagoon has
to be drained and an incinerator built to dispose
of the wastes. We are studying closely the use of
these large-scale biological techniques to help
clean up some hazardous waste sites.
To use bioremediation at a site, we must first
discover more about the wastes in the site and
identify potential methods of biodegradation. At
many waste contamination sites, microorganisms
that break down organic wastes have developed
over time. The bioremediation technique
generally starts by collecting and isolating these
rnicro-organisms to determine what nutrients and
climatic conditions (e.g., pH, moisture,
temperature, oxygen levels) enhance the
degradation process. Such micro-organisms are
usually transferable to other sites contaminated
with the same wastes.
In one study, scientists have found numerous
types of fungi and bacteria — up to 10 million per
gram of soil — 850 feet below the surface of the
earth, which is almost 30 times deeper than the
previously recorded limit. Many aquifers used for
drinking water also are found at such depths, and
scientists believe that these indigenous organisms
may be best suited to cleaning up the aquifers. If
some of the organisms are not already adapted to
break down specific ground-water pollutants, it
might be possible to manipulate them through
genetic engineering so that they can digest the
Atoxic compounds.
99
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
0ver the next few years, EPA
iwill continue to focus on
pleaning up threatening
CERCLA and RCRA sites.
Accordingly, we are
committed to accomplish the
following six goals.
Respond to Immediate
Threats
With the 1986 amendments,
EPA now is allowed up to
one year to complete removal
actions and may use up to $2
million per site in the
process. These actions will be
consistent with any
longer-term remedial and
enforcement objectives.
Where feasible, EPA will use
removal authorities to
complete cleanup at the site,
thus reducing the number of
long-term remedial cleanups.
Streamline the Cleanup
Program
The Agency will take many
steps to increase the
efficiency and accelerate the
pace of cleanups and focus on
Congressional deadlines. This
includes initiating more
cleanup actions and
Development of
Innovative Technologies
As oart of SARA, Congress directed
&PA to focus on permanent remedies
jfor Sttjt&rftatd sites, with less
pre/Brancs to be given to containment
o;/j|flft'ff<«a4 wastes onsite. In 1987, 75
Q&ct&ions about femedies were made
at sites.
Selected Remedies for Super/and
t—SfeJS & 1987
Number of Sites
Where Used
Technology Evaluation Program (SITE),
required under SARA. Funded by
Congress at a level of up to $20
million per year through 1991, SITE is
a research, demonstration, and
evaluation program.
Under SITE, EPA solicits proposals
from developers of technologies that
destroy, immobilize, or reduce the
volume of hazardous wastes. The
^selected developers operate their waste
disposal units, and the Agency takes
" evaluates test results.
Solidification
Stabilization/neutralization
V'Qtatilizatim/Aefa.aoM
Soil Washing/Plushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Other
Containment
Oa*&ite "Containment
Storage
With these data, EPA is able to assess
the performance, reliability, and cost
of innovative technologies.
Examples of technologies being
evaluated under the SITE program
include:
• In-situ vacuum extraction: This
process will be used to extract volatile
contaminants, such as
~ffichloroethylene (TCE), from soils at
the Groveland Wells Superfund site in
-Massachusetts. _______ ___ __ . ______ _,
Pump and Treatment
^Alternate Water Supply
-Although we are, making progress using
these technologies, we suspect there
-$na,y he other useful methods to clean
_up a site. To promote the development
anct use of innovative technologies for
tnallag hazardous wastes, EPA has
- established the Superfund Innovative
• Solidification and stabilization
process: At the Douglass Disposal
Superfund site in Union Township,
Pennsylvania a unit will demonstrate
a new way to solidify soil
contaminated with a wide variety of
organics and metals.
EPA will document the SITE
demonstration results in reports made
available to fed.eral, state, and private
cleanup managers and other interested
parties.
completing actions at sites
quickly, where feasible. To
facilitate this faster pace,
regional EPA staff, who are
most familiar with a site's
cleanup efforts, will manage
site contracts. In addition, a
single project manager will
carry the site through
remedial planning, design,
and implementation.
Secure Action by
Responsible Parties
EPA will continue to require
RCRA facility owners or
operators who are responsible
for contamination to take
corrective actions under
RCRA. To achieve swift
settlements with responsible
parties in the Superfund
program, the Agency will use
their new settlement tools
that should help them reach
agreement with responsible
parties more easily. Among
these tools are mixed funding
agreements through which
EPA and responsible parties
share the financial burden of
cleanup. De-minimis
settlements are another tool
to expedite settlements with
parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous
substances. EPA will identify
parties early in the cleanup
process and sue nonsettlers
where necessary to recover
the costs of clean up.
100
-------
Maintain and Improve a
Strong EPA/State
Partnership
The Agency will help states
develop a greater role in the
Superfund cleanup process by
developing regulations
requiring meaningful state
involvement. We will work
with states to conduct
cleanups through Cooperative
Agreements and will
negotiate with states to
outline Superfund site
cleanup priorities and
important issues of
cooperation. States will also
begin to take more
responsibility in Superfund
enforcement actions over the
next several years. In
addition,, EPA will continue
to work with states to
assume greater roles in the
RCRA program.
Enhance Community
Outreach Efforts
The 1986 Superfund
amendments reaffirmed the
necessity of public
involvement in Superfund
site decisions. Superfund site
cleanups are often very
complex and difficult to
understand. EPA will work to
enhance the public's input
into the decisionmaking
process in several ways.
Opportunities for public
meetings and community
relations plans will continue
to be provided for every site
on the NPL. Technical
assistance grants will be
provided to citizen groups to
help them interpret technical
data and understand the
implications of Superfund
site work.
Implement the RCRA
Corrective Action
Program
EPA and the states are
responsible for management
of the corrective action
program. Permits will be
modified to reflect corrective
action provisions, and the
public will be involved in
decisions about the action
needed. Discussions with
facility owners and operators
about the scope of the
actions needed will be
necessary. EPA, in
conjunction with the states
will identify a limited
number of facilities for
priority attention in the
corrective action process.
When a facility is clearly not
able to undertake cleanup,
action will be taken as soon
as possible to determine if it
should be addressed under
the Superfund program.
A Landmark Federal Facility
Hazardous Waste Agreement
EPA's Regional office in Chicago and
the state of Minnesota negotiated with
the Aimy to reach the first federal
facility interagency cleanup agreement
under the new Superfund law. One of
the primary sources of the
contamination at the New
Brighton/'Arden Hills/St. Anthony
Superfund site is the U.S. Army's Twin
City Ammunition Plant. The site has
contaminated ground water extending
over 20 square miles.
.,. Both the Army and EPA have
provided adequate potable water
sy.pplies for affected ground-water
users. This includes connecting
-residents to municipal water supplies,
providing treatment to municipal
water supplies at St. Anthony, and
developing new wells for the affected
municipalities.
The history of the site shows its
complexity.
• 1982- The site was listed on the
Superfund National Priorities List,
primarily because of ground-water
contamination.
• 1983 - The Army reimbursed Arden
Manor Trailer Park for costs of
replacing contaminated water supply.
• 1985 - The state completed its first
phase of the $1.4 million investigation
of the contamination, which indicated
the ammunition plant as a likely
contributor to the contamination.
• 2986 - New Brighton abandoned
drinking water wells and replaced its
water supply because of
contamination. EPA finalized a plan
for cleanup of one well in New
Brighton.
• 1987 - St. Anthony replaced its
water. EPA finalized a plan for carbon
treatment of existing closed wells.
After numerous ongoing studies
since 1978, EPA, Minnesota, and the
Army entered into a joint agreement in
August 1987. The agreement is the first
of its kind between the Army, EPA,
and a state under the newly
authorized Superfund law. It ensures
cooperation among the organizations
and defines the scope of activities
necessary to address the site.
The agreement is the culmination of
negotiations between the state, EPA,
and the Department of the Army.
Among other things, the agreement
establishes provisions for:
• coordination of overlapping
requirements of RCRA and CERCLA;
• policies and procedures consistent
with those for non-federal facilities;
• EPA approval of selected remedies;
and
• EPA and state oversight of the
Army's activities at the site.
tQl
-------
LAND
i
THE
PROBLEM
Environmental
contamination caused by
leaking underground storage
tanks has not received the
national attention paid to
many Superfund sites. Yet
leaks from underground
storage tanks are a result of
'simple, everyday tank use
and are far more
commonplace and
widespread. Furthermore,
leaks from underground
, tanks (or their piping) can
pose serious environmental
and health problems for
many communities.
An estimated five to six
million underground storage
tanks containing hazardous
substances or petroleum
products are in use in the
United States. Originally
placed underground as a fire
prevention measure, these
tanks have substantially
reduced the damages from
stored flammable liquids.
However, an estimated
400,000 underground tanks
" ate thought to be leaking
now, and many more will
begin to leak in the near
future. Products released
FIGURE L-12
Almost Half of
i Underground Storage
Tanks are Owned by
Gas Stations
petroleum
Product
Storage by
Other Firms
651,000
47%
Ntxc BawJ on number at regulated tanks,
tot»I estimated tank universe is 506 million,
Source; Office of Underground Storage
T»nk», USEPA
102
Tackling Pollution from
Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking underground storage tanks are large — and even small leaks
add up to big problems over time.
from these leaking tanks can
threaten ground-water
supplies, damage sewer lines
and buried cables, poison
crops, and lead to fires and
explosions.
Under RCRA, underground
storage tanks are defined as
tanks with 10 percent or
more of their volume,
including piping,
underground. Figure L-12
shows that almost half of the
tanks to be regulated by EPA
are petroleum storage tanks
owned by gas stations, and
another 47 percent are
petroleum storage tanks
owned by a group of other
industries that store
petroleum products for their
own use. Airports, firms with
large trucking fleets, farms,
golf courses, and
manufacturing operations
may all own tanks. The
remainder of the tanks that
will be regulated are used by
a variety of industries for
chemical storage.
Many of the petroleum
tank systems were installed
during the oil boom of the
1950s and 1960s. Two 1985
studies of tank age
distribution indicate that
approximately one-third of
the existing motor fuel
storage tanks are over 20
years old or of unknown age.
Figure L-13 shows that most
of these aging tank systems
are constructed of bare steel,
not protected against
corrosion, and nearing the
end of their useful lives.
Many of these old tank
systems have already had a
leak, or will soon leak unless
measures are taken to
improve or remove them.
When these old tanks are
pulled from the ground,
many of them have holes
where a dip stick was
dropped hundreds of times to
measure the amount of fuel
in the tank.
Exacerbating the problem
of old tanks still in use are
the thousands of gas stations
that closed during the oil
crisis of the 1970s. Although
these tanks are not the only
ones of concern, the
abandoned tanks at these
stations frequently were not
closed properly, and
ownership and responsibility
for future problems is
difficult to determine.
The primary reason for
regulating underground
storage tanks is to protect
water, especially ground
water that is used for
drinking water. Fifty percent
of the U.S. population
depends on ground water for
drinking water. Rural areas
would be seriously affected if
their ground water were
contaminated, since it
provides 95 percent of their
total water supplies. Ground
water drawn for large-scale
agricultural and industrial
uses also can be adversely
affected by contamination
from leaking underground
tanks.
FIGURE L-13
Many Tanks Currently in Use ate Unprotected
Bare Steel (Easily Corrodes)
Fiberglass
Corrosion Protected Steel
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
Federal laws were enacted in
response to the increasing
problems resulting from
leaking underground storage
tanks. These laws generally
are based on many state and
industry ongoing efforts.
Congress provided for federal
regulation of underground
storage tanks as part of the
1984 RCRA amendments but
it exempted residential
heating oil and small farm
tanks. As a first step,
Congress required that all
owners or operators register
their tanks with the
appropriate state agency,
indicating tank age, location,
and contents. Thus for the
first time, states had to set
up an inventory of tanks in
their jurisdictions. The
amendments also included
interim design requirements
to tanks installed after May
1985 (this "Interim
Prohibition" is in effect until
EPA publishes regulations in
1988). Congress further
directed EPA to develop
regulations requiring owners
to detect leaks from new and
existing underground storage
tanks and clean up
environmentally harmful
releases from such tanks.
Tank owners also must
demonstrate that they are
financially capable of
cleaning up leaks from tanks
and compensating third
parties for damages resulting
from such leaks.
As required by HSWA, EPA
has been developing a
comprehensive regulatory
program for underground
storage tanks. EPA proposed
three sets of regulations
pertaining to underground
tanks. The first addresses
technical requirements for
petroleum and hazardous
substance tanks, including
new tank performance
standards, release detection,
release reporting and
investigation, corrective
action, and tank closure. The
second proposed regulation
addresses financial
responsibility requirements
for underground petroleum
tanks. The third addresses
standards for approval of
State tank programs. These
regulations are expected to be
finalized during 1988.
While amending CERCLA
in 1986, Congress also
amended RCRA to provide
$500 million over the next
five years for a Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund. Generated by a
1/10 of a cent federal tax on
certain products, primarily
motor fuels, the Trust Fund
has been made available to
the states to help them
cleanup leaks from
underground petroleum
storage tanks if certain
conditions for use of the fund
are met.
Because the number of
tanks that require
investigation and attention is
too great for EPA to tackle
alone, the Agency has
developed a program that will
be carried out primarily by
state and local governments.
The national tank program is
designed primarily to be a
network of state and local
programs. EPA will provide
research, regulations,
training, technical support,
and enforcement backup as
necessary.
Over 20 states and a
number of local governments
have already developed
programs to regulate
underground storage tanks.
The Agency will work to
accommodate these programs
under its requirements.
However, some of these
programs will likely need to
adapt their requirements to
make them as stringent as
the forthcoming federal
requirements.
New provisions in SARA
authorize EPA and statexs that
enter into cooperative
agreements with EPA to
issue orders requiring owners
and operators of underground
storage tanks to undertake
corrective action where a
leak or spill is suspected or
has occurred. This corrective
action could include testing
tanks to confirm the presence
of a leak, excavating the site "
to determine the exact nature
and extent of contamination,
and cleaning contaminated
soil and water. It also may
include providing an
alternative water supply to
affected residences, or
temporary or permanent
relocation of residents.
EPA has signed cooperative
agreements with most states
and transferred millions of
dollars from the Trust Fund
to do this work. With these
funds, states have begun
cleanups at many of these
sites around the country.
Fiberglass tanks are commonly used to replace corroded metal tanks.
103
-------
Why Underground
Tank Systems Leak
"TheJour primary types of tank system
leak^Jnvolye_ tqnksmthemsely_es, piping
failtfties, spills and~bverfills, and loose
fittings.
Tanks — The major cause of tank
leak is corrosion of steel tanks. Most
of the, tanks currently in the ground
are constructed' of unprotected bare
Steel. "When the external surface of a
steel tank comes in contact with the
St)i1, it naturally seeks to return to its
original state — iron oxide, more
commonly known as rust. Metal
(Corrodes under almost any naturally
in g^Jjgyo^j jy Affected by the amount of
oxygen and moisture in the soil and
Other site-specific factors.
galvanic" corrosion is the primary
type of corrosion of unprotected steel.
In tJlis situation, the tank and its
underground surroundings act like a
battery! part of the tank can become
negatively charged, and another part
positively charged. Various soil
conditions provide the connecting link
that finally turns on the tank
[i I ''batteries," causing the negatively
1 charged part of the tank (where the
current exits from the tank) to
deteriorate. As electric current passes
through this part, the hard metal
Spills and overfills — Spills and
overfills are the most frequent causes
of release at many underground
storage tank installations. Spills occur
when the delivery hose is disconnected
from the fill pipe before the hose has
drained completely into the tank.
Overfills result from trying to transfer
more product to the tank than the
tank can hold. Spills and overfills are
over extended periods of time usually
smaller than tank or piping leaks, but
they occur frequently and can
eventually add up to a large release.
Both spills and overfills result from
human error, and there are simple
mechanical devices available that can
prevent their occurrence.
Piping failures — The piping that
connects the tank to the dispenser can
leak for many reasons, including poor
installation and corrosion. Pressurized
piping, which works like a garden
hose, is of particular concern because a
lot of gasoline being "pushed" under
pressure through the piping can escape
through a loose joint. Suction piping,
which works like a soda straw, is of
lesser concern because leaks tend to
allow air to enter the pipe instead of
allowing gasoline to escape. Leak
detection for pressurized piping,
, , _ _ .
begins to turn into soft ore, holes Jorm, therefore, is critical to protecting
and the tank leaks. .11.-. -T .>
Several types of tanks are available
now that largely eliminate external
corrosion as a cause of tank failure.
Cathodic protection can be used to
reverse the electro-chemical forces that
cause steel to corrode. Special
attachments to the tank focus
efecttfc/ty on the attachments, instead
of tfte tank. Fiberglass-reinforced
plastic tanks also are not subject to
soil corrosion. Composite tanks use a
tliick fiberglass-reinforced plastic
coating to isolate a steel inner tank
frqm the surrounding soil. These three
new style tanks rarely fail, but poor
Installation and maintenance practices
have caused some problems.
human health and the environment.
Loose fittings — Most underground
storage tanks have several fittings
along the top of the tank for attaching
vent lines, pumps, and fuel pipes.
These fittings sometimes are not
tightened properly at installation. In
addition, they often loosen with age,
as does the delivery piping. Normally,
loose fittings pose no problem;
however, if the tanks are overfilled,
these fittings will leak. These loose
fittings also cause many tanks to fail
"tightness tests." Careful attention to
proper tightening of these fittings
during installation can reduce these
leaks. Overfill prevention devices also
prevent releases from loose fittings.
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
The problem of leaking
underground storage tanks
presents several major
challenges not only for the
Agency but also for states,
local governments, and
industry. Perhaps the biggest
challenge is to achieve better
but less expensive tank
design, and leak detection
technology. Research and
development in this area is
strong and the potential for
improvement is great.
Effective and affordable
technology should encourage
voluntary compliance among
tank owners. It will become
less expensive to comply
with the law and, at the
same time, the environment
will be protected from leaks
and spills from underground
storage tanks. Research and
development in this area is
strong and the potential for
improvement is great.
The large number of
underground tanks presents
significant regulatory
challenges. This is best
illustrated by a comparison
to the hazardous waste
program. In New England
alone, approximately 5,000
handlers of hazardous waste
are regulated under RCRA
and there are 59 sites on the
Superfund National Priorities
List. In the same region, the
number of underground tanks
falling under EPA or state
regulations is 150,000 or 30
times larger than the number
of regulated RCRA facilities.
Congress directed EPA to
require that tank owners
demonstrate that they are
financially capable of
cleaning up leaks from their
underground storage tanks
and compensating third
parties for damages resulting
from such leaks. These costs
could include cleaning up
leaked petroleum, supplying
drinking water, or
compensating individuals for
personal injury or property
damage. More recently,
SARA imposed the
requirement that owners or
operators of underground
storage tanks have a
-------
minimum insurance coverage
of $1 million per occurrence.
A major challenge that EPA,
state and local governments
and the regulated community
face involves this assurance
of tank owner's financial
responsibility.
The lack of an adequate
pollution liability insurance
market makes finding
affordable insurance
extremely difficult. Insurance
programs, state funds, and
other assurance mechanisms
are sorely needed. EPA will
be working with states and
with the insurance industry
on ways to develop such
mechanisms to help tank
owners.
The cleanup of areas
contaminated by leaking
underground storage tanks is
another major challenge that
EPA faces. Often the
contamination is in the soil
directly above ground water.
The challenge lies in quickly
finding the most seriously
contaminated sites. These
sites need to be addressed
before petroleum reaches
ground-water supplies.
Three Communities
Where Underground
Storage Tank Leaks
• Council Bluffs, Iowa - In 1984, gasoline that
leaked out of an underground storage tank at a
service station seeped down through the soil to
the water table, and spread out across the surface
of the ground water. When heavy spring rains
caused the water table to rise, the moisture that
seeped into the station's basement carried
gasoline with it. The fumes eventually reached
explosive levels. A spark from the air compressor
that controlled the lift ignited the vapors, and the
gas station building was destroyed in an
explosion.
• Friendship Village, Maine - A leak from an
underground storage tank at a local service
station in 1984 contaminated ground water,
affecting 14 wells. Property values dropped
dramatically. Twelve families were forced to rely
on bottled water for months. Some residents were
affected by headaches, nausea, and eye and skin
irritations. '
• St. Paul, Minnesota - When a homeowner in a
residential neighborhood noticed a pool of
gasoline near the foot of his driveway, an
investigation uncovered a pinhole leak in a
petroleum pipeline. Fortunately, most of the
neighborhood was connected to the municipal
water system and did not rely on wells for
drinking water. But the private wells that did
exist in the neighborhood had to be sealed as a
precautionary measure. Three recovery systems,
involving about 60 monitoring wells and more
than 100 recovery wells, had to be established in
«.fthe._neighborhood a§ part of the cleanup operation.
EPA'S
AGENDA
EPA is using a new approach
to implementing the
Congressional mandate to
address underground tanks,
the "franchise concept." The
Agency sees itself as the
franchiser with the
responsibility to see that the
franchisees, in this case the
states and counties, run their
operations successfully. The
Agency initially will focus on
assisting the states to
establish basic tank programs
and then providing a range of
services to help them
improve their performance.
This will be a significant
departure from1 the traditional
approach under which EPA
manages all areas of a
program until a state
demonstrates it can operate
independently. Our agenda,
therefore, is to provide the
necessary assistance for the
states to succeed in
implementing and enforcing
this program. This includes
providing special expertise,
developing training
videotapes (e.g., for tank
installers and inspectors),
publishing handbooks, and
training state and local
employees.
As we work with states
and local communities to do
a better job of
communicating the dangers
of leaking tanks to the
estimated 750,000 tank
owners, more and more
owners will replace older
tanks with protected, safe
tanks. Figure L-14 shows
what we hope to accomplish
in the next few years.
L-14
. Out Goals For Addressing Underground
Silage Tanks ^
LEAK DETECTION
15% have it now
1996-90% .
- have leak detection
PROTECTED TANKS
- ,%_ ^ tlybave
corrosion protection
1998 - 85% or more
wdljje protected
NCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
of ownets
liare financial agstance
cosrerage "' *"
1991 - 90% of
owners will have
financial assurance*
to Cover leaks or
spills
jjte foods, etc
strcejjpfte qfOrnfergisond Storage Tanks, USEPA
105
-------
LAND
Chemical Emergency Planning am
Community Right-to-Know
In December 1984, an
accidental release of methyl
isocyanate from a pesticide
facility killed 2,800 people in
Bhopal, India. This incident
focusea international
attention on the seriousness
of chemical accidents. It also
created an awareness of the
possibility of a major
chemical accident in the
United States. Six months
later, a chemical accident in
the United States brought
even greater attention to the
problem. A release of
methylene chloride and
aldicarb oxime occurred in
; Institute, West Virginia,
causing concern among many
of the town's residents and
indicating that better
chemical emergency response
procedures were needed (see
highlight on "Lessons from
Institute. West Virginia").
Chemical accidents can be
caused by human error,
equipment malfunction,
explosion, highway accidents
or other factors. The extent
to which each community is
vulnerable to a serious
chemical emergency depends
on these factors and its
particular meteorological and
topographical conditions.
Tnese conditions will
determine how chemicals
might disperse after an
explosion or accidental
release. Communities at
greater risk are those near
facilities that produce or use
toxic chemicals; a
transportation corridor where
large-volume chemicals are
moved from one facility to
another; or a waterway where
ships carry or dock and
unload chemical cargoes.
Depending on the
chemical, amount released,
and proximity to population,
the health effects from an
accidental release may range
from immediate, short-term
effects, such as mild
irritation or respiratory
distress, to longer term
effects including cancer or
reproductive disorders.
Accidental releases may also
result in damage to private
and public property, as well
as damage to aquatic and
wildlife habitats.
Communities can evaluate
the extent of their risk and
prepare to respond to
chemical emergencies. To
begin with, all are faced with
similar questions: 1) does the
community know enough
about the operations of its
industrial facilities to judge
the probability that a sudden,
accidental release might
occur,- and 2) has the
community planned how it
will respond if such an %
accident does occur? To
respond, communities need
to know the types and
volumes of hazardous
chemicals each local
company transports, stores,
and uses, and what actions
are taken by the company to
prepare for emergencies.
Most communities have not
had access to this
information in the past.
In addition to information
regarding possible accidental
releases, communities need
to know the types and
volume of chemicals
routinely released from
nearby plant sites. If several
facilities are routinely
releasing small amounts of
toxic substances in a
community, the community
may judge that the collective
risks posed are unacceptable
and may call for pollution
mitigation measures.
Lessons from Institute,
West Virginia
August 11, 1985
9:25 a.m. Operators at the Union Carbide plant in
Institute heard a rumbling noise in the methyl
carbamate reactor. A gasket on the reactor had
failed, releasing an opaque vapor of aldicarb
oxime. The plant's computer predicted that the
plume would extend to the plant's boundary;
residents also reported seeing a white cloud over
the plant. The plant's toxic gas alarm was
activated, triggering a series of responses by
emergency personnel'
9:36 a.m. Union Carbide first notified the County
Emergency Services Center, At 9:42, when the
West Virginia pollution control agency contacted
the plant in response to a resident's call, a
spokesperson stated that the release was confined
to the plant. At 9:56, a deputy sheriff arrived at
the plant and the county emergency siren was
activated.
10:06 a.m. When it became evident that the leak
was no longer confined to the plant, the
Emergency Broadcast System was activated.
Residents were warned to stay indoors and turn
off air conditioners, Local highways were blocked
to traffic. Hospitals were called to prepare for
proper treatment, and temporary first aid centers
were established. Another broadcast informed
residents about the first aid centers. In response
to calls from panicked residents, the state's
Department of Natural Resources provided
information on their answering service about the
release.
11:55 a.m. The Emergency Broadcast System
reported that the emergency was over. As a result
of the release, over 130 people sought medical
help. During the event, there was constant
communication among county, state, and federal
personnel. Nonetheless, an investigation of the
accident concluded that the response could have
been improved. As a result of the Institute
accident, we learned many lessons about
preparing for such emergencies, For example:
• The public should be educated on the meaning
of warning sirens and the appropriate response.
• All localities should be notified immediately in
the case of an accidental release.
• Command centers should be established and
used so that response operations are not organized
at the scene of the accident.
106
-------
EFFORTS
To DATE
The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know
Act (better known as Title III
of SARA) was passed in 1986.
This legislation expanded on
EPA's Air Toxics Strategy
developed in 1985 in
response to growing concern
about chemical accidents.
This strategy acknowledged
the need for a program to
foster planning and
preparation within
communities for hazardous
substance emergencies. Title
III builds on this strategy
and:
• mandates that states and
local communities prepare
for chemical emergencies;
• requires facilities to notify
their states and communities
of the presence of an
extremely hazardous
substance and to report spills
or releases of these
substances immediately; and
• requires facilities to report
annually on the volumes of
certain hazardous chemicals
produced, used, and stored
within the facility, if that
amount exceeds a specified
volume. They are also
required to report annually
on the amount of certain
toxic chemicals they
routinely release to the air,
land and water.
Title III is based on the
premise that the federal
government cannot be solely
responsible for protecting
each community's
environment and health
against toxic chemical
releases. Therefore, the law
charges state and local
governments with the
primary responsibility for
taking action. It enlists local
officials together with
industrial facilities in a
collaborative planning effort
to protect their communities
in the event of an accidental
release of a hazardous
chemical. States review the
plans and cooperate in their
execution and enforcement.
Each community must
examine its own
vulnerabilities and resources
to respond to possible
chemical accidents.
Under Title III, governors
are required to set up State
Emergency Response
Commissions which in turn
create Local Emergency
Planning Committees. Indian
tribes that choose to work
directly with the federal
government may set up tribal
emergency planning
commissions similar to the
state commissions. These
committees are responsible
for developing comprehensive
chemical hazard emergency
plans. The committees
should include the expertise
and experience of local
government officials, facility
representatives, health and
fire officials, Citizens groups,
news media, and others who
may have a role in this
process |see Figure L-15).
Facilities must participate in
cooperative activities with
their local committee, and
have reporting requirements
to different levels of
government (see Highlight,
"Major Provisions of Title
III").
Although Title III is
relatively new legislation,
EPA has made significant
progress in carrying out its
mandates and in working
with other federal and state
governments to promote
coordinated implementation.
For example, we have
published a list of 366
Participants in the
Emergency Planning
Community Right-to Know
(Title III) Program
Local Emergency
Planning Committees
Tribal Emergency
Response Commissions
Extremely Hazardous
Substances, and the volumes
of concern of these
chemicals. We are reviewing
ways to detect and monitor
hazardous releases, and
models for use in onsite
emergency response. We will
also be encouraging the use
of these systems at the state
and local level.
While many requirements
of Title III are the
responsibility of industry and
state and local governments,
EPA'has the following
activities underway:
• developing regulations and
assisting facilities in
understanding and meeting
their reporting obligations;
• establishing a publicly
available Toxics Release
Inventory, the first consistent
and-comprehensive, national
database of toxic chemical
releases to all environmental
media;
• conducting workshops and
preparing documents to help
state and local governments
design emergency plans and
establish emergency
notification procedures;
• offering state and local
governments technical
assistance in information
management techniques and
tools, so that they might
better manage and use the
massive amounts of data they
will receive;
• developing and
administering training
programs (in cooperation
with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency) for
planners and response
personnel, and making $5
million available to states to
enhance their training
programs; and
• establishing enforcement
policies to ensure industrial
compliance, and coordinating
enforcement activities with
states and localities.
The Public
State Emergency
Response Commissions
Transportation Personnel
107
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Title III poses a great
challenge in information
! management, stemming from
the unprecedented amount of
data that will be collected
I (estimated to be greater than
all other current EPA
reporting requirements
! combined). In addition, the
sheer number of people,
governments, and
organizations to whom this
information will be
transferred or communicated
complicates the task further.
Finally, information about
tens of thousands of
chemicals must be
interpreted for the public.
Information
Management
To achieve the goals of Title
III, a large volume of
information must be shared
among numerous program
participants with varied
interests and backgrounds. In
addition to EPA and other
federal agencies, the
participating organizations
and individuals will include
more than 50 state and
territorial emergency
response commissions; more
than 3,000 local emergency
planning committees and at
least an equal number of fire
departments; representatives
of an estimated 1.5 million
industrial facilities; and
thousands of citizens,
including members of
environmental and public
interest groups.
Federal, state, and local
governments will be the
repositories for large volumes
of data on facilities,
chemicals, and releases.
Effective information
management, information
transfer, and communication
are crucial to the successful
implementation of Title HI.
Community Awareness
The law's success depends
also on how well individual
citizens are prepared to
receive, understand, and
make decisions based on the
information gathered.
Accidental release and annual
emissions reports will be
available, either from
industry, a community's
Local Emergency Planning
Committee, the state, or
through EPA's national
computerized data base.
Initially, these data may be
of unknown reliability since
they are being reported by
businesses that have little or
no experience in such
reporting. In the first years of
compliance with Title HI, the
data may be useful primarily
for identifying potential "hot
spots" of apparently high
levels of emissions. The
Agency plans to evaluate the
validity of the data and
improve the reliability and
usefulness of these data over
time.
Planning for Emergencies
Under Title III, each
community will need to
develop an effective plan for
responding to chemical
emergencies. Each
community's emergency
response plan must be a
cooperative effort of the
people who administer the
local emergency response
agencies, manage the
facilities from which releases
might occur, and live in that
community. For people with
such disparate
responsibilities and points of
view to work together
effectively will require a
strong commitment by all
participants to the success of
the planning effort.
Major Provisions of
Title m
Emergency Planning
Title Hi established a broad-based framework at
the state and local levels to receive chemical
information and use that information in
communities for chemical emergency planning.
Emergency Release Notification
Title III requires facilities to report certain
releases of extremely hazardous chemicals and
hazardous substances to their state and local
emergency planning and response officials.
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting
Title III requires facilities that already have
prepared Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
under Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Worker Right-to-Know rules to
submit those sheets to state and local authorities
by October 1987. It also requires them to report
by March 1988 and annually thereafter
information on chemicals on their premises to
„ local emergency planning and fire protection
officials, as well as state officials.
Toxic Release Inventory Reporting
Title III requires facilities to report annually on
routine emissions of certain toxic chemicals to the
air, land, or water. Facilities must report if they
are in Standard Industrial Classification code 20
through 39 (i.e., manufacturing facilities) with 10
or more employees; manufacture or process more
than 75,000 pounds of a specified chemical, and
use more than 10,000 pounds in one calendar year
of specific toxic chemicals or chemical
compounds. The reporting thresholds for
manufacturing and processing drops to 50,000
pounds for reports covering 1988, and to 25,000
pounds for 19&9 and thereafter. EPA is required to
use these data to establish a national chemical
release inventory data base, making the
information available to the public through
computer, telecommunications, and by other
means.
108
-------
EPA;S
AGENDA
State, tribal, and local
government officials and
managers of industrial
facilities will bear the
responsibility for
implementing Title III. EPA
will act as initiator and
facilitator. To support state
and local efforts, we will
continue our emergency
response activities, assisting
in preparedness and planning.
The Agency will present
workshops and conferences
focusing on Title III issues
such as effective planning,
implementing emergency
response procedures,
information resource
management, and
community awareness. We
will participate in
conferences at which
community planners,
industry representatives, and
other officials will share
information on emergency
response to chemical spills.
EPA also will be available to
respond to requests for
technical assistance,
information sharing, and data
interpretation.
To address the information
management needs, EPA is
developing a variety of
additional support initiatives.
These include developing
case studies, fact sheets, and
instructional documents that
interpret the EPA
regulations; describing and
promoting consistent
information management
practices; supplying needed
chemical toxicology
information,- and promoting
coordination for all Title III
activities by providing
communication links
between the various levels of
government.
We are also exploring the
usefulness of certain
state-of-the-art technologies,
to support state and local
analysis of Title III data. EPA
is promoting the
development of several
promising computer
modeling systems that can be
used on personal computers
to help community planners
and on-site managers to
determine hazards, exposures,
and risks.
Certainly one of the most
exciting initiatives is the
computerized data base, the
Toxics Release Inventory,
that in addition to furthering
the community
right-to-know provisions of
Title III, will provide an
opportunity for EPA to
identify and screen toxic
chemical problems on a
nationwide, multi-media
basis. EPA has developed a
three-phase program to:
1) design and implement
the data base and
communications systems to
make it available on-line to
the public;
2) develop programs to
assist communities in
understanding and utilizing
the information; and
3) explore and maximize
the potential this data base
has for adding to the
information base of each EPA
program office.
This program-oriented
information-sharing approach
will be developed in
coordination with state
governments.
In summary, EPA will
strive to coordinate all of the
activities to be conducted
under the Act. This means
encouraging increased public
awareness of the potential
chemical hazards within each
community and promoting
preparedness for accidental
releases of hazardous
chemicals.
109
-------
no
-------
Ill
-------
TOXIC CHEIVftCALS
Our high standard of living
would not be possible
without the thousands of
i different chemicals produced.
Most of these chemicals are
• not harmful if used properly.
Others can be extremely
harmful if people are exposed
to them even in minute
amounts. They may cause
health effects ranging from
cancer to birth defects and
may seriously degrade the
environment.
The serious health and
environmental consequences
from uncontrolled exposure
to pesticides and toxic
chemicals can be seen in a
number of cases, including:
» Exposure to asbestos used
as insulation and
fire-proofing in numerous
buildings, resulting in
thousands of cases of cancer
or lung disease?
• Contamination of food and
ground water with the
pesticide ethylene dibromide,
& substance widely used to
protect crops and stored grain
until it was found to cause
cancerj
• Contamination of harbors,
lakes, and rivers with
polychlorinated biphenyls
IPCBsj that accumulate in
fish and shellfish; and
• Past buildups of pesticides
such as DDT, aldrin, and
chlordane in the tissues of
people and wildlife, resulting
In the decline of birds such
as the bald eagle and osprey.
The nation has made
strides in addressing many of
these problems. For example,
levels of pesticides and toxic
substances such as DDT and
PCBs have declined in
humans and wildlife.
However, we must continue
to ensure that humans and
wildlife are not exposed to
unreasonable dangers from
toxic chemicals.
As described in other
chapters of this report, EPA
is endeavoring to control
exposure to toxic chemicals
by regulating their release to
air, water, and land. In this
chapter, EPA's efforts to
control the production and
use of pesticides and
commercial chemical
substances are described.
112
-------
AN OVERVIEW
People have long
recognized that sulfuric
acid, arsenic compounds, and
other chemical substances
can cause fires, explosions, or
poisoning. More recently,
researchers have determined
that many chemical
substances such as benzene
and a number of chlorinated
hydrocarbons may cause
cancer, birth defects, and
other long-term health
effects. Today, we are
evaluating the hazards of new
kinds of substances,
including
genetically-engineered
microorganisms.
EPA has a number of
legislative tools to use in
controlling the risks from
toxic substances (Figure T-l).
This chapter concentrates on
issues associated with
pesticides and commercial
chemical substances that are
dealt with primarily under
two laws: the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).
FIFRA encompasses all
pesticides used in the United
States. When enacted in 1947,
FIFRA was administered by
the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and was intended
to protect consumers against
fraudulent pesticide products.
When many pesticides were
registered, their potential for
causing health and
environmental problems was
unknown. In 1970, EPA
assumed responsibility for
FIFRA, which was amended
in 1972 to shift emphasis to
health and environmental
protection. Allowable levels
of pesticides in food are
specified under'the authority
of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act of 1954.
The Toxic Substances
FIGURE T-l
Major Toxic Chemical Laws Administered by EPA
Provisions
Toxic Substances
Control Act
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act
Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation and
Liability Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking
Water Act
Marine Protection
Research and
Sanctuaries Act
Asbestos School
Hazard Act
Asbestos Hazard
Emergency
Response Act
Emergency
Planning and
Community
Right-to-Know Act
Requires that EPA be notified of any
new chemical prior to its
manufacture and authorizes EPA to
regulate production, use, or disposal
of a chemical.
Authorizes EPA to register all
pesticides and specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove
unreasonably hazardous pesticides
from the marketplace.
Authorizes EPA in cooperation with
FDA to establish tolerance levels for
pesticide residues on food and food
products.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous
wastes and regulate their generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal.
Requires EPA to designate hazardous
substances that can present
substantial danger and authorizes the
cleanup of sites contaminated with
such substances.
Authorizes EPA to set emission
standards to limit the release of
hazardous air pollutants.
Requires EPA to establish a list of
toxic water pollutants and set
standards.
Requires EPA to set drinking water
standards to protect public health
from hazardous substances.
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic
contaminants.
Authorizes EPA to provide loans and
grants to schools with financial need
for abatement of severe asbestos
hazards.
Requires EPA to establish a
comprehensive regulatory framework
for controlling asbestos hazards in
schools.
Requires states to develop programs
for responding to hazardous chemical
releases and requires industries to
report on the presence and release of
certain hazardous substances.
Control Act (TSCA) of 1976
authorizes EPA to control the
risks that may be posed by
the thousands of commercial
chemical substances and
mixtures (chemicals) that are
not regulated as either drugs,
food additives, cosmetics, or
pesticides. Under TSCA, EPA
can, among other things,
regulate the manufacture and
use of a chemical substance
and require testing for cancer
and other effects.
Under both TSCA and
FIFRA, the Agency is
responsible for regulating
certain biotechnology
products, such as genetically
engineered microorganisms
designed to control pests or
assist in industrial processes.
In addition, the Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986
directs EPA to require
industries to report on the
quantities of certain
hazardous substances
released from facilities and to
assist communities in
preparing for chemical
emergencies (see section
titled "Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-to-Know" in the Land
Chapter).
-------
SOURCES OF THE
PROBLEM AND EPA'S
APPROACH
A tremendous variety of
chemicals are produced and
used in the United States
each year (Figure T-2). Many
of these are organic
compounds derived from oil,
while the remainder are
inorganic chemicals such as
ammonia, chlorine, and
metals. These chemicals are
important in many facets of
daily life, from preserving
food to assisting in
transportation and
communication. Others are
largely unseen by the general
public, but are extremely
important in research and
manufacturing processes.
Despite their usefulness,
chemicals can be extremely
dangerous. They may cause
immediate, short-term
effects, such as respiratory
irritation, as well as
long-term and permanent
effects, such as cancer and
birth defects. Often health
effects result only after
long-term exposure to toxic
chemicals. In other cases,
effects may develop many
years after a single exposure.
Toxic substances can also
work together or in
combination with other
Substances, such as those in
cigarette smoke, to increase
the likelihood of long-term
health effects.
Commercial Chemical
Substances
TSCA authorizes EPA to
control the risks from over
65.000 "existing" chemical
substances on the market. In
addition, through a
premanufacture review
process, EPA regulates the
manufacture, processing,
distribution, and use of
proposed "new" chemicals,
as well as new uses of
already existing chemicals.
FIGURE T-2
Chemicals are a Major U.S. Industry
(Total 3rd Quarter Sales = 234,324) Based on third quarter, 1987 sales Source: Chemicalweek
Pharmaceuticals 7.20%
Pulp, paper, packaging 8.35%
Food and dairy companies with chemical process operations 2.95%
Glass, cement, lime, abrasives, refractories 2.12%
Soaps, sythetics, detergents, other cleaning and polishing products 3.04%
Tires, other rubber and plastic products 2.39%
Industrial chemicals and synthetic materials 5.77%
Steel, coke and coal-tar chemicals 3.85%
[onferrous metals and ferroalloys 3.39%
Petroleum and
natural gas processing
37.20%
New Chemicals
Before a proposed or new
commercial chemical may be
produced, EPA requires a
manufacturer to submit a
"premanufacture notice" that
contains the chemical's
name, structure, production
process, intended uses, and
other available information
about the health and
environmental effects of the
chemical. EPA may prohibit
or limit the production and
use of a new chemical if it
presents an unreasonable risk
to health or the environment.
EPA has similar authority to
review and control significant
new uses of existing
chemicals or chemicals
newly imported into the
United States.
Existing Chemicals
Once a chemical is on the
market, it is considered an
existing chemical. Existing
chemicals also encompass
the thousands of chemicals
and chemical mixtures
already on the market when
TSCA was passed in 1976.
EPA may regulate the
manufacture, processing,
distribution, use, and disposal
of existing chemicals if there
are unreasonable public
health or environmental risks
associated with them.
Regulatory tools range from
labeling and use restrictions
to outright bans on their
manufacture.
Information Collection
TSCA authorizes EPA to
require that industry test a
chemical when there are
insufficient data to assess the
risks and there is likely to be
substantial exposure or
unreasonable risk. EPA also
may require industry to
maintain records of
allegations of significant
adverse reactions by workers
and to report new
information that suggests
there may be substantial
risks associated with the
substance.
Pesticides
Each year, about three billion
pounds of pesticides are used
in the United States (Figure
T-3). Pesticides can improve
crop yields significantly by
controlling weeds,, insects,
and plant disease. As might
be expected, farmers are the
biggest users of pesticides.
Health officials also need
pesticides to control the
spread of diseases carried by
mosquitos and other insects.
Because pesticides are
designed to kill living
organisms, they can cause
serious health and
environmental problems if
not used properly. Some
pesticides persist in the
environment over long
periods, moving up through
the food chain from plankton
or insects to animals and
humans. Thus human dietary
exposure is often
unavoidable. They also may
move downward through soil
to contaminate ground water.
Through these exposures,
many pesticides may cause
chronic health effects such as
cancer or birth defects.
Under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA
is responsible for controlling
the risks of pesticides
through a registration
process. Pesticide registration
is designed to ensure that,
when used properly, a
pesticide presents no
unreasonable health or
environmental risks; that is,
its risks do not outweigh its
benefits to society. The
registration process thus
involves the careful weighing
of health and environmental
risks against the benefits of
pesticide use.
.114
-------
Registration of New
Pesticides
Before a new pesticide may
be marketed, it must be
registered with EPA. The
pesticide manufacturer
submits test data with the
registration application. Test
data include information
related to the risk of cancer,
birth defects and other
chronic effects as well as the
risks to wildlife. If test data
show that using a pesticide
may cause harmful human
health or environmental
effects, EPA can refuse to
register it, can restrict its use
to certain applications, or can
require that only certified
applicators apply the
pesticide. Once a pesticide is
registered, manufacturers
must label the product,
clearly indicating the
approved uses. In
emergencies, state or federal
FIGURE T-3
Pesticide Use in the U.S.
agencies may be authorized
to use pesticides not yet
registered.
Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Over 50,000 pesticide
products have been registered
since FIFRA was enacted in
1947. Most pesticides were
registered before their
long-term health and
environmental effects were
understood fully. As required
by the 1972 amendments to
FIFRA, existing pesticides
must be re-evaluated or
reregistered, taking into
account new information.
Reregistration involves
several steps. First, EPA
reviews all current
information on a given active
ingredient. About 600
different active ingredients,
or those "active" in attacking
a given pest, require
(1986 Estimates)
All Pesticides
(2.7 billion pounds of active
ingredient per year]
Conventional Pesticides
(1.1 billion pounds of active ingredients per year]
Other 5%
Includes Rodenticides, Fumigants,
and Molluscicides
Fungicides 8%
Source: Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA
reregistration. We identify in
initial registration standards
any additional health and
environmental data that are
needed before the
reregistration process can be
completed. Letters requesting
the information are sent to
manufacturers.'Next, the
new data are reviewed for
health and environmental
effects, and EPA determines
whether there is a need for
modifications in labeling,
packaging, or formulations of
the pesticide. Finally, EPA
specifies in Final Registration
Standards and Tolerance
Reassessments that existing
and future products
containing the active
ingredient include
appropriate restrictions,
warnings, or changes in
formulation.
Special Review
If the data on an old pesticide
indicate that it: may be
posing a potential safety
problem, EPA may undertake
a special review. A special
review is an intensive review
of the pesticide's risks and
benefits. The Agency first
identifies and quantifies the
health and environmental
Eroblems and the benefits
eing derived by agriculture
or other users. Depending on
the data, EPA may decide to
continue current uses,
restrict some or all uses, or
permanently cancel uses of
the pesticide.
If use of a pesticide is
found to cause unreasonable
risks, EPA may issue a notice
of intent to cancel its
registration. Such a notice
does not automatically bring
cancellation. Manufacturers
and others who would be
affected by cancellation may
request a hearing within 30
days; if there is no appeal,
registration is cancelled.
Cancellation hearings may
take two or more years,
during which marketing of
the pesticide may continue.
However, EPA may suspend
the registration pending the
outcome of the hearings if
there is evidence that the
risks of continued use
outweigh the benefits.
Tolerances
Under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
EPA, in cooperation with the
U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, sets
allowable limits for pesticide
residues in food. These
limits, called "tolerance
levels," are designed to
protect human health while
allowing for the production
of an adequate, wholesome,
and economic food supply.
Tolerance levels are
established during the
registration progress; for
existing pesticides, tolerances
are re-evaluated during
reregistration.
Monitoring and Enforcement
EPA monitors the
distribution and use of
pesticides and issues civil
and criminal penalties for
violations of FIFRA
regulations. For example, it is
a violation to use a pesticide
in a manner not stated on the
pesticide's label. EPA also
conducts laboratory
inspections to verify the
quality of test data and may
suspend a product's
registration if the required
data is not submitted.
States and Indian tribes
have primary responsibility
for enforcing laws and
regulations regarding
pesticide use through
cooperative agreements with
EPA. Individual states or
tribes may have more
stringent controls than the
federal program and may take
independent action to restrict
certain pesticides. EPA also
may take action if a state
does not take adequate steps.
EPA contributes to the
support of state and tribal
enforcement with federal
funds.
115
-------
PROGRESS
TO DATE
Biotechnology
Biotechnology involves the
use of biological science to
produce chemicals or living
organisms for commercial
use. Fermentation is one of
the oldest examples of
biotechnology, in which
microorganisms are used to
convert sugar into alcohol.
Microorganisms also have
been used for some time as
pesticides. For example, the
first micrpbial pesticide,
registered in 1948 by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Was a bacterium used to kill
Japanese beetles.
The techniques of genetic
engineering, a type of
biotechnology, have made it
possible to develop
microorganisms with new
combinations of
characteristics. Through gene
splicing, scientists are
developing microorganisms
that help in industrial
reactions, produce human
hormones, and degrade
i pollutants. Yet despite these
I benefits, the release of such
; genetically engineered
, microorganisms into the
environment has raised
public concern. One concern
is that introducing such
microorganisms could change
the existing balance of
microorganisms in the
environment.
EPA has authority to
evaluate the risks of certain
genetically engineered
microorganisms. Under the
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), EPA regulates
the use of genetically
engineered microorganisms
and non-native microbes as
pesticides. Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act
(TSCA), we regulate
genetically engineered
microorganisms that are not
already regulated as
pesticides under FIFRA, or as
drugs, cosmetics, or food
under other laws. For
example, TSCA governs the
regulation of biotechnology
products used to produce
chemicals, degrade
pollutants, accelerate plant
growth, or extract oil and
minerals.
Commercial Chemical
Substances
EPA screened more than
10,000 new chemicals
proposed for commercial
production between 1976,.
when TSCA was enacted, and
the end of 1987. The majority
of these chemicals were
determined to present no
unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment.
On the basis of these
reviews, EPA has prohibited
or restricted the manufacture
of 533 new commercial
chemicals. For 149 of these
new chemicals,
manufacturers were required
to conduct additional health
FIGURE T-4
Some Chemicals
in the Regulatory Review Process
Acrylamide - Used to make acrylamide polymers. The
polymers are then used in substances to take solids out
of drinking water, to grout sewers and in sugar
processing. It is a suspected carcinogen, and we are also
concerned about non-cancer health effects.
Paradichlorobenzene - Used primarily in mothballs and
air fresheners. We are evaluating control options, along
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Concerns are as an indoor air pollutant, possible health
effects, and suspected carcinogen.
Chlorinated solvents -Used in dry cleaning, metal
decreasing, aerosols, and paint stripping. Three
chlorinated solvents are suspected carcinogens;
chlorinated solvents that might be substituted may cause
other health problems. For each category of use, we are
evaluating the risks from all chlorinated solvents and are
working with other federal agencies to determine
appropriate action.
i » | ^
Chromium Emissions - Used to inhibit corrosion in
cooling towers. Concern is potential to cause lung cancer
when inhaled, We are using TSCA authorities to address
tlje problem of emissions, because the Clean Air Act did
•fijiC haye the authority. Industry is already using
substitutes, such as phosphates and molybdates.
M | MM i
Formaldehyde - Emitted from certain pressed wood
products, such as particleboard, hardwood plywood, and
medium-density fiberbqard. Concerns include cancer as
well as respiratory irritation. We are evaluating the need
for regulations on the manufacture and use of such
products.
••IHIitiia
and environmental testing.
After more than a decade
of experience in reviewing
proposed new chemicals, EPA|
now acts more quickly to
identify potential problems.
In addition to environmental
impacts, our risk assessments]
screen chemicals for their
potential to cause cancer,
fenetic mutation, birth
efects, damage to the
nervous or immune system,
and reproductive failures.
For the many existing
chemicals, or those already
on the market, data on the
long-term health and
environmental effects of
chemicals are available for
only a small fraction.
Identifying which among the
thousands of existing
commercial chemicals to test |
is a very important first step
in managing the risks from
these chemicals. By
December 1987, EPA had
decided to request additional
health and environmental
testing by the manufacturers
of 63 chemical groups.
During fiscal year 1987, we
reviewed 75 existing
chemicals or chemical groups |
for possible regulatory
controls. Some examples of
these are described in Figure
T-4.
Earlier actions taken under
TSCA have shown dramatic
results. For example,
restrictions on the use and
disposal of PCBs have
resulted in a significant
decline of these residues in
the environment, food, and
human tissues. While trace
levels of PCBs are now
almost uniformly present in
the U.S. population, the
number of individuals with
high PCB levels has declined
from over eight percent to
less than one percent of the
population.
116
-------
In 1978, the Agency banned
the nonessential use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in
aerosol sprays because of
concern that CFCs decreased
ozone in the earth's
stratosphere. In 1987, 31
nations representing the
majority of CFC-producing
countries signed a protocol to
freeze CFC consumption at
1986 levels by mid-1990 and
to halve production levels by
1999 (see section titled
"Global Atmospheric
Change" in the Air Chapter).
EPA also has been working
to remove or reduce the risks
from the widespread use of
asbestos in schools and other
buildings. For example, we
have implemented programs
to help officials identify and
control asbestos exposure in
the nation's schools under
two new asbestos laws passed
since 1984. We also have
established regulations to
protect workers and proposed
an immediate ban on many
uses of asbestos, along with a
phased elimination of other
uses.
Finally, the Agency has
taken action against
companies that introduce
new chemicals without
notifying EPA, or that import
or use chemicals in the
United States in violation of
TSCA. For example,
Mitsubishi International of
Japan paid $98,000, Canon
U.S.A. Inc. of Japan paid
$400,000, and Sandoz
Chemicals of West Germany
paid $25,000 for violations of
TSCA. American Telephone
and Telegraph also agreed to
pay a penalty of $1,000,000
for illegal use of a chemical
not approved by EPA. In
some settlements, the
Agency has required
companies to provide detailed
reports of further instances of
import, manufacture, or
chemical use violations. We
have also required some
companies, such as Canon, to
produce and finance public
service announcements and
training for corporate
personnel or other members
of the regulated community.
Pesticides
EPA has banned many uses
of pesticides that have been
shown to cause health and
environmental problems. For
example, virtually all uses of
DDT, aldrin, dieldrin,
toxaphene, and ethylene
dibromide (EDB) were
cancelled, as well as the
agricultural and termiticide
uses of chlordane and
heptachlor, because of their
toxicity and persistence in
the environment (Figure T-5).
Since their cancellation, the
levels of these pesticides
have declined in humans and
wildlife. These pesticides in
turn have been replaced by
products that are less
persistent in the
environment, that are more
precise in attacking a given
target, and that require much
lower rates of application. We
have also promoted research
in the area of integrated pest
management, which takes
into account the biology of a
pest to achieve greater pest
control with less pesticide.
EPA is working to improve
the timeliness of new
registrations in order to
replace existing pesticides
with less hazardous ones. In
many cases, registration of a
brand-new active ingredient
has taken several years. To
help speed the introduction
of new, safer chemicals, EPA
is now giving greatest
attention to reviewing new
pesticides (i.e. new active.
ingredients). The Agency is
also requiring manufacturers
to provide all the necessary
scientific information with
their initial application for
registration.
For the hundreds of
pesticides approved before
today's more stringent
standards were m place, the
Agency has focused on
updating health and
environmental information
(see highlight on
"Completing the
Reregistration Cycle"). EPA
has been evaluating
pesticides in clusters of
similar-use products so that
different pesticides with the
same use are reviewed in the
same way. Priority has been
given to those chemicals
which have the greatest
potential for exposure, such
as those used on food and in
high volume. As a result of
this process, we have
completed 173 initial
registration standards that
identify additional data
needed to reevaluate the risks
of a pesticide. These initial
standards account for
one-third of the 600 active
ingredients that must be
reregistered, or 80 percent of
the total volume. In addition,
through requests to industry
to provide data, EPA is
obtaining toxicity data
needed to reregister all
food-use chemicals.
Finally, the Agency has
taken legal action against
individuals or companies that
have not complied with
restrictions or bans on the
use of certain pesticides. We
also have taken action
against those that either fail
to submit data or that submit
false or incomplete data on a
pesticide. For example, the
sale of over 2,000 products
was suspended .because
required data had not been
submitted to EPA. When
200 of these products were
shown to be in compliance
with pesticide regulations,
the ban on their sale was
lifted.
As the primary enforcers of
pesticide regulations, states
have taken an active role in
inspecting pesticide use.
When violations are found,
states either take legal action
or refer the violations to
EPA. In 1987 alone, the states
conducted over 55,000
inspections and initiated over
10,000 enforcement actions.
For example, investigators in
Maine discovered that 108
growers were using Fusilade
4E on potatoes, although the
Eesticide was not registered
jr this use. The state fined
each of the growers and
required a legally-binding
agreement by the growers to
refrain from using the
pesticide on potatoes. Several
pesticide dealers were also
required to pay fines,
maintain sales records, and
participate in training.
U7
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
A Number of Pesticides Have Been Taken Off the Market
Chlordane
(Agricultural uses}
uses suspended
of cancelled)
Insecticide/Termites,
Ants
Oncogenicity/ reduction in
non-target and endangered species
Compound 1080
(Livestock collar retained,
rodenticide u«e under
Reductions in non-target and
endangered species; no known
antidote
Coyote control;
Rodenticide
±_ i — j t" t -a J
Oncogenicity; mutagenicity)
reproductive effects
oil Fumigant - Fruits
and vegetables^
Ecological (eggshell thinning),
carcinpgenicity
DDT and related
™" 'Compounds
Herbicide/Crpp
Fetotoxicity; reproductive effects;
acute
................................................. Jpgcjffiide/Ayicid^ ................. r.; ............ Qncggenjcity; (eratogenicity;
non-target and
ndangered species
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
^- (Very minor uses and use on
citnis for export retained)
tachlor
ultural uses;
i|ic|deiiuse§isuspended
Insecticide/Fumigant
Oncogenicity,- mutagenicity;
reproductive effects
Oncogenicity; reductions in
non-target and endangered species
InsecticideA^aporizer
Oncogenicity; teratogenicity;
reprp3uctjye effects,- acute
toxicity; other chronic effects
~;" Jfidoor, smoke
""" ................. cclled7 some uses
Cumulative toxicant causing brain
^_ _ __ -ii.A_ - . .
:/Fire iAnt Non-target species, potential
...QijCggenicity
HerEjciide/forestry,
Oncogenicity; teratogenicity;
r, weed fetptqxicity
HHII!.MimWMMP
predator Reductions in non-target and
control; rodenticide endangered species
odenticide use and
ljarretaiiied]
ilKSi'ifiJfc'JM^^^^^^^
Herbicide/Forestry, Oncogenicity; teratogenicity;
Insecticide - Cotton Oncogenicity; reductions in
non-target species; acute toxicity
is teUiHifcii ™iL:i i^m* tc\ xnuAtic. nTPflriisrhST'rVirnnir
ves'tock dip retained)
IS tiMSIS: ::::
-^-Causes major birth defects
!! - - ' ' • „. a>, f..
Here are some of the major
challenges EPA faces today in
managing risks from
commercial chemicals,
pesticides, and biotechnology.
The remaining sections of
this chapter discuss each of
these in more detail.
Evaluating Existing
Chemicals
Dioxin, asbestos, and PCBs
are chemical substances that
EPA has addressed because
they present significant risks
to health or the environment.
The Agency must use all of
its authority and work
closely with other agencies to
identify and address the risks
of other highly toxic and
pervasive substances.
Reviewing New
Chemic
The best way to ensure that a
substance presenting
excessive risks does not
become widespread in the
environment is to prevent it
from ever going into
production or to limit the
quantities that can be
produced and used. EPA will
continue to place strong
emphasis on reviewing new
chemicals before they are
introduced into commerce.
Reducing Human Health
Risks from Pesticides
Consumers are exposed to
pesticides through their diet,
drinking water, and the use
of pesticides such as
disinfectants and lawncare
products. Farm workers and
professional pesticide
applicators routinely come
into contact with pesticides
and thus may face even
greater health risks. Even the
storage and disposal of
pesticides whose use is no
longer permitted may pose
risks. EPA's continuing
challenge is to reduce the
health risks from pesticides.
-------
Reduce the Risks of
Pesticides to Fish and
Wildlife
Fish and wildlife may be
exposed to pesticides through
contamination of their food,
water, and habitat. Certain
pesticides have been known
to affect the growth,
reproduction, and existence
of wildlife. The nature of
effects on endangered species
is a particular concern. We
must continue to improve
scientific understanding of
the effects of pesticides in
the environment and to
educate users about the
dangers pesticides can pose.
Ensure the Safe Testing
of and Public Confidence
in Biotechnology
Products
Microorganisms with new
characteristics can now be
developed using the
techniques of gene-splicing.
However, the public has
expressed concern about the
health and environmental
risks posed when such
genetically engineered
microorganisms are released
into the environment. EPA
must ensure that such
microorganisms are safely
tested while maintaining
public confidence in
biotechnology.
Completing the
Reregistration Cycle
Chemical products are now an accepted part of everyday life.
Through the pesticides reregistration process, EPA
has been updating data on the health and
environmental effects of existing pesticides. As a
result, EPA has extensive toxicity data on many
existing pesticides. Now the Agency must review
these data to determine the potential dangers to
health and the environment, and to prescribe the
appropriate changes in product formulations,
labeling, or use.
EPA thus is beginning a comprehensive review
of all new health and environmental data that
have, been gathered on existing pesticides. Based
on our review, we will issue Final Registration
Standards and Tolerance Reassessments (FRSTR),
which specify any revisions in tolerances, product
labeling, and product formulation. Two FRSTRs
were completed in fiscal year 1987, and the
Agency plans to increase the rate to ten FRSTRs
in fiscal year 1988 and twelve FRSTRs in fiscal...
year 1989. This step translates new information
about a pesticide into changes in consumer
products.
The development of FRSTRs completes a major
phase of reregistration. Nonetheless, the process of
evaluating pesticides is a continuing one, so that
pesticide standards are never truly "final." In
spite of today's more stringent standards, what we
think is adequate today may not be adequate in
the future. For example, the potential for even
normal (i.e., approved) uses of pesticides to
contaminate ground water was.not evaluated
when many of today's pesticides were registered.
The problem simply was not anticipated. As we
learn more about pesticides, we also may learn to
ask new questions.
119
-------
TOXIC CHEMICALS
I i '!!< : |
Existing Chemicals
THE
PROBLEM
Tens of thousands of
chemicals were being
Manufactured and used when
the Toxic Substances Control
Act was passed in 1976. At
that time, there was little
information about long-term
health and environmental
effects of the chemicals. A
program to identify the
universe of existing
chemicals and determine
which chemicals required
regulatory attention was
needed. A program also was
needed to monitor the risks
from new chemicals once
they were approved for
commercial production.
Polychlorinated biphenyls
{PCBs] and asbestos provide
examples of the problems
that toxic substances can
present. PCBs were used in
many commercial activities,
especially as heat transfer
fluids in electrical
transformers and capacitors.
They also were used as
hydraulic fluids, lubricants,
and dye carriers in carbonless
copy paper, and in paints,
|nks, and dyes. Over time,
PCBs accumulated in the
environment, either from
leaking electrical equipment
or from other materials such
as inks. PCBs eventually
reached humans through the
food chain and caused serious
health problems in high
concentrations.
Like PCBs, asbestos was
widely used for many
purposes, such as fireproofing
and pipe and boiler insulation
in schools and other
buildings. Asbestos was often
mixed with a cement-like
material and sprayed or
plastered on ceilings and
other surfaces. Now these
materials are deteriorating,
releasing the asbestos.
Unfortunately, the physical
characteristics that make
asbestos so resistant to heat
also make it harmful.
Asbestos breaks into tiny
fibers or dust, which can
float in the air, be inhaled,
and lodge in lung tissue.
Exposure to these airborne
fibers can then cause lung
cancer and asbestosis, a
chronic scarring of the lungs
that hinders breathing.
The Chemical Substances Inventory contains
information on over 62,000 chemicals.
EFFORTS
TO DATE
i. Mi'
Since enactment of the Toxic
Substances Control Act
(TSCA), EPA has worked to
address problems associated
with specific chemicals
including PCBs, asbestos,
dioxin, and CFCs. The
Agency also gathers
information on the toxicity
and releases of a larger
number of chemicals. All of
these activities are
summarized below.
ACTIONS TO
CONTROL SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS
PCBs
In TSCA, Congress
specifically directed EPA to
ban the manufacture,
processing, distribution, and
use of PCBs except in totally
enclosed electrical
equipment. Since the 1976
ban, the levels of PCBs have
declined in food, humans,
and the environment (see
Figure T-6).
EPA imposed requirements
to reduce the risk of PCB
transformer fires, which can
spread PCBs, dioxins, and
furans (chemicals related to
dioxins). These requirements
included banning further
installation of PCB
transformers in or near
commercial buildings,
labeling of transformer
locations, installing electrical
protection on certain
transformers, registering
transformers with fire
departments and building
owners, and phasing out the
use of certain transformers.
The Agency also
established regulations for
the disposal of PCBs and for
the safe cleanup of PCB
spills. In this effort, EPA has
promoted the development of
new technologies for the safe
destruction or disposal of
PCBs. These include mobile
incinerators and chemical
and biological methods for
detoxifying PCBs.
120
! Iv
-------
Asbestos
EPA has worked to reduce
the exposure of school
children to asbestos through
two asbestos laws passed
since 1984. Under the
Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act of 1984,
approximately $135 million
in interest-free loans or
grants has been provided to
schools for over 1,500
asbestos control projects. As
a result, the exposure of
children and school
employees has been reduced
by millions of hours (Figure
T-7).
Under the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act of
1986, which amends TSCA,
schools are required to
identify and respond to their
asbestos problems. Using
EPA or state-approved
professionals, schools must
identify dangerous crumbling
asbestos. They must then
submit plans for addressing
the problem to their state
governor and begin
implementing the plans.
EPA has established
centers to provide training on
proper asbestos inspections
and control procedures at ten
universities (see highlight on
"Hands-On Training for
Asbestos Control"). Through
EPA grants and technical
assistance, states also have
established training and
certification programs for
asbestos control personnel.
The number of such
programs increased from five
in 1985 to over 39 in 1988.
Finally, the Agency has
studied asbestos in public
and commercial buildings
and provided
recommendations to
Congress on how to address
the problem. In addition, we
implemented measures to
protect certain state and local
government workers involved
in asbestos removal. These
employees are not covered by
the asbestos standards issued
by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration
that cover most workplaces.
ASBESTOS
DUST HAZARD
MOID SHEATHING DUST
WE»B MSIGKEO
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
DO HOT BEMJIN IH AREA
URISSS YOUB WOBK
BEOUIRtS IT
MEAIHIHG ASBESTOS
BUST MAY IE
HAZARDOUS
TOYOU* HEMTH
Crumbling asbestos pipe insulation.
While Nearly Everyone Now Has "Trace"
Levels of PCB's ...
Percent of population with "trace" PCB levels
10.0 . . . The Percentage of Population with
"High" Levels Has Gone Down
Population with "high" PCB levels
EPA Programs Have
Bleduced Exposure To
Asbestos in Schools
Millions of Exposure Hours Eliminated
Hours during which schoolchildren no
logger exposed to asbestos
Source: Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA
Source: Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA
121
-------
j-on Training for Asbestos Control
helpe establish and fund
' tmmMg.,c§nter§ ..&t. Tufts
, Georgia Institute of Technology, the
of, Kansas, the University of Illinois, and
California. We have also started
! framing centers at five other universities.
1 years, more than 10,000
_ workers, and other asbestos
I professionals have been trained in these
";e cenp&£S,help provide the hands-on
ibriantIn state certification programs.
s.mpdelj'or,state accreditation,
"zspectprs, planners, asbestos control
St designers, supervisors, and workers must
iMude some "hands-on " instruction in proper
<$.cgntfoJl practices. The centers may also
' other services such as asbestos telephone
Jtlines, news|etters, technical bulletins, and
""IfallonaZ meejjngs'oh asbestos issues.
To train workers on site in a safe but effective
Way, the University of Kansas National Asbestos
Training Center has a unique approach. Using
retrofitted tractor trailers as asbestos control areas,
the center brings the classroom to the student. The
mobile classroom has a "clean area" where students
,^
become familiar with personal protective gear and
Isam.toAeGontaminatetherns&ly&s_and their ,
equipment. The bulk of the training takes place in
the larger section designed to resemble an asbestos
control site, complete with ceilings or building
fixtures covered with asbestos substitutes. Here
students are taught how to maintain or remove pipe
and boiler wraps, and repair or remove ceiling
materials. They also learn to use sophisticated
asbestos removal equipment. The facility can
accommodate as many as 20 trainees at once,
depending upon the procedure involved.
The University of Kansas Center presently has four
vans which travel around the country. They have
been particularly useful in providing hands-on
training at technical conferences. The vans also
make it economical for small groups of employees to
receive training by reducing the expense of travelling
to training courses. Other asbestos information and
training centers are now investigating the potential
use of mobile vans in their programs. Working
together, university and federal personnel have
developed a creative way to provide hands-on
training for asbestos control personnel.
-------
Dioxin
Dioxin refers to a family of
chemicals with similar
structure, although it is
common to refer to the most
toxic of these -
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin or TCDD - as dioxin.
It may cause both immediate
and short term effects, such
as skin disease, cancer,
reproductive problems, and
reduced resistance to disease.
Dioxin is an inadvertent
contaminant of the
chlorinated herbicides 2,4,5-T
and silvex, which were used
until recently in agriculture,
forest management, and lawn
care. It is also a contaminant
of certain wood preservatives
and the defoliant Agent
Orange used in Vietnam.
Dioxins and the related
chemicals known as furans
also are formed during the
combustion of PCBs.
Several other sources of
dioxin contamination have
been identified in recent
years. These include pulp and
paper production, and the
burning of municipal wastes
containing certain plastics or
wood preserved by certain
chlorinated chemicals. To
gain a clear picture of the
problem, EPA implemented a
national study to determine
the extent of dioxin
contamination. During the
study, the Agency identified
fish contamination thought
to be associated with the
pulp and paper industry.
These results are being
evaluated further.
EPA has taken a number of
actions to control dioxin
contamination. These include
cancelling all uses of the
dioxin-containing pesticides
2,4,5-T and silvex. Anyone
handling dioxin-containing
wastes now is required to
notify EPA before moving or
disposing of them. These
wastes also must be
specially-treated before
disposal on land. Cleanup of
sites containing dioxin, such
as Times Beach, Missouri, is
being addressed under the
Superfund program (see the
Land Chapter). In addition,
the use of chlorinated wood
preservatives and
PCB-containing transformers
has been restricted.
Chlorofluorocarbons
In 1978, the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as
a propellant in aerosol cans
and other nonessential uses
were prohibited by EPA. The
Agency took this action as a
result of evidence that CFCs
caused a decrease in
stratospheric ozone. In 1987,
31 nations representing the
majority of CFC-producing
countries agreed to the
Montreal Protocol. The
Protocol, which must be
ratified by at least 11
countries before it becomes
official in 1989, requires
developed nations to freeze
CFC consumption at 1986
levels by mid-1990 and to
halve CFC use by 1999 (see
the Air Chapter).
Other Chemicals
Other chemicals have been
identified for control under
TSCA. Recent examples
include the following:
hexavalent chromium, a
cooling tower additive;
acrylamide, a material used
as grouting within public
water systems; lead, which
can enter air and ground
water from the ash of
municipal waste combustion;
and chlorinated solvents,
which are used in metal
degreasing, drycleaning, and
aerosols (see highlight on
"Chlorinated Solvents: New
Directions in Toxics
Control").
GATHERING AND
SHARING
INFORMATION
Information on the health
and environmental effects of
a chemical is necessary to
determine its risks. EPA also
needs information on the
likelihood and routes of
exposure to a chemical, for
while a chemical may be
very toxic, it poses little
danger unless people or
wildlife come in contact with
it. Using a variety of
data-gathering provisions in
the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), EPA collects
information on chemical
substances to 'determine the
nature and extent of the risks
they pose.
TSCA Inventory
One of the. first tasks EPA
completed under TSCA was
compiling an inventory of all
chemicals commercially
produced or processed in the
United States between
January 1, 1975 and July 1979.
The first inventory was
published in 1979 and
contained information on
over 62,000 chemicals.
Information for the inventory
came from manufacturers
and importers and included
production volume and plant
location. In 1986,
manufacturers and importers
were required to report
current data on a subset of
the substances on the
inventory and to update the
information every four years.
EPA received over 25,000
reports on 8,500 substances
during fiscal year 1987.
Production and Use Data
Under TSCA, EPA can
collect additional information
on use and exposure for
selected chemicals. These are
chemicals for which there is
reason to believe that they
may pose unreasonable risks.
The information is then used
to screen or conduct a
preliminary evaluation of
risk. To collect the
information, we have
developed a generic
information-gathering
regulation which requires
manufacturers and importers
to provide readily available
information about their
chemicals. EPA designates a
list of chemicals or categories
of chemicals for which it
wants information and must
justify why it wants such
information.
To date, the Agency has
collected information on 350
substances. For example, EPA
listed 18 chlorinated and
brominated benzene
chemicals because they can
lead to formation of dioxins
and furans. We also specified
47 other chemicals and
mixtures for which more
detailed information is
required and expect to add
other chemicals to the list in
the future.
Health and Safety
Studies
TSCA allows the Agency to
require past and current
manufacturers, importers,
processors, and distributors
to submit unpublished health
and safety data on a list of
specified chemicals. The list
includes chemicals which are
suspected of causing cancer
or other health effects. The
unpublished test data,
including both formal studies
and reports of incidents or
spills, are contained in the
Toxic Substances Control
Act Test Submissions data
base. These data are used to
evaluate risks associated with
exposure and to determine
whether toxicity testing
should be done if it has not
already been conducted. Such
information has been used to
support a number of
regulatory programs in EPA.
For instance, in 1987, we
added 102 chemicals to our
list, including substances
needed to regulate drinking
water, set water quality
standards, and protect
consumer safety.
123
-------
Substantial Risk Notices
TSCA requires chemical
manufacturers, processors,
and distributors to inform us
Immediately when they
obtain evidence that a
chemical presents a
substantial risk of injury to
human health or the
environment. Such notices
Include unpublished toxicity
knd exposure studies and
may lead to further action by
EPA or other agencies. To
date, the Agency has received
pver 700 substantial risk
notices.
TToxicity Testing
When there are insufficient
data to evaluate the potential
hazards of existing chemicals,
EPA may require
manufacturers, importers,
tod processors to conduct
tests. An interagency
committee periodically
recommends chemicals for
which testing may be needed.
We have also required
additional testing in response
t£> a citizens' petition and
Other regulatory programs. To
require such testing, the
Agency issues a test rule that
Specifies the chemical to be
tested, the kinds of tests to be
conducted, and who must do
the testing. In 1987, the
Agency received 58
completed test studies from
industry and issued a total of
1.6 final and proposed test
roles.
Monitoring
To identify potential hazards,
EPA monitors the exposure
of humans and the
environment to chemicals.
For example, under the
National Human Monitoring
Program, EPA has monitored
the levels of PCBs and
chlorinated pesticides such as
DDT in humans since the
1960s. EPA also has
developed improved methods
for monitoring chemicals in
human tissues and fluids
such as a method to measure
djoxin in fatty tissue.
124
The Agency also has
conducted a number of
chemical exposure studies.
For example, EPA conducted
an evaluation of the risks
from exposure to
formaldehyde in mobile and
conventional homes.
Formaldehyde is often
emitted from certain
pressed-wood products, such
as particleboard, hardwood
plywood, and
medium-density fiberboard,
that are used in homes and
furnishings. The Agency now
is evaluating the need for
regulations regarding the
manufacture and use of these
products. Other surveys
conducted by EPA include a
survey of consumer use of
household products
containing chlorinated
solvents; a study of the
exposure of sewer workers to
acrylamide grouting; and a
survey of chloroparaffins in
water near a manufacturing
site.
THE TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
RELEASES
INVENTORY
In addition to TSCA, EPA
has authority for collecting
information on toxic
chemicals under Title III of
the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of
1986, also referred to as
Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
Facilities that manufacture,
process, or use any of 309
designated chemicals in
greater than specified
amounts now must report
routine releases of those
chemicals. These reports,
which are sent to EPA and to
designated state agencies, are
a new, nationwide source of
information about toxic
chemical releases to all
media. The Toxics Releases
Inventory is designed to
assist citizen groups, local
health officials, state
environmental managers, and
EPA to identify and control
toxic chemical problems. The
Agency is required to make
information from the reports
available to the public. (See
section titled "Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know" in the Land
Chapter.)
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
Asbestos and PCBs
Further reduction of the
hazards of PCBs and asbestos
remains a challenge.
Although asbestos use has
declined sharply in recent
years, approximately 30
million tons of asbestos has
been applied to ceilings,
pipes, and many other parts
of buildings since 1900. Brake
linings also are one of the
major uses of asbestos in the
United States. Substitutes are
being developed and
marketed for most asbestos
uses, but some of them cost
more than the asbestos
products. Since EPA is
required to consider
economic as well as the
health effects of chemical
controls, developing a
strategy for eliminating
asbestos exposure is
especially difficult.
Similarly, about 400
million pounds of PCBs are
still being used or stored in
the United States. We expect
that much of this supply will
require disposal over the next
three years as the use of
certain PCB electrical
equipment is phased out. At
the same time, the Agency
has learned of some improper
disposal practices and
abandoned PCB disposal
sites. Thus, EPA must
continue to guard against
such disposal practices.
New Hazards
In addition to the first group
of chemicals addressed under
TSCA, EPA must continue to
evaluate existing chemicals
to determine whether they
pose significant health and
environmental hazards. For
those that do, the Agency
must determine the best way
to reduce these risks. Toxic
chemicals can be released to
all environmental media, i.e.,
air, water, and land. EPA in
turn has a variety of
regulatory approaches for
controlling toxic substances.
Before taking action, we
must determine which
approach is the most
effective and economical way
to reduce the risks.
-------
Chlorinated Solvents: New
Directions in Toxics CpntrpL
Chlorinated solvents are in many ways a modem-day
miracle, making it possible to clean many things
ranging from tiny electronics components to bulky
clothing (i.e. dry cleaning). Chlorinated solvents ate
also used in aerosols, paint stripping, and degreasing
: tools and equipment. In 1985, EPA received evidence
-;. that one of these solvents, methylene chloride, caused
cancer in laboratory animals. Other chlorinated
solvents include perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and
chlorofluorocarbon 113. Some of these solvents were
also suspected of causing health and environmental
. problems.
Given the widespread use of these solvents, action to
control methylene chloride alone would most likely
result in the substitution of other chlorinated solvents
with the potential to cause problems. In addition,
EPA's approach to regulating toxic chemicals
traditionally has been statute by statute, each of which
: governs releases to specific media such as air or water.
• Regulating the chlorinated solvents in one media
potentially could shift the problem to another media.
EPA took a new approach for chlorinated solvents.
: First, staff from a number of regulatory programs within
EPA and from other agencies participated, including the
'" Occupational "Safety and Health Administration
' (OSHAj and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC). Second, for each major use —degreasing, dry
cleaning, paint stripping, and aerosols — EPA
investigated the hazards posed by all chlorinated
solvents, rather than focusing on a single chemical.
Coordinating the various programs and agencies was
difficult because each was responsible for implementing
different statutes. For example, OSHA regulates hazards
to workers, while the CPSC regulates hazards to
consumers. To date, EPA and the other agencies have
Developed a comprehensive approach for controlling the
hazards of chlorinated solvents from dry cleaning. It
was determined that the Clean Air Act and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act would be the most
effective authorities to control chlorinated solvents in
the dry cleaning industry.
EPA expects to begin similar approaches to
controlling the use of chlorinated solvents in metal
degreasing, paint stripping, and aerosols. In the future,
this integrated approach to controlling other toxic
!' chemicals may be common. By evaluating all potential
risks of a substance and making use of a variety of
• regulatory mechanisms, EPA and other agencies can
control risks more effectively.
Implementing
Community
Right-to-Know
The new Toxic Releases
Inventory will provide an
unprecedented amount of
information on the
manufacturing, processing,
uses, and releases of certain
toxic chemicals. The
information must be
communicated to many
people, including citizens,
government officials, and
representatives of other
organizations. EPA's
challenge is to interpret the
information in the Inventory
to help state and local
officials evaluate and manage
the risks posed by substances
present in their communities.
In addition, the Agency must
help the public understand
the risks and alternatives for
dealing with them.
EPA'S
AGENDA
Continue Actions to
Reduce Risks From
Asbestos and FCBs
EPA has proposed
immediately banning many
uses of asbestos and phasing
out the rest over the next ten
years. This action would ban
the import, manufacturing,
and processing of five
categories of asbestos
products - roofing felt;
flooring felt and
asbestos-backed sheet
flooring; vinyl-asbestos floor
tile; asbestos-cement pipe
and fittings; and asbestos
clothing. For the remaining
products, such as brake
linings, EPA has proposed a
phased ban to give industry
time to develop and market
good substitutes. In addition,
the Agency will continue
actions to ensure that the
hazards of asbestos hi
buildings are properly
controlled.
Similarly, the use of
certain PCB-containing
electrical equipment is being
phased put, with those uses
presenting the highest risk
being eliminated first. For
example, the use of certain
PCS transformers with high
secondary voltages in or near
commercial buildings will be
phased out by October 1990.
The use of large PCB
capacitors also is prohibited
after October1!, 1988, unless
they are in areas with
restricted access. Because
such equipment and its PCB
contents require proper
disposal, EPA is focusing its
attention on improving the
permitting and monitoring of
PCB storage and disposal
facilities. The Agency is also
developing a program for
tracking PCB .wastes from the
waste generator to disposer
and will take faction against
those who violate PCB
disposal regulations.
Improve Information
Collection and Sharing
Under TSCA's information
gathering authority, EPA has
a unique tool for an
integrated approach to the
control of toxic chemicals.
The Agency will continue to
collect and share information
among all of its regulatory
programs, as well as those of
other agencies. For example,
an outreach service has been
established to help EPA
regional offices and the states
improve their risk
assessments. The service,
called the Chemical
Assessment Desk, provides
other parts of the Agency
with toxicity and risk
information on chemicals
reviewed in the toxic
substances program. In
addition, through the
Organization for Economic
Cooperation and
Development, EPA is
working with other countries
to coordinate the information
gathering, testing, and
evaluation of existing
chemicals of common
concern. Through such joint
efforts, the Agency hopes to
ensure coordinated and
comprehensive regulation of
toxic chemicals.
Communicate
Information on Toxic
Releases to the Public
EPA will make the
information in the Toxic
Releases Inventory available
to the public through an
automated data base. In
addition, we will help state
and local officials,
community leaders, and
certain organizations to
interpret the data and
understand its implications
for individual communities.
Finally, the Agency will use
the data to identify toxic
chemical hazards that require
further investigation or
action.
125
-------
Toxic CHEMICALS
New Chemicals
PROBLEM
EFFORTS
To DATE
j " 1;i!,,|lKii
The nation's use of chemicals
has increased rapidly over the
last 40 years. At present,
there exist more than 65,000
chemical substances that
may be manufactured or
processed for commercial use
in the United States, with
S'cr 1,000 new substances
troduced each year. By the
end of 1988, the Agency will
have received over 13,000
proposed new chemicals for
review (Figure T-8). Given
past trends, the rate at which
new chemicals are proposed
each year will probably
continue.
Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act
(TSCA), EPA evaluates the
risks presented by new
chemicals before they are
manufactured or imported for
ciommercial purposes. By
screening chemicals before
they are produced in
significant quantities and
people are exposed to them,
EPA can prevent or reduce
the risks associated with
their use.
The TSCA premanufacture
notification process enables
EPA to review hundreds of
new chemicals proposed for
production each year.
Chemicals are first screened
to separate those likely to
pose risks from those that are
not hazardous. About 80
percent of the new chemicals
received appear to present no
unreasonable risks. The
remainder must go through a
more detailed review. If the
effects of a substance are
uncertain, EPA may require
more toxicity data.
Depending upon the data,
EPA may restrict the
manufacture, import,
processing, distribution, use,
or disposal of a chemical, or
prohibit manufacture
altogether.
For those chemicals
requiring further review, EPA
conducts a structure-activity
analysis to screen for
potential health and
environmental effects. Under
this method, a chemical's
physical and chemical
FIGURE T-8
New Chemical Actions Mid-1979 -
September 30,1987
Actions
li ..............
PMNsj Appications for Exemptions
ViM, PjES-MiSMilSSlffiS, Notifications iE
553
9,1,32,
PMNs RcW'iing No Further Action
EPA
Concerns
Voluntary Control Actions by Submitters
PMNs Withdrawn in face of regulatory action
PMNs Subject to control pending data
PMNs Resulting in prohibition or restrictions
7,166
:
149. .
PSlN" Exemption Apj^ations'Received
Granted
behavior is predicted by
comparing die chemical's
molecular structure with that
of other chemicals for which
the behavior is already
known. For many categories
of chemicals,
structure-activity analysis is
useful for predicting likely
toxicity, persistence, and
other factors.
EPA has exempted some
categories of chemicals from
premanufacture review
because they pose little, if
any, risk to human health or
the environment. For
example, certain polymers
are exempt, as are a number
of low-volume chemicals
where exposures are expected
to be minimal. Such
exemptions have allowed
manufacturers to introduce
such chemicals expeditiously
and have allowed EPA to
focus its resources on
substances with greater
potential risks.
EPA has encouraged
industry to replace hazardous
chemicals with less
hazardous? ones. For example,
industry is moving toward
the use of less toxic
industrial solvents in the
coatings industry (see
highlight on "Replacing
Toxic Solvents in Paints and
Coatings"). Industry is also
using industrial dyes in
pelletized or liquid form
rather than their powdered
form. Both of these new
practices have substantially
reduced toxic exposures,
especially for employees.
TODAY'S
Estimating Risk
Risk is a product of both
toxicity and exposure. For
example, some of the most
potent carcinogens may
present little risk if they are
used in totally enclosed
chemical reactions. When
toxicity. information is not
available for a proposed
chemical, we have usually
relied on the use of structure
activity analysis to predict
health and environmental
hazards of the chemical,
rather than requiring toxicity
testing. The accuracy of such
predictions is especially
important for chemicals that
will be produced in
substantial volume and result
in significant human or
environmental exposure.
EPA's challenge is to
determine whether the
toxicity predictions that it is
using are accurate enough to
protect against unreasonable
risks.
New Uses of Chemicals
EPA has traditionally based
its review of a chemical on
the uses that a manufacturer
intends for the chemical.
Once a chemical goes into
commercial production, it
may be put to additional uses
without review unless we
intervene. In order to cover
all possible uses, EPA must
specify for a given chemical
that any restrictions, such as
the use of respirators by
workers, apply to all
potential manufacturers as
well as the original
manufacturer. We may also
designate the uses that are
permitted and require
premanufacture notification
if any other use is proposed.
However, this
chemical-by-chemical
mechanism for controlling
new uses is cumbersome.
Our challenge is to develop a
process for efficiently
controlling those new uses
that may lead to health or
environmental problems.
126
-------
Replacing Toxic Solvents in Paints
and Coatings
Coatings, such as the prime coatings
on automobiles and clear films on
floors and magazine covers, contain
solvents to help ensure that the
product flows smoothly and forms a ,..
film properly. In response to concern
that certain organic solvents in some
coatings could present health hazards
or contribute to air pollution when
they evaporate, industry began
developing water-based coatings.
Water-based coatings, however, have
not been developed sufficiently for
many uses. More energy is required to
dry water-based coatings than
organic-based ones and, in many cases,
such "water-based" coatings still
contain organic solvents. Thus, many
industries continue to use coatings
containing organic solvents.
EPA has promoted the replacement
of toxic organic solvents with less
toxic or non-toxic solvents. For
example, ethylene glycol ethers are
used as solvents in applications such
as resin systems and semiconductors.
In 1982, EPA received data indicating
that four ethylene glycol ethers
produced birth defects, reduced sperm
production, and liver and kidney
effects in laboratory animals. The
effects were at concentrations that
raised concern for workers exposed to
these chemicals during coating
applications.
The Agency began a formal
investigation of these four ethylene
glycol ethers. During the investigation,
EPA contacted coating companies
about the uses of ethylene glycol
ethers and the potential for
substitution. EPA determined that the
most likely substitutes were the
propylene glycol ethers, another
category of glycol ethers structurally
similar but much less toxic than the
ethylene glycol ethers.
In 1984, EPA announced that it was
considering proposed regulatory action
on the four ethylene glycol ethers,
representing over 300 million pounds
of production. Producers of these
ethers recommended voluntarily that
workplace exposure levels be reduced
well below the current legal standards.
At the same time, producers of the
potential substitutes began to cite ,
EPA's proposed action in their
advertising. Companies 'eventually
began to reduce use of ethylene glycol
ethers in coatings.
Because most of the exposure to
these chemicals was in the workplace,
EPA later referred the four ethylene
glycol ethers to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) for further consideration. In
1988, OSHA proposed to lower the
levels to which workers may be
exposed to these four chemicals. By
that time, their use had already
declined by about 50 percent. Many
suppliers of coatings to the automobile
and pigments industries had replaced
the ethylene glycol ethers with
propylene glycol ethers. In addition,
the number of manufacturers of
ethylene glycol ethers had dropped
from eight companies to two.
In summary, the ethylene glycol
story demonstrates a shift away from
use of a toxic chemical in response to
both industry's own concern and
potential regulatory action. In this
case, fortunately, there was a readily
available substitute. In other cases, it
may take years before there is a safer
and cost effective substitute available.
However, wherever possible, EPA .will
continue to promote the substitution
of other existing but less hazardous
chemicals.
EPA'S
AGENDA
In the future, EPA plans to
require toxicity testing of
proposed new chemicals if
there is potential for
substantial exposure to the
chemicals. These are
chemicals which will be
produced in high volumes
and to which many may be
exposed. For such chemicals,
the Agency will also conduct
structure activity analyses
but will no longer rely solely
on this method to predict
toxicity. The results of the
toxicity tests can then be
compared to predictions
based on chemical structure
and provide a better basis for
determining whether
restrictions on production
and use are appropriate.
EPA has proposed a generic
approach for the review of
new uses of chemicals that
have already been approved
for commercial production.
Under such an approach, we
would define "new uses" for
a category of chemicals. No
person would be allowed to
manufacture or process a
chemical in the category for
a given "new use" without
first submitting a notice
similar to a premanufacture
notice. A major advantage of
this approach is that all
chemicals in the same
category, whether they are
new or not, would be
reviewed before being
allowed for potentially risky
uses.
117
-------
roxic CHEMICALS
•i
Pesticides:
Human Health Concerns!
THE
PROBLEM
The average consumer is
exposed to pesticides through
food, drinking water, and
personal use of pesticides,
Such as pet and lawncare
products (Figure T-9). Farm
Workers, forestry and
greenhouse workers, and
Srofessional pesticide
pplicators may be exposed
tjo even greater levels of
pesticides on a routine basis.
Health care workers and
consumers are also exposed
to antimicrobial pesticides
that are used to control
disease-causing
rpicroorgahisms.
While EPA has a pesticide
registration process designed
to manage tne risks from
pesticides, some can cause
Serious health problems if
spilled on the skin, inhaled,
0| r otherwise used improperly.
Health effects may include
cancer, birth defects,
rjeurological effects, and
death.
Pesticides may also cause
problems following uses that
traditionally have been
approved. For example,
pesticides may enter ground
v^afer through rain, runoff,
and snowmelt after normal
lises. Storage and disposal of
pesticides that have been
taken off the market may
also pose risks unless
neutralized or safely
destroyed.
EFFORTS
To DATE
A number of chemicals have
been taken off the market
because of human health
concerns. In the 1970s,
virtually all uses of DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin, and
toxaphene and the
agricultural uses of chlordane
and heptachlor were
cancelled (i.e., permanently
banned). Since the
cancellation, levels of DDT
and related chemicals have
declined in humans (Figure
T-10). More recently, all uses
of aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane,
and heptachlor against
termites have been either
cancelled or suspended
pending the results of
cancellation hearings.
All pesticides must be
registered or approved by
EPA. Through the
i I
Pesticides are Widely Used
The following are categories of pesticides from the list
"EPA Site Categories for Preparing and Coding. Pesticide
Labeling." The list illustrates that not all pesticides are
used in agriculture, as is commonly thought.
• Fiber crops — cotton and hemp, for example.
• Specialized field crops, such as tobacco.
• Crops grown for oil, such as castor bean and safflower.
• Ornamental shrubs and vines, like mistletoe.
• General soil treatments, such as manure and mulch,
• Household and domestic dwellings.
• Processed non-food products — textiles and paperi'tor
example.
• Fur and wool-bearing animals, such as mink and. fox;
laboratory and zoo animals,- pet sprays, dips, collars,
litter and bedding treatments.
• Dairy farm milk-handling equipment.
• Wood production treatments on railroad ties, lumber,
boats and bridges,
• Aquatic sites, including swimming pools, diving
* boards, fountains, and hot tubs.
I ' ,«'.:.I ,»'";": ;, ,!;'» I U IS- i '/ \l . i' 1' f'l'J Pi IJ '
• Preservatives in paints, vinyl shower curtains, and
disposable diapers.
• Articles used on the human body, such as human hair
Wies, Contact lenses, dentures, and insect repellents
p < f i / i t i n s < ,i i „
• Refuse and solid waste sites, home trash compactors
an,d garbage disposals.
• Specialty uses, such as mothproofing and preserving
specimens in museums
registration process,
manufacturers are required to
provide data on the potential
human health effects of
pesticides. Previously, the
primary health concern was
whether a chemical could
cause cancer. Now, both new
pesticides and those already
in use must be tested for a
variety of potential problems,
including reproductive,
immunological, and
neurological effects.
All new and previously
registered pesticides also are
screened for their potential to
contaminate ground water.
Ground-water concerns were
one of the major reasons that
ethylene dibromide (EDB) and
dibromochloropropane
(DBCP) were taken off the
market (see highlight on
"Ethylene Dibromide: The
Problem of Pesticide
Disposal"). In 1984, the
Agency issued a request for
ground-water data on another
140 registered pesticides. We
have conducted special
reviews of certain pesticides
such as aldicarb, alachlor,
and cyanazine. EPA has
required a national
ground-water survey for the
pesticide alachlor and issued
a ground-water advisory for
cyanazine. We have also
denied registrations of new
pesticides as a result of
ground-water problems.
The Agency has established
a process for determining
tolerances, the allowable
levels of pesticides in food.
We have developed a new
computer system, called the
Tolerance Assessment
System, which improves our
ability to determine
tolerances. Previously, EPA
was able to determine
tolerances only for the
general population. The new
system takes into account
differences in susceptibilities
within the general
population, such as
differences in age and
geographic location.
Finally, programs to protect
farm workers and other
pesticide applicators have
continued. Farm worker
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
safety standards were issued
in 1974. The standards
prohibit spraying while
workers are in the fields and
include provisions for
protective clothing, warnings
about treated areas, and
waiting periods after
spraying. EPA also has
developed educational
materials that show farm
workers how to handle
pesticides safely and has
implemented programs for
the training and certification
of applicators who use
restricted pesticides (see
highlight on "Pesticide
Applicators Require Special
Training").
A great deal of progress has
been made in addressing the
health risks of pesticides.
However, the Agency still
has much to do to make sure
that human health is
protected. The following are
some of the most significant
of these challenges.
Ground-Water
Contamination
Contamination of ground
water and drinking water by
agricultural chemicals is a
concern in some areas of the
country (see section titled
"Drinking Water" in the
Water Chapter). For example,
EPA estimated from a 1986
survey that 30 states had
found wells contaminated
with one or more of 60
different pesticides. While
the Agency and many states
have already taken some
steps to address the problem,
a national approach, to
prevent future contamination
must be designed. This is
especially challenging
because ground water may be
more vulnerable to
FIGURE T-10
Levels of Persistent Pesticides Have
Declined In Humans
-m t 2 J)
Parts Per Million
DDT
I I Dieldrin, Chlordane and associated chemicals
To protect consumers, EPA limits levels of pesticides in food.
contamination in some areas
than in other areas because of
geological or other factors.
The Agency must develop
pesticide management
approaches that take such
variation into account and
can be tailored to local
ground-water protection
needs.
Pesticides in Food
Although there is a process
for determining allowable
levels of pesticides in food,
certain pesticides in food
have been shown to cause
cancer in laboratory animals.
These are primarily
pesticides registered before
more stringent health data
were required. We are
evaluating these pesticides
through the reregistration
Source: Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA
process, but the task is
complicated by a conflict
between the standards
governing pesticide levels in
different types of foods. Raw
foods are evaluated by
weighing the risks of
pesticide exposure against the
benefits of pesticide use.
Processed foods are subject to
a more stringent standard,
which states that food
additives must pose zero risk
of cancer regardless of their
benefit. Because of these
competing standards, some
existing chemicals in raw
foods would be prohibited in
processed foods. The Agency
must resolve the conflict
between the standards while
continuing to ensure that
consumers are protected
against unreasonable risks.
129
-------
Home and Garden
Pesticides
A .variety of pesticides used
on lawns and pets are
iySilable gff the shelf. No
ipecial training is required to
fiSe them, and no one
monitors how closely the
consumer follows the
instructions on the label.
However, many products are
hazardous if improperly
stored, handled, or applied.
Pesticides may also increase
indoor air pollution and may
expose consumers to higher
levels of pesticides than
previously thought (see
section titled "Indoor Air
Pollution" in the Air
Chapter). Determining the
hazards of home-use
pesticides and informing
consumers about the
importance of proper use are
major challenges facing EPA
today.
Certain inert ingredients must.iiow.be identified on pesticide labels.
Ethylene Dibromide: The Problem of Pesticide Disposal
Introduced to commercial use in
*l948( ethylene dibromide (EDB) was
used widely on soils to protect crops
ftOrh root worm. It was also used on
fruits and vegetables and on stored
grain", In 1984, after EDB was shown
to cause" cancer'TS laboratory
fmlpifll^and, £o, cojitarninate food
and grdtmH water, "EPA "h'alted most
Uses of EDB. Under, the Federal '
Insecticide, "Fungfci'de, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA must
indemnify or reimburse pesticide
folders (manufacturers and users}
far the CQSti2l!i"canc!!Zii! or
suspended products, and then
disjjgse of all stocks of the pesticide
if requested. In this case, EPA
became responsible for disposing of
substantial stocks of EDB.
Th& discovery of leaking drums of
EDB in a Missouri warehouse in
198$ alerted the public that the
EDB disposal process was not going
smoothly, EPA was faced with the
challenge of disposing of the EDB
siock evenjhgughappropriate
methods of disposal were not yet
available! In an attempt to
neutralize the EDB, EPA decided to
use a chemical method that had
been used only in a laboratory
setting. Unfortunately, mechanical
problems delayed the process. When
the Agency attempted to remove the
EDB front the drums, toxic vapor
emissions were released to the air.
The process was further complicated
because the drums of EDB were
corroding. After spending $1.5
, the Agency realized that
this chemical method would not
work on certain EDB formulations.
EPA currently is considering the use
of a type of incineration that can
withstand the corrosiveness of EDB.
The total cost to dispose of the
remaining EDB is expected to be
between $6 million and $8 million.
The EDB story illustrates the
difficulties EPA faces in dealing
with cancelled pesticides. Although
stocks of cancelled pesticides must
be disposed of safely, the proper
disposal method often is not known
when the cancellation decision is
made. In addition, EPA must
identify all the stocks of a pesticide
and ensure its safe storage while
awaiting disposal. Storage often
arouses opposition in a community.
To compound matters, FIFRA
does not provide a specific
mechanism for financing disposal or
storage of the cancelled pesticide, or
for reimbursing anyone possessing
cancelled pesticides. However,
disposal costs are expected to dwarf
the costs of other pesticide
programs. For example, the disposal
cost for dinoseb, which is currently
in cancellation hearings, is expected
to exceed $100 million. These
estimates do not include the costs
of other cancellations that may
occur in the future.
EPA. is examining ways to address
the problem of pesticide disposal,
particularly the high costs of
disposal and reimbursement.
Alternatives include amendments to
FIFRA and the implementation of
fees based on the sale of pesticide
products. EPA's responsibility for
reimbursing pesticide manufacturers
and users also is being reevaluated.
In the meantime, EPA is exploring
disposal methods for other
cancelled pesticides, such as 2,4,5-T
and silyex, and plans to complete
the incineration of EDB in 1988.
-------
Professional Pesticide Applicators
Require Special Training
1
The pesticides commonly used at
home do not require any special
training. More hazardous pesticides,
however, generally are restricted to
use by certified applicators, who
must meet minimum federal
requirements for certification. They
also must be trained to use these
pesticides safely and in accordance
with the restrictions. The states are
responsible for running
federally-approved certification and
training programs.
In general, these programs have
improved the competency of
applicators and have heightened
awareness of safe pesticide use.
Over two million private and
commercial pesticide applicators
have been trained since 1976, and
over one million applicators have
been certified by the states. Many
states have more stringent
standards than the minimum
standards established by EPA. Some
states provide training for the
"registered technician," who is
often the person actually applying a
pesticide under supervision of a
certified applicator. A number of
states also have implemented a
process for ensuring that applicators
are recertified periodically.
Despite improvements in
applicator competency, most state
programs have not been updated
since they were first approved by
EPA. Since that time, a number of
new concerns about pesticides have
arisen, including concerns about
ground-water contamination,
endangered species, wood
preservatives, and pesticide
disposal. There also are differences
among state programs, some of
which are needed to reflect
differences in vuhierability of
ground water and wildlife. Other
differences should be addressed to
ensure that all state programs meet
basic standards.
EPA is taking a number of steps
to improve the training of pesticide
applicators. All state plans are being
reviewed to identify areas that need
updating and to make them
consistent across states where
appropriate. Training materials are
being revised, especially with
respect to evaluating the risks to
ground water and methods of
pesticide disposal. In addition, it is
our goal that anyone who deals
with pesticides will be trained. We
currently are considering three
levels of training: the "master," a
level above the present federal
certification; the "operator," the
present level of certification; and
the registered technician. We are
taking the additional step of
training the trainers, and EPA
currently is compiling a national
repository of training materials.
Finally, EPA is working with
other federal agencies and industry
to improve training programs. For
example, we are working with the
National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health to obtain the
latest information on worker safety
equipment. We also have worked
with the Department of Agriculture
to develop training materials. Such
efforts to ensure that professional
applicators and technicians use
pesticides safely is an important
component of the pesticides
program.
waif
Inert Ingredients
Regulations traditionally
have focused on the active
ingredients in pesticide
products. In addition, there
are also about 1200 inert
ingredients added to pesticide
products for a variety of
purposes. While not "active"
in attacking a particular pest,
some inert ingredients are
chemically or biologically
active and may cause health
and environmental problems.
These inert ingredients have
received relatively little
scientific scrutiny and, in the
case of food-use products,
have been exempt from
tolerance requirements. EPA
must evaluate and regulate
the hazards of inert as well as
active ingredients to ensure
that pesticide products are
safe.
Antimicrobial Pesticides
Although antimicrobials have
been regulated since 1910, the
public health community has
stated that further safeguards
are necessary to ensure
proper labeling and product
effectiveness. Antimicrobials
include disinfectants,
sterilizing agents, and
fungicides, and are used both
by consumers and the health
care community. When an
antimicrobial fails to work, it
may be impossible for the
user to tell, and diseases can
be spread while thought to be
under control. Unsupported
advertising claims may also
create a false sense of
security among users, hi
addition, since our
evaluations have focused on
whether a product works
against microorganisms,
relatively little is known
about how such products
affect humans. The Agency
must ensure not only that
antimicrobial pesticides are
effective but also that they
pose no unreasonable dangers
to human health.
Farm Workers and
Pesticide Applicators
In 1974, EPA issued worker
protection standards designed
to protect farm workers
against the hazards of
pesticides sprayed in fields.
However, the standards did
not go far enough to protect
other pesticide handlers, such
as mixers and applicators, or
workers in greenhouses,
nurseries, and forests.
Requirements for protective
clothing are also thought to
be inadequate by today's
standards. EPA's challenge is
to ensure the protection of all
pesticide handlers, as well as
to promote the dissemination
of information regarding the
safe use of pesticides. In
addition, we must make sure
that EPA standards are
updated as new methods of
pesticide application are
developed or new 'hazards are
discovered.
Farm workers and other pesticide handlers may require protective
clothing when contacting pesticides.
131
-------
EPA'S
AGENDA
Implement an
Agricultural Chemicals
arid Ground-Water
Strategy
•EPA has proposed a strategy
designed to prevent
contamination of ground
Water. Since the location and
Condition of ground water
can vary widely, the strategy
relies on the development of
state plans as well as
collaboration among the
states, EPA, and other
agencies. The strategy is
Intended to help identify the
#reas mosi vulnerable to
contamination because of
geological or other factors. It
will also help identify areas
Where contamination would
pose the greatest risk to
fuiman health and the
environment. The Agency
MSQ is developing a program
to help states establish buffer
zones around community
•Water wells.
Steps to deal with existing
ground-water contamination
kic being taken. For example,
EPA is conducting a
nationwide survey of
pesticides in drinking water
fa determine the extent of
contamination. We also are
publishing health advisories
regarding chemicals in
ground water and setting
Maximum allowable levels of
pesticides in drinking water.
Finally, although the
Agency has already requested
ground-water monitoring
studies for, some pesticides, it
is determining when and
What kind of ground-water
ftionitoring data will be
needed for pesticide
registration. EPA is also
determining how to classify
pesticides for restricted use
because of ground-water
Concerns.
Improve Methods for
Ensuring Food Safety
EPA commissioned the
National Academy of
Sciences to study the
methods for setting
tolerances of pesticide
residues in food. The study
found that food is still safe
for consumption but that the
process for setting tolerances
could be improved. For
example, the study
recommended dropping the
distinction between raw and
processed foods and setting a
uniform goal of "negligible
risk." Since many pesticides
pose little risk, this would
allow us to focus on the most
worrisome pesticides and
replace them with less
hazardous chemicals. The
study also identified the
pesticides requiring the most
regulatory attention. We are
developing a plan to
implement these and other
recommendations.
Determine Exposure to
Home and Garden
Pesticides
The Agency is examining the
extent of consumer exposure
to unsafe levels of pesticides
from home and garden
products. For example, a
survey of pesticide levels in
homes is underway. Steps are
also being taken to eliminate •
indoor use of certain
termiticides and to
investigate the use of
Blockade-brand flea and tick
repellents for pets. For
lawncare products, we are
identifying available health
and environmental data so
that their hazards can be
evaluated. At the same time,
state and local governmentis
are proposing that lawn care
services be required to post
notices on pesticide-treated
lawns. Finally, through
publications and improved
labeling of products, we plan
to educate consumers about
safe pesticide use.
Implement Special
Strategy on Inerts
EPA has developed a strategy
that groups or ranks inert
ingredients according to their
toxicity or need for additional
toxicity testing. For example,
we have identified about 50
substances that present the
greatest toxicological concern
and are encouraging
substitution of safer
chemicals. In the interim,
manufacturers must relabel
products to identify the
presence of these toxic inerts.
If manufacturers cannot or do
not eventually replace these
chemicals, the Agency plans
to request additional health
information and, if necessary,
to hold hearings to evaluate
the need for cancellation.
Improve the Testing and
Marketing of
Antimicrobials
EPA has developed a special
strategy for improving the
regulation of antimicrobial
pesticides. As part of this
strategy, we are examining
the design and performance
of laboratory testing
procedures to ensure that
they give consistent results
and indicate the effectiveness
of a product in both the real
world and the lab. To address
the concern over toxic
effects, the Agency is
reviewing additional
toxicological data on
antimicrobials. We have
prohibited manufacturers from
making claims about the
effectiveness of products that
have not been approved by
the Agency and sent warning
letters to registrants making
false claims. We are even
addressing the safety of home
use products such as pine oils
and sanitizers through
improved labeling
requirements.
Ground water being sampled for pesticide contamination.
132
-------
Ensure the Safety of All
Pesticide Handlers
We are in the process of
expanding the 1974 worker
protection standards so that
they apply to all pesticide
handlers; including
greenhouse, nursery, and
forestry workers as well as
farm workers. The revised
regulations will enhance the
enforceability of the
provisions and improve
requirements for training,
protective clothing, and
warnings about pesticide-
treated areas. In addition,
we have established
a Farm Safety Center to
advise EPA on the health and
training of farm workers.
Finally, through integrated
pest management, we will
continue to encourage more
efficient use of pesticides in
order to minimize overall
exposure (see the highlight
on "Cockroaches - A Case
Study in Integrated Pest
Management").
Cockroaches — A Case Study in
Integrated Pest Management
Cockroaches carry viruses and bacteria
that can cause hepatitis, polio, typhoid
fever, plague, and salmonella.
Attempts to control the cockroach
consume one third of the pest control
budget for urban sites and represent
the largest expenditure for a single pest
in U.S. homes and other
establishments. Because of its growing
resistance to many pesticides,
however, the cockroach is not likely to
be eliminated from homes and other
buildings in the near future.
Both the professional pesticide
applicator and the average consumer
- can control cockroaches by using the
principles of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). A blend of
old-fashioned practices and new
technology, IPM is an ecological
approach to pest management that
takes into account the biology of the
pest and its interaction with the
environment. Although IPM may
include the use of chemical pesticides,
it considers all available options to
achieve the greatest control with the
least possible hazard.
Controlling cockroaches with IPM
involves estimating the extent of the
cockroach population, and then using
a range of techniques to achieve
tolerable levels. The basic control
measure is to modify cockroach
habitats by lowering the temperature,
removing food, eliminating moisture,
reducing clutter, and filling hiding
spaces such as cracks and crevices. If
these actions do not provide enough
control, the appropriate pesticides may
be used. Recent studies have shown
that the most effective, least toxic, and
least expensive method to control
cockroaches is to apply 99 percent
boric acid dust in. cracks and crevices.
The cockroaches ingest the powder
while grooming themselves and die
three to ten days later. (Because boric
acid may be harmful if ingested by
children, it should be used cautiously
if children may be exposed.)
The IPM approach is being
demonstrated for use in managing a
variety of other pests, such as termites,
grasshoppers, and aquatic weeds.
Much of this work is done
cooperatively with other federal and
state agencies, pesticide user groups,
universities, and the agricultural
chemical industry. IPM is also viewed
as a primary tool for managing pest
populations that have become resistant
to pesticides. Toward this end, we are
working with the states to promote the
use of innovative methods for dealing
with pest resistance.
-------
TOXIC CHEMICALS
Pesticides: Fish and
Wildlife Concerns
THE
PROBLEM
Wildlife come into contact
with pesticides by feeding on
Contaminated fields and
Water, or by preying on other
gntammated organisms. In
c 1966s, 3rastic declines in
§orne species of birds due to
widespread use of DDT
demonstrated the problems
that pesticides can pose to
fish and wildlife. DDT and
doses of these chemicals
against rodents can reduce
the risks to wildlife and still
be effective.
Finally, the Agency has'
been evaluating some
chemicals because of
concerns about effects on fish
and wildlife. Previously, our
primary concern was whether
a chemical could cause harm
to humans. For example,
while the organochlorines
caused significant effects on
wildlife, they were ultimately
banned when found to
accumulate in human tissue.
Special reviews of the
pesticides strychnine, 1080,
diazinon, tributyltins, and
carbofuran are being
conducted because of concern
for their effects on fish and
wildlife (see the highlight on
"Status of Some Chemicals
in Special Review").
FIGURE T-ll
Levels of Persistent Pesticides Have Declined
In Fish and Wildlife
Mallards by Flyway
•45 Total DDT
Parts per million
Pacific
, Nondetectable. (More than 50% of pools had
levels less than analytical detection limits (.01])
Source: U.S. Eish-and Wildlife Service, National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program,
unpublished data for 1984
134"
-------
Status of Some
Chemicals in Special.
Review
// there is evidence that a pesticide may be
presenting unreasonable risks, EPA may conduct a
special review of a pesticide. The Agency first
identifies and quantifies the human health and
environmental problems as well as the benefits to
agriculture and other users. EPA may then decide
to continue current uses, restrict some or all uses,
or permanently cancel uses of the pesticide.
Following are some pesticides that have .
undergone special review because of concern over
their effects on fish and wildlife.
• Diazinon: Diazinon is among the first
chemicals to have undergone special review solely
on the basis of potential hazards to fish and
wildlife. EPA issued the final notice of intent to
cancel diazinon for use on golf courses and sod
farms because it was found to kill birds. After .
hearings on the cancellation, EPA halted these
uses of diazinon after March 31,1988.
• Tributyltin: TBT (tributyltin)-based paint is
used to prevent the growth of barnacles and other
marine organisms on boat hulls. In the 1970s,
scientists in England and France noticed that
TBT, which leaches from the paint into
surrounding water, caused effects in oysters,
including physical deformities, reduced size and
fewer offspring. TBT also affected the reproduction
of snails. EPA began a special review of TBT when
levels of TBT known to produce these effects were
discovered in U.S. waters. EPA is considering
several options, including the prohibition of TBT
use on recreational boats and limitations on the
rate TBT may be released into the water. Several
states already have restricted the use of TBT.
• Carbofuran: Carbofuran is a pesticide usually
applied when seeds are planted to control pest
problems that may occur later in the growing
season. Based on carbofuran's toxicity to birds,
EPA began a special review of the granular form
of the pesticide. This review was followed by a
complete evaluation of the hazards.of Carbofuran,
including an evaluation of its acute toxicity, the
degree of exposure to the pesticide, direct and
indirect poisoning of birds, and the toxicity of
substitute pest control products. EPA estimated
that, in nine states studied, about two million
birds would be killed per year from direct
exposure to carbofuran. A decision regarding
whether to limit, or ban the use of granular
carbofuran is s&H pending.
TODAYS
CHALLENGES
Manufacturers are required to
submit information regarding
the real- world effects of
pesticides on wildlife. In
addition to laboratory studies
of toxicity, EPA requires field
studies that demonstrate the
actual impacts of a pesticide
in the environment.
However, obtaining this kind
of information is not
straightforward. Since we rely
on data from manufacturers,
EPA must be able to ensure
that field studies are
scientifically and statistically
valid. The Agency must also
be able to compare studies
done by different
manufacturers, so each
applicant must follow similar
procedures.
Determining that a
chemical does not harm
organisms is especially
difficult. Non-lethal effects
are difficult to observe, and
even wildlife mortality may
not be observed in the wild
unless there is consistent
monitoring. Furthermore, a
chemical may be toxic to
some organisms and not to
others. For example, the
pyrethroid pesticides that
have replaced DDT
apparently are not toxic to
birds but very toxic to fish
and aquatic invertebrates.
Thus the Agency needs to
make sure that tests of a
pesticide provide
comprehensive information
on its potential to harm fish
and wildlife.
EPA'S
AGENDA
The Agency is striving to
make sure that
environmental data represent
the effects of a pesticide on
fish and wildlife in their
natural habitat. In particular,
we are preparing guidance for
applicants to improve the
way in which field studies
are conducted. This guidance
describes the use of aquatic
mesocosms for examining the
effects of pesticides on
aquatic organisms.
Mesocosms are a series of
ponds designed for studying
the effects of a pesticide
without harming the entire
environment. This guidance
is also intended to ensure
that field data are valid and
consistent from applicant to
applicant. EPA expects to
release such guidance in 1988.
EPA likewise is developing
better methods for
determining the effects of
pesticides on entire
ecosystems as well as on
individual organisms. For
example, we have developed
a stream mesocosm that
mimics stream conditions
and can test the effects of
pesticides on a large suite of
organisms. We also are
beginning a major five-year
research program to improve
computer models of
ecosystems in different
environments across the
country. With such models,
the Agency hopes to be able
to predict the future effects
of pesticides as well as to
deal with existing problems.
135
-------
in ," in
Endangered Species
RequireProtection
By tji§_ early /97<3s, the bald eagle had
all but vanished, from many areas of
its natural range. At that time, only
about1,000 nesting pairs of eagle were
entire United States, too
,,,were hatching
uocessjuy, and evidence pointed to
the uqe of DDT and other persistent
pesticides as the likely factor
responsible for this condition. These
p33e?c&Js and their by-products had
affected calcium metabolism, making
eggshells so thin that they broke under
the..weight .of 'the nesting birds. Our
': national symbol, the bald eagle,
became an endangered species.
Although still endangered, the bald
eagle has shown remarkable signs of
recovery since the ban on DDT in 1972.
Today, there are almost 2,000 nesting
pafr$ Qf bald eagles in the United
States. The majority of_ birds seem to
be producing normal eggs, even though
problems with eggshells have been
reported for some nests. The California
brown pelican and peregrine falcon,
also threatened with extinction by the
persistent pesticides, have been
recovering slowly as well.
Mthohgh the bald.eagle and other
birds have been recovering since the
ban on DDT, there are still many
thousands of sxcies_^istedjis
mdangez&d. Tnese~species ^^fly have
become endangered for a variety of
reasons other than pesticides
contaminations they nonetheless are
particularly vulnerable to added
stresses, such dT'pesticides. Pesticides
may I^Lmldlijv directly, or may
•contaminate UJreVooof, water, and
thabitat "of the wildlife.
Return but Still
from Pesticides
Underjhe Endangered Species Act,
EPA Is
' ..... to ...... GQn.§ah ....... with ....... the
Service to ensure
~ihat pesticides do hot jeopardize
endangered species and their habitat.
If the Fish and Wildlife Service
d^ermines that a pesticide is likely to
J»3jajmfS? to endangered species, it
Tllllll I I «L u, J4 ik r*TY"ir" e
suggests alternatives to EPA for
preventing damage to the species. It
usually recommends not using the
pesticide where endangered species
would be exposed.
EPA is developing an approach to
implementing these restrictions
through the pesticide label. As
proposed in the Federal Register,
pesticide labels would list the counties
that have limitations on use in
endangered species habitats. Labels
would refer users to county bulletins
that contain-maps indicating the
portions of the county where pesticide
use is limited. At first these
limitations would apply to the four
groups of pesticides that already have
jbeen evalmuated:__ceTtain crop pesticides,
pasture and. rangelanH pesticides,
forestry pesticides, and mosquito
larvicides. Information currently is
being gathered for maps that would
identify the location of potentially
affected endangered species.
Because the presence of endangered
species may vary within a state and
even within a single county, states will
have a particularly important role in
determining where limitations are
needeS. Several states already have
proceeded to develop
recommendations for implementing
the program. By working with
agriculture and wildlife experts and
government officials, we hope to
ensure that pesticides pose minimal
threats to endangered species.
-------
Biotechnology
THE
PROBLEM
Bacteria in petti dishes. Using gene splicing techniques, scientists can
genetically alter bacteria.
With the advent of "gene
splicing" techniques, it has
now become possible to
develop microorganisms with
new combinations of
characteristics. Pieces of the
genetic material carrying the
blueprint for desired traits
from one microorganism now
can be inserted into another
microorganism. In one step,
the results of generations of
breeding can be achieved and
the range of characteristics
possible in a given
microorganism expanded.
These new techniques are
already being used with great
effect to develop
microorganisms that
metabolize (i.e., "eat")
certain pollutants, such as oil
(see the highlight on "Some
Developments in
Biotechnology"; also see the
highlight on "Using
Biological Organisms to
Clean Up Hazardous Waste"
in the Land Chapter). They
have also been used to
produce needed biological
materials like enzymes more
efficiently and at a much
lower cost. For example, the
insulin-producing human
gene has been inserted into a
common bacterium which
then produces insulin in large
quantities.
Despite the benefits of
biotechnological advances,
the development of "new
microorganisms" has raised
questions about the possible
risks to human health and
the environment. One
concern is that the
microorganism, though not
disease-causing, may be so
successful that it could
seriously disrupt the balance
among existing species and
even eliminate some species.
For example, the vine called
"kudzu" was intentionally
introduced in the
southeastern U.S. to control
erosion but then spread to
cover many areas of the
countryside. Although kudzu
is not the result of
biotechnology, the kudzu
story demonstrates what can
occur when a plant or animal
is introduced either
intentionally or inadvertently
into a new habitat.
137
-------
, n
In winter, citrus trees must be sprayed with water to form a protective ice coating. Geneticists are now
developing naturally frost-resistant plants.
EFFORTS
To DATE
In response to public
concerns about
biotechnology, various federal
agencies met to ensure that
approaches throughout the
federal government were
consistent. Their respective
responsibilities were
described in policy
statements issued by the
White House science office in
1984 and 1986. The Food and
Drug Administration
oversees the production of
new pharmaceutical
products, and the
Department of Agriculture
regulates the development of
new strains of food crops
and livestock. EPA is
responsible under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for
overseeing the development
of microbial pesticides, and
under the authority of the
Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), all other
microbial products not
regulated by other federal
agencies or programs. These
include microorganisms used
for waste degradation,
chemical production,
conversion of biomass to
energy, and other
environmental and industrial
uses. , ' ;.
Using the authority of
TSCA, we defined
microorganisms containing
genetic material from
dissimilar microorganisms as
"new microorganisms.'*
Producers of these
138
-------
TODAY'S
CHALLENGES
microorganisms must provide
premanufacture notification
under the new chemicals
program. In addition, since
living organisms can
multiply, the Agency
announced that small
quantities of "new"
microorganisms used for
research and development
field trials would not be
exempt from premanufacture
notification requirements as
are other chemicals used for
research.
FIFRA gives EPA authority
over the distribution and use
of all pesticide products,
including microbial
pesticides. Some of the data
needed for registration must
be developed through actual
field trials. Because of the
special concern over
genetically engineered
microbial pesticides, the
Agency has required prior
notification regarding the
field testing of genetically
altered or non-native
microbial pesticides.
Under both TSCA and
FIFRA, a process has been
instituted for carefully
evaluating proposals for field
tests of genetically altered
Eroducts. Before permission
>r such an experiment is
granted, EPA evaluates the
information about the
experiment and shares this
information with other
agencies. If the experiment is
approved, we specify
conditions for conducting the
experiment and require that
the results be submitted to
EPA so that we can monitor
the effects of the organism
and reevaluate our decision
on the experiment. The
Agency also has established a
Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee to
provide advice on these and
other biotechnology issues.
To date, several tests of
genetically engineered
microorganisms outside the
laboratory have been
approved. Under the
authority of FIFRA, EPA
approved tests on
strawberries and potatoes
using a microorganism
modified to retard frost
formation on plants. Under
TSCA, the Agency approved
field tests of a microorganism
designed to enhance nitrogen
fixation in alfalfa, as well as
a microorganism that when
grown on a special substance
produces a blue color; this
ability permits it to be
followed into the
environment. Some
large-scale enclosed
fermentations of genetically
engineered microorganisms
have also been approved. For
example, EPA has approved
the manufacture of a
microorganism which
contains a synthetic gene
similar to a human liver-cell
gene and which will be used
to produce a growth factor for
culturing cells. In addition,
one company has been fined
for conducting a test
outdoors without our
approval.
One of the challenges we face
is ensuring public confidence
in the safe development of
biotechnology products.
When recombinant DNA
research began about ten
years ago, some people who
lived in towns where such
research was conducted
voiced their concern that
potentially harmful
organisms might accidentally
escape from the laboratory.
Scientists worked to inform
people fully about these
experiments and now
research proceeds as usual in
these communities. Today, as
such research moves from
the laboratory to the field,
there continues to be public
concern over the intentional
release of genetically
engineered organisms into
the environment.
Enforcing EPA policies on
biotechnology is also a
challenge. Already, two
incidents have occurred in
which genetically engineered
products were tested
outdoors without our
approval. While EPA has
issued policy statements,
such "policies" are not
legally enforceable until
given the force of regulation.
The Agency must develop
and issue the necessary
regulations as rapidly as
possible.
Finally, EPA must keep
pace with advances in
biotechnology and modify
regulations accordingly. So
far, the Agency has been
asked to approve only a few
applications for the testing of
genetically engineered
microorganisms in the
environment. However, in
the same way that fifteen
years ago we may not have
foreseen the development of
bacteria to "eat" pollutants
or produce insulin, advances
in biotechnology may
someday require us to
rethink our regulatory
approach.
139
-------
••'IT. i!H'!,,: ill'H1' IP-
iEPA'S
iAGENDA
(Through public education,
EPA is working to ensure
that the public understands
the benefits of biotechnology
and the system of checks and
balances in place to prevent
undesirable effects. Our
regional offices will play a
particularly important role in
providing clear information
to the press and public on
specific biotechnology
projects.
The Agency is also
working to clarify
information for industries
affected by EPA policies. In
one case of an unapproved
release of a genetically
altered product, EPA
determined that the company
made an error in judgment
rather than a conscious
" disregard for our procedures.
Nonetheless, we are making
it clear that EPA will impose
strict penalties when people
fail to comply with
] regulations and are currently
developing the regulations
needed to implement our
policy.
EPA will propose
regulations hi 1988 that will
take into account comments
on the 1986 policy statement
j as well as the deliberations of
pur Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee. In
addition, to prepare for future
developments in
biotechnology, we are
attempting to determine up
front the problems that
might occur before the
! technology is widely applied.
Thus, EPA will continually
evaluate biotechnology
regulations and modify their
scope when necessary.
Some Developments in
Biotechnology
There are many potential uses of
genetically altered microorganisms.
^Somepf, thejngst^ exciting
developments in biotechnology are
described below.
• Tracking the release of genetically
altered bacteria
A microorganism has been developed
that can be tracked in the
environment to provide information on
its behavior.'The microbe is formed by
inserting two genes from a common
bacterium into ano,theKmicZQorganism.
When these genes are present, the
bacteria form blue colonies when
exposed to a certain sugar, thereby
allowing scientists to follow the
survival of the genetically changed
microbes both inside and outside the
test area. The marking system can be
used to mark other microorganisms
and should help allay public concerns
about potential consequences of
releasing such microorganisms in the
environment. EPA approved field tests
of the bacteria on wheat and soybeans.
• Developing bacteria to protect
plants against frost
EPA approved field tests of a bacteria
designed to protect strawberry and
potato plants from mild frosts. The
new bacteria are the same as those
that normally colonize these plants,
except that they lack a protein that
promotes the formation of ice crystals.
Scientists expect that these new
bacteria can help plants resist frost if
the bacteria are applied before the
normal bacteria can establish
themselves.
• Using bacteria to enhance alfalfa
yield
EPA also is examining the design of an
experiment to test the effectiveness of
genetically engineered bacteria to
enhance the yield of alfalfa. This
experiment will be conducted in Pepin
County, Wisconsin and will use an
altered form of the bacteria that occur
naturally in the soil. These altered
bacteria work together with the roots
of legumes (such as alfalfa, soybeans,
and peas) to convert nitrogen gas into
a form that can be used by the plants.
• Using dead bacteria as a pesticide
An innovative approach to pesticide
development involves the insertion
into another microbe of the genes that
contain the code for a protein toxin.
These altered microbes subsequently
are grown in cultures to produce large
quantities of the toxic protein. When
these bacteria are killed, they can be
administered as a pesticide.
Small-scale field trials currently are
underway to determine the
effectiveness of these dead bacteria as
pesticides.
• Using bacteria for toxic waste
disposal
Researchers currently are working on
the development of bacteria that can
metabolize specific compounds in
toxic wastes, such as PCBs, dioxin,
and oil spills. For example, an EPA
scientist has developed a strain of
bacteria that can metabolize several
components of crude oil. This
development may enable us to control
oil spills using only one bacteria rather
than several different types. Bacteria
also are being developed to extract
toxic metals from landfills, mines, and
140
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988—5 22 - 3 7 "t / 0
------- |