United StalM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Bo«on, MA 02203
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Rhode island
EPA
Planning & Management Division Planning, Analysis, & Grants Branch
December 1968
Unfinished Business
in New England:
A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems
Risk Management Work Group Report
-------
Acknowledgments
The following members of the Risk Management Work Group, representing various
organizational components of the Region and Headquarters, were the principal contributors to
the preparation of this report.
Frank Gavattieri, Chair
Carol Wood, Available Resources Team
Jerry Healey, Available Resources Team
Steve Silva, Effective Technology Team
Ann Walsh, Effective Technology Team
Susan Studlien, Legal Authority Team
Don Mackie, Legal Authority Team
John Zipeto, Economic Impact Team
Clara Chow, Economic Impact Team
Marria Spink, Public Perception Team
Kate Connolly, Public Perception Team
Judith Lomax, EPA Headquarters Liaison
-------
Table of Contents
L RISK MANAGEMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY 1-1
Methodology 1-1
Results 1-2
Public Perception 1-2
Available Resources 1-2
Economic loxpsct 1*3
Legal Authority 1-3
Effective Technology 1-4
Conclusion 1-4
IL PUBLIC PERCEPTION FACTOR H-l
Definition of Facttn/Background n-1
Sources of Infonnation H-2
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors n-2
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings n-6
m. AVAILABLE RESOURCES FACTOR HI-1
Definition of Facttn/Background nr. 1
Sources of Infonnation nr-1
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors ffl-1
Conclusions and Recommendations ffl-3
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings ffl-4
IV. ECONOMIC IMPACT FACTOR IV-1
Definition of Facttn/Background IV-1
Sources of Infonnation IV-1
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors IV-1
Conclusions and Recommendations IV-2
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings IV-3
V. LEGAL AUTHORITY FACTOR V-l
Definition of Facttn/Background V-l
Sources of Infonnation V-l
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors V-l
Conclusions and Recommendations V-2
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings V-3
VL EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY FACTOR . VI-1
Definition of Factor/Background VI-1
Sources of Infonnation VI-1
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors VI-1
Conclusions and Recommendations VI-4
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings VI-6
-------
I. Risk Management Evaluation Summary
The Risk Management Work Group identified and evaluated factors that should be
considered by EPA management in developing and implementing strategies to reduce risks
associated with 24 environmental problem areas. This effort was designed to supplement the
risk evaluation conducted concurrently by the Public Health Risk and Ecological Risk Work
Groups by assessing "real world" considerations and constraints in the decision-making
process. The risk management factors evaluated were public perception, available resources,
economic impact, legal authority, and effective technology. Each problem area was ranked
on a scale of 1 to 5 for each management factor, with 1 indicating that the problem was.
"difficult" to manage and 5 indicating that the problem was "easy" to manage. Summary
rankings for each factor axe presented in Table 1-1.
Methodology
Because the National Comparative Risk Project did not evaluate management factors, the
Risk Management Work Group's initial task was to develop a methodology. First, we
developed a cflrdvfotp- list of management-related factors. By a process of elimination and
combination, the work group narrowed the number of factors to be evaluated from an initial
list of 12 to a final list of five. A two-person team was then assigned to each management
factor to develop a method for analysis and ranking. Each Factor Team presented its ranking
system to the work group for discussion and critique, then drafted a Factor Paper. The
Factor Papers were organized as follows: definition of the factor; ranking criteria and
adjustment factors; sources of information and methodology; conclusions and
s; and problem area assessment and ranking.
IvVAfllllllV
For some management factors, existing information was limited, and the data that were
available had a great potential for subjective interpretation. Various techniques were used to
gather and evaluate data, including personal interviews with key program
completion of surveys and questionnaires by regional staff and private citizens groups, as
well as research by work group members and contractors. Despite these efforts, evaluation
of some management areas was made with limited information.
After all the information concerning each management factor had been gathered and
presented, an initial ranking was made by the Factor Team. This ranking was then discussed
and reviewed by the entire Risk Management Work Group, and a consensus ranking was
assigned based on the overall knowledge and understanding of the group.
The work group decided not to combine the rankings for each of the management factors
into a single overall ranking. Some questioned the need for such ranking. Additionally,
work group members did not agree upon a simple, straightforward method to combine the
rankings to properly reflect their relative weight and/or significance in the decision-making
process.
-------
Results
The management factors evaluated by Region I are consistent with those identified by
Regions m and X and the State of Pennsylvania as part of their comparative risk projects.
Every effort was made during the ranking process to eliminate subjective individual or
programmatic biases and present a consensus ranking. The rationale for each factor ranking
is discussed in the Factor Papers (Chapters n- VI). Below is a brief summary of the results
for each management factor.
Public Perception
How the public perceives an environmental problem was viewed by the work group as a
major factor in influencing EPA's response to that problem. Drinking Water and Superfund
Waste Sites, two high priority regional problem areas, received the highest scores in public
perception. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants, Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface
Waters, RCRA Waste Sites, and Accidental Releases scored next highest. Radiation from
Sources Other man Radon scored lowest.
The work group presumed that the higher the public perceived the risk to be, the more
likely it would support efforts to reduce that risk, although we agreed that high public
involvement may in some cases make the problem more difficult to control The work group
made no attempt to determine whether the public's perception of risk was accurate. Some of
the other factors considered, such as effective technology and economic impact, also might
influence public support.
Available Resources
The amount of personnel resources Region I has available to reduce risk in each of the 24
problem areas is limited. The work group evaluated current allocation of the Region I
resources and compared that with the resources needed, based on workload model
projections. No contract dollars were included in the assessment nor were resources
associated with legal or administrative support services.
The work group found that almost all prn>grqm$ are underfunded, at an average of about
50 percent of the total needed resources. Seven problem areas were found to be funded at
less than 25 percent of the needed resources. Two of the seven, Industrial Waste Sites and
Municipal Waste Sites, are funded at less than 5 percent of needed resources. One area,
Radiation from Sources Other than Radon, was found to be adequately funded. Some areas,
such as Lead, are funded solely through reprogramming.
1-2
-------
The Risk Management Work Group found it difficult in many cases to divide resources
into the problem areas since they did not fit neatly into program workload models. Also,
some programs do not have workload models, and the group hpd to rely on program
managers to develop estimates and allocations. More effort is needed to accurately
determine how much of our personnel resource addresses each problem area. Such a
determination should also include an analysis of regional contract funds as well as state
resources and grant funds if it is to truly reflect all resources being utilized for each problem
area.
Economic Impact
The cost of control and the bearer of the cost must be considered in developing and
implementing risk reduction strategies. To address this factor, the Risk Management Work
Group attempted to utilize cost data being developed for EPA Headquarters by Temple,
Barker & Sloane, Inc. (TBS) for another purpose.
Although some interesting and useful information was gathered, its value in management
decision making is questionable. Major data gaps exist for this factor. The limited cost data
available were national in scope and thus needed to be prorated to reflect Region L The cost
data in many cases did not represent the total cleanup costs, only partial remedies. Finally,
costs were not presented on a consistent basis to allow comparison and ranking. Although
one might have expected to readily locate cost data on EPA's environmental programs, it
appears that a major data gathering effort would be required to develop complete, consistent
information.
With the limited information available, the work group estimated that the four problem
areas with the potentially highest cost impact for remediation are Criteria Air Pollutants,
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants, Superfund Waste Sites, and Lead. Six areas could not be
ranked because no data were available.
Legal Authority
The work group team attempted to determine what state and federal authorities exist to
reduce risk for the 24 problem areas. The effectiveness of the legal authorities was also
considered. (Evaluation of local laws was not included in this analysis.) Requests to each
state's Attorney General for information on state laws were not answered because their
offices were unable to respond in time to be included in this analysis. The work group team
thus had to use their personal knowledge of state laws and regulations. Further evaluation of
the existence and effectiveness of state and local laws is desirable to strengthen this factor.
1-3
-------
As expected, for the older established air and water programs such as Criteria Air
Pollutants, Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters, and POTW Discharges to
Surface Waters, the work group found that applicable and adequate legal authority, which
has been successfully tested in the courts, exists. Applicable, adequate, and
case-law-supported authority also exists for Accidental Releases and for Asbestos. The work
group determined that four other areas have applicable, adequate, and implemented
authorities, while for some areas, such as Superfund Waste Sites, adequate authority exists
but the effectiveness of the authority is still not fully known. Four areas-Acid Deposition
and Visibility, Radon, Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon, and Radiation from Sources
Other than Radon-were determined to have little or no legal authority.
Effective Technology
The work group evaluated the technology or management practices that exist to reduce
risk, whether die methods are reliable and efficient, and the proportion of the problem area to
which they are applicable. In general, the work group determined that effective and
applicable technology exists for all but a few of the problem areas. Areas ranked low were
Wetlands/Habitat Loss, Accidental Releases, and Other Ground-Water Contamination,
where the effectiveness of management practices or institutional controls was uncertain.
Conclusion
The Risk Management Work Group believes that the information developed and
presented in this report will assist decision makers as they .set priorities for control of the
various environmental problem areas. Further refinement for some factor areas such as
resources and legal authority may provide better insight Substantial additional work in the
area of economic impact would be necessary to allow for a meaningful comparative ranking.
The public perception evaluation would likely be improved by more widespread sampling.
The effective technology analysis is considered adequate as developed and presented.
As previously stated, the work group decided not to combine the rankings for the five
management factors into a single ranking. The development of an overall ranking may be
appropriate to consider in Phase n of the Risk Reduction Project.
1-4
-------
Table 1-1
Risk Management Work Group
Summary Ranking
Public Available
Problem Area Perception Resources
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Acid Deposition and Visibility
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants
Radon
Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon
Radiation from Sources Other than Radon
Industrial Point Source Discharges
POTW Discharges
Nonpoint Source Discharges
Discharges to Estuaries/Oceans
Wetlands/Habitat Loss
Drinking Water
RCRA Waste Sites
Superfund Waste Sites
Municipal Waste Sites
Industrial Waste Sites
Accidental Releases
Releases from Storage Tanks
Other Ground-Water Contamination
Pesticide Residues on Food
Pesticide Application
Lead
Asbestos
Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments
3
3
4
3
3
1
4
3
2
3
2
5
4
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
Economic
Impact
1
3
1
3
_
5
3
2
2
2
_
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
_
4
4
1
2
•"
Legal Effective
Authority Technology
5
1
3
1
1
1
5
5
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
2
5
3
3
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
- = No cost data available.
Note: 1 « Most difficult to control; 5 = easiest to control.
1-5
-------
Public Perception Factor
Definition of Factor/Background
Public perception of risk involves various aspects of the knowledge, awareness, and
understanding of each segment of the public about a situation's impact on die environment
and/or on human health. This knowledge, awareness, and understanding may or may not be
an accurate reflection of the situation's actual risk. Perceptual inaccuracies are often seen as
the public distorting the actual risk, but these inaccuracies could also be die result of experts
and policymakers oversimplifying the situation. The level of credibility that these experts
and policymakers have affects how the public will perceive the risk of a given situation.
Policymakers and other government officials are sometimes viewed as having motives other
than public health guiding their decision making.
Risk management is a complex and sensitive undertaking for policymakers. People have
a natural tendency to simplify issues, as substantive issues require them to consider more
nuances and ^taiiq than they may have die rime or capacity to ba"dleT We also tend to
maintain our current beliefs unless presented widi overwhelming evidence to die contrary.
Finally, since a single person cannot be expert in all subjects, we find it difficult to detect
omissions or inaccuracies in die evidence we are given. We have difficulty detecting
discrepancies in information given by experts and even in evaluating true expertise. For
these reasons, public perception of risk is highly subjective and involves beliefs based on a
combination of experiences, knowledge, insight, skills, and information.
Public perception of a risk is also affected by die level of attention given to a situation by
the media. Whether a fear is well-founded or exaggerated, it is often elevated to a high risk
in the public perception through media attention. If, for example, die media provides
extensive news coverage of a hazardous waste site that is believed by die scientific
community and government experts to pose minimal to no risk, the media focus may
heighten the public's perception of the risk. The roles of elected officials, who may serve as
sources of information about a situation within their jurisdiction, also must be considered.
Their public concern about a situation, combined with the respect for or popular interest in
the elected official's position, may serve to increase media coverage, heightening die
public's perception of die risk. Most fears, once cultivated, are very difficult to alleviate.
Risk perception experts have concluded that there are many characteristics other than
mortality statistics that are factored into public perceptions of risk. Generally, people regard
things that are familiar and voluntary as having little risk. A household product that has
been used for a long time, no matter how carcinogenic, seems much less risky to public
health and welfare than a nuclear power plant or a toxic waste site next door. Similarly,
many people who smoke regard this activity as a more acceptable risk than something that
they did not choose.
-------
Situations over which a person has some control or the ability to mitigate are perceived
as having low risk. Natural risks, such as radon in homes, may be perceived as low health
threats. Because they are natural risks, they are viewed as familiar and capable of being
mitigated, if not by the individual, then by a trusted "expert" Radon is a naturally occuning,
colorless, odorless gas derived from the breakdown of uranium in rocks. For many people,
the knowledge that they may have been living with radon in their homes and have not been
adversely affected, thus far, is reason to believe the risk is low.
Conversely, situations that are involuntary are perceived as having high risks to public
health. Accidental releases of pollutants into the air or water are feared as posing high risks
to public health because they are uncontrollable, focused in time and space, and possibly
undetectable. Such situations are often dread and consequently receive extensive media
coverage. This causes the situation to be etched in people's memories and perpetuates a fear
of such events in the future. The siting of a wastewater treatment plant or a municipal waste
incinerator near residences also has a perceived high risk and may seem unfair because it is
involuntary and controlled by others.
Sources of Information
There are many sources of information about public perceptions of risk. Information on
the 24 problem areas covered in this paper comes from the news media; trade journals and
magazines; federal, state, and local government agencies; advocacy groups; businesses;
citizens living in the proximity of a problem area; the U.S. Geological Survey; public
opinion polls (Harris, Roper, Gallup, Knight-Ridder, EPA, etc.) and, in certain cases, the
Coast Guard, fire departments, police departments, and other emergency response
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors
The initial rankings of the problem areas in this paper were determined by the authors
according to certain qualitative criteria by which people categorize risks. While experts
define risks as a function of the intrinsic hazard and the potential for exposure, the public
considers many other, often nontechnical, aspects of risk. Environmental risk
communication experts* describe the following 12 basic components of these nontechnical
considerations of risk perception:
"Components of Community Outrage: The Missing Factor in Risk Analysis,"
Communication Research Program. Slate University of New Jersey at Rutgers.
n-2
-------
a. Involuntary versus voluntary - Coerced risks are much more outrageous and are
therefore seen as much more risky.
b. Artificial versus natural - Natural risks provide no enemy, no focus for anger.
c. Exotic versus familiar - A household cleanser, for instance, seems less risky than a
high-tech chemical facility that makes the cleanser.
d. Memorable versus not memorable - Media coverage elevates risk perception;
consider what Love Canal did to outrage over hazardous waste.
e. Dread versus not dread — Cancer provokes more concern than, for example,
emphysema.
f. Concentrated in space and rime versus diffuse in space and rime .. If smokers all died
on November 13, we would outlaw smoking on November 14.
g. Controlled by others versus controlled by the individual - Almost everyone feels
safer driving than riding shotgun.
h. Unfair versus fair - Poorer communities often feel that they are chosen for landfill
sites simply because they lack the political clout to fight them.
L Morally relevant versus morally neutral - If pollution is merely harmful, then
regulation should be cost-effective; but if pollution is also "evil," no compromise is
able.
j. Undetectable versus detectable - As an experienced war correspondent said at Three
Mile Island, "At least in a war you know you haven't been hit yet"
k. No visible benefits versus clear visible benefits - Risks with a payoff are not only
more acceptable, they actually feel less risky.
L Untrustworthy sources versus trustworthy sources - Risk information feels less risky
from a much-loved family doctor than from a faceless or uncaring "bureaucrat"
Initial Rankings
This paper uses a ranking system of 1 through 5, with 1 representing a perception of low
risk and S representing the highest level of risk. The rankings can be described as follows:
1. Little or no public interest or awareness exists about a situation that poses a risk to
human health or the environment (e.g., zero to few calls to EPA from the public; zero to little
media coverage).
H-3
-------
2. Environmental groups (established organizations as opposed to ad hoc committees or
citizen groups) have made telephone inquiries about the problem, or have requested a
meeting(s) with EPA, or have asked to receive all public information/correspondence related
to a situation because of the perceived risk it may pose to human health or the environment
3. Environmental groups/citizens have indicated opposition to a project/situation in
formal written comments or in testimony at a public hearing. Comments and testimony
require formal response by EPA.
4. In addition to the criteria described in ranking 3, Congressional inquiries have been
received and/or the situation has been the subject of media coverage.
5. In addition to the criteria for rankings 3 and 4, legal action has been filed against EPA
for failure to address/resolve the general public's or public interest group's concerns to
its/their satisfaction.
Adjustment Factors
To reach a consensus on the public's perceptions of the risks of the following 24 problem
areas, a survey was developed for distribution to leaders of New England's established
environmental groups. Respondents were asked to read the descriptions of each of the 24
problem areas and to rank them from 1 through S according to the risk they pose to public
health and the environment They were asked to distribute the rankings evenly among the
problem areas (Le., four or five of each score) and were reminded that their rankings should
reflect the perceptions of the group that they represent A draft of this paper also was
distributed to senior staff members in Region I for their concurrence and comment
Based on survey results and additional comments, the rankings of the problem areas
(originally determined on the basis of the criteria ascribed to each of the aforementioned
numerical rankings) were adjusted to either a higher or lower ranking, as follows:
• If the majority of the senior staff ranked the problem area higher than its original
score, ranking was increased by one.
• If the majority of the senior staff ranked the problem area lower than its original
score, ranking was decreased by one.
• If average ranking of a problem area's risk by environmental groups was one
ranking higher than the original score, the overall ranking was increased by one.
• If the environmental groups' average ranking of a problem area's risk was two or
more rankings higher than the original score, the final ranking increased by two.
• If the environmental groups' average ranking was one ranking lower than the
original score, then the ranking was decreased by one.
• If the environmental groups' average ranking was two or more rankings lower
than the original score, the ranking was decreased by two.
H-4
-------
An example of this method follows:
Problem area A - original ranking = 3
entire senior staff concurred = no change
average environmental group ranking = 4
new ranking = 4
As a result of this methodology, the final rankings reflect both the initial ranking criteria
and the adjusted criteria.
In addition to the ranking of each problem area, there is a brief discussion of the types of
risk perception factors that may influence the public's perception of the problem.
H-5
-------
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings
1. Criteria Air Pollutants: ranking - 3
(initial rankings 2)
The criteria air pollutants include paniculate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less
sulfur dioxide (SO^. nitrogen dioxide (NO^, lead (Pb), carbon monoxide (CO), and
ground-level ozone or smog (63). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have
been set for these pollutants to protect human health. Public perception of the risk associated
with exposure to ambient air quality that exceeds the NAAQS has been on the low side,
historically. Evidence of the public's perception of low risk includes the need for a
mandatory lead-in-fuel reduction strategy and a general reluctance to reduce automobile use
voluntarily (through carpools, which people seem to do for other reasons, such as gas
shortages and parking freezes).
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility: rankings 3
(initial ranking = 2)
People are usually more concerned with risks to public health than risks to the
environment or ecosystems. For the segment of the population that views acid deposition as
having adverse impacts on forests, statues, and buildings, acid deposition ranks higher on the
perceived risk scale than for the segment of the population that is not concerned with
ecological effects. Again, die economics and conveniences offered by current manufacturing
processes (particularly in the automotive industry and for companies using smokestacks) are
perceived as "worth the risk." The problem is chronic; thus, any possible future adverse
effects may seem distant in time and may lower the risk perception by some of the public.
The perceived risk could be heightened by the fact that the problem area is controlled by
industries, which are not always trusted, rather than by the individual.
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants: rankings 4
(initial rankings 4)
This risk is perceived as high since it is involuntary, unfamiliar, artificial, and unfair. If a
company in a community emits toxins into the air, the community generally feels anger. They
perceive such air as acutely dangerous to breathe and the company as responsible for the
uneasiness they feel and the threat to their health. This threat is perceived as controllable by
the company, not by the individual
n-6
-------
4. Radon: ranking=3
(initial ranking = 3)
Surprisingly, radon has not been perceived as the dread pollutant that EPA anticipated it
might be. Although EPA offices are deluged with telephone calls from new and potential
homeowners requesting information about detecting and mitigating high radon levels, other
segments of the public, such as people who have been living in one home for a long period of
time, are not concerned with radon. This is often true even in communities where high levels
have been detected, when the levels occur naturally in the homes. Contrast this with the case
of three New Jersey communities that were located near a landfill that contained radioactive
industrial wastes. The radioactivity was at levels no higher than in homes with naturally
occurring radon. Yet, the New Jersey communities succeeded in demanding hundreds of
thousands of government dollars per home for cleanup of the landfill. The difference here
was that the problem was caused by and controllable by someone besides the individual.
Acceptance of radon is likely due to its status as a naturally occurring element and the fact
that it has been around for a long time. The threat is chronic rather than acute. Older people,
especially, hold the opinion that if they have lived this long with radon around, there is little
need to suddenly be concerned about installing mitigative devices or paying for any
to incur homes*
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon: ranking-3
(initial ranking = 3)
This category includes building materials (urea formaldehyde) and wood stoves that may
emit pollutants but that are considered necessary and therefore may be viewed as almost
"natural" in the way they are accepted. The category also includes tobacco smoke, which is
an involuntary health risk for many people.
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon: ranking = 1
(initial ranking = 1)
This problem area does not include accidental releases of radiation (e.g., from a nuclear
power plant) but does include non-ionizing sources of radiation (e.g., extremely low
frequency radio stations) and medical or dental x-rays. This exposure is perceived as a low
risk because precautions are taken to control the risk (e.g., lead vest). Doctors are generally
trusted in matters regarding public health. Also, radiation has been used "safely" in this form
for many years, so it is familiar and, to some extent, voluntary (people can decide against
having x-rays).
H-7
-------
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 4
(initial ranking = 3)
This problem area is perceived as a high risk if it involves a release to a body of water
used for drinking, fishing, or swimming. People feel particularly threatened by discharges
from industries, especially if the discharge is directly into a body of water that is used as a
drinking-water supply. The pollution is unfamiliar, uncontrollable by the individual, and
perceived as unfair.
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 3
(initial rankings 3)
Perceived risk is medium to high unless there is a direct threat to drinking water, in which
case the perceived risk is quite high. Swimming and fishing in polluted waters may be
perceived as risky, but are usually seen as lower risks than drinking the water. As
demonstrated by the public's continued mistreatment of Boston Harbor, the nation's most
polluted harbor, the public does not perceive all polluted waters as high risks. While people
are beginning to be concerned, there is still a reluctance to pay increased water usage rates to
clean up the pollution. This indicates that many people do not feel personally responsible or
personally threatened by the pollution, even if they miss certain harbor recreational activities.
If a drinking water source is discolored or odoriferous, and if it is going to be used by a
majority of the public, the perceived risk will be greatly elevated.
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 2
(initial ranking=2)
Regardless of the source of the pollutants, the perceived risk is higher in cases where the
water is used for drinking and, to a slightly lesser extent, for swimming and fishing. While
people will reel that direct contamination of die water by a company is involuntary and unfair,
especially if the public is not contributing to the polluting in any way, their concern will be
greatest where they perceive the most direct threat to their health. Recreation, esthetics, and
real estate are not given the same consideration, in most cases, as health. There are cases,
however, in which economics does play an important role in the public's definition of risk.
(See the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site cleanup example in problem area #14 and the
wetlands examples in problem area #11.)
E-8
-------
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans
from AU Sources: ranking = 3
(initial ranking = 3)
Inlets that may be used for swimming and non-commercial fishing pose a risk to the
public when polluted. The perceived risk is lower where there is less contact with people.
Some large estuaries, such as Long Island Sound and Buzzards Bay, generate great concern
when there is a real or perceived threat to their fish population. The perceived risk is high
when shellfish beds become closed due to contamination. The perceived risk is highest in
areas where the population is in close proximity to the polluted water Since 85 percent of the
New E»gla"4 population lives within 20 miles of the coastline, the perceived risk related to
this problem area will most often be high.
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss: ranking -2
(initial ranking-1)
This problem area has a very low perceived risk by most segments of the public who are
not concerned with ecological welfare. Citizens, business groups, and politicians are often not
led with protecting wildlife and their habitats as are "true environmentalists"
(including naturalists and members of grass-roots organizations and national groups such as
the Siena dub and the Audubon Society). This is evidenced by the public willingness to fill
wetlands for construction of shopping malls, homes, and a multitude of other uses. The
attitude may be due to ignorance about the values of wetlands for flora, fauna, and the
prevention of floods, or it may simply be due to the public placing economic benefits higher
tba" environmental benefits.
12. Drinking Water: ranking = 5
(initial ranking = 5; average environmental group ranking = 4/5)
As stated above several times, this problem area is rated as a very high risk because
contaminated drinking water poses a very direct and personal threat to public health. It does
not matter what the contaminant is. Emotions run high when drinking-water supplies are
threatened, particularly by accidental releases due to their suddenness, involuntariness, and the
lack of control the public feels when presented with this problem.
13. RCRA Waste Sites: ranking = 4
(initial ranking = 5)
The "Not in My Backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome is prevalent to the degree that any siting
or consideration for siting a sewage treatment plant, nuclear power plant, recycling facility,
incinerator, solid waste landfill, etc., is greeted with intense opposition or antagonism.
Ongoing facilities, as well as possible new RCRA sites, rank high in public perception of risk.
People fear potential spills or accidental releases, even if it is highly unlikely that this could
occur. The perceived risk is heightened because of the lack of individual control of this
problem.
n-9
-------
Depending on the type of facility or landfill to be sited, people may not have much trust in the
builder, planner, or government officials who are involved. This sense of unfamiliarity and
involuntary decision making causes additional feelings of mistrust, unfairness, and lack of
control, all of which make the problem area seem that much more negative and risky. Given
all of this, there is still apathy about this problem area in the segments of the public that are
not immediately or personally threatened by a facility, hence the lower ranking by the
environmental group survey respondents than by the authors.
14. Superfund Waste Sites: ranking = 5
Though the actual severity of risk at different sites varies greatly, people generally regard
these unwanted, unfamiliar hazards as high risk. The fact that they are identified as
"hazardous" on a federal list implies that great caution should be taken in dealing with them.
People may not be aware of the reasons for ranking a site, the types of contaminants involved,
and the exposure pathways. A site could be close to a schoolyard or other area that children
frequent and would be considered highly dangerous. Another site of the same proportions and
containing the same chemical contaminants may be in a very deserted area with no residences
and few plants and animals and would be regarded as less risky.
Other factors come into play when a site may have adverse effects on tourism, fishing,
swimming, or real estate in a community. The residents may believe that the site does not
pose a significant threat to public health, but they will fight to have it cleaned up if it is going
to negatively affect the economics of the area. Conversely, certain segments of the public
(e.g., the business community, chamber of commerce, or the general populace in a town in
which the alleged polluter is also the sole employer) may accept a certain amount of risk and
ignore it or try to downplay it if addressing the risk may harm the economy.
If a hazardous waste site has been created by a business in the community, citizens may
feel resentment. People want the company to take responsibility for correcting the problem.
In a case where the majority of the townspeople are employed by the offending company,
however, the public perception of the risk may be lower.
75. Municipal Waste Sites: ranking = 3
(initial ranking = 3)
Medium risk is perceived for this category unless toxic contaminants are believed to be at
the site, in which case people fear accidental releases to ground water, etc. If people do not
make a connection between the existence of chemicals and a threat to ground water-hence
drinking water-the perceived risk will not be high.
16. Industrial Waste Sites: ranking = 3
(initial ranking = 3)
A medium to high risk is perceived, particularly where industries do not hold a favorable
position in the community. The risk posed is seen as unfair, involuntary, uncontrollable,
impossible to mitigate individually, unfamiliar, or "hidden".
n-io
-------
17. Accidental Releases: ranking = 4
(initial ranking = 5)
The unfamiliarity and suddenness of accidental releases causes the public to rank the
problem area as having a high risk. The perceived risk would be low only if the public
believed in the unlikelihood of occurrence, the necessity of many of the manufacturing/other
operations that might have such releases, and the possibility that only harmless chemicals or
minute amounts may be released. Still, accidental releases are generally perceived as having a
high risk because they are uncontrollable. The very term "accidental release" implies a
sudden emergency and loss of control-not even the people in charge of the facility planned
the occurrence or had the power to stop it It is perceived as particularly risky if the release is
into drinking water.
18. Releases from Storage Tanks: ranking = 3
(initial ranking = 3)
Only when the public becomes aware of such a release, or at least of the existence of an
underground storage tank, is the risk perceived as high. If they are unaware, they do not fear
it If the media or other public entity announces that old tanks that could release contaminants
exist, the perception of risk would be high. Generally, the public assumes that tanks holding
gasoline are safe because they are familiar with the tanks. If an actual release does occur and
people are aware of it, their sense of security would be challenged greatly and they might fear
harm to their drinking water. They would insist on proper remediation of the problem but
would not be likely to continue fearing all such tanks.
19. Other Grounds-Water Contamination: ranking = 3
(initial ranking = 4)
Where any threat to drinking water comes from an unknown, unfamiliar contaminant,
people will perceive the problem as a high risk; however, not all people recognize ground
water as drinking water. Also, not everyone is aware of a connection between road salt and
sodium-contaminated ground water. In these cases, the perceived risk will be low. In
addition, if the public does not come into contact with the water in any way because of its
distance from their homes, etc., they may perceive the risk as slightly lower. When it is
ground water as opposed to an ocean that is polluted, most people would have some concern
about the eventual threat to their drinking-water supply, if they arc aware of the connection
between ground water and drinking water. (The risk perception also depends on the extent and
nature of the contamination.)
n-n
-------
20. Pesticide Residues on Food: rankings: 2
(initial ranking-2)
The perceived risk develops in relation to the level of media coverage of the problem area.
Unless there is alarming evidence that human and animal health and welfare are endangered
by the pesticide, people are not likely to change long-held beliefs or practices. If a pesticide
is new to the market and reports of adverse effects on humans and animate appear
immediately and often, or if mere are new reports about the risks from an existing pesticide,
people will be more concerned about eating the exposed food than when it is something that
they have already been consuming for quite some time. Generally, people will trust the
evidence of adverse health effects if it is scientific and conclusive, and they will be cautious
about eating the pesticide-contaminated product
21. Pesticide Application: ranking = 2
(initial ranking = 2)
The segment of the public that is most concerned about this problem is farm workers.
Farmers may believe that the risk to themselves is minimal because they are skilled at
applying pesticide. If controls are not available, these skilled workers may perceive the risk
as higher. Unskilled workers are more likely to perceive the risk as low if they are ignorant of
the dangers of these chemicals. If they are aware of the dangers, but are forced to do the work
out of economic necessity, they may accept the risk while perceiving it as medium to high.
22. Lead: rankings3
(initial ranking = 2)
There is some public awareness of the problem of lead poisoning from drinking water
when homes contain lead pipes or pipes with lead soldering. In general, it is considered a
familiar risk; therefore, the risk is perceived as low. There is not much awareness of the
problem of lead in soils from houses painted prior to 1950. In primarily urban areas where
homes are close together, the paint chips or dust from homes once coated with lead-based
paint gets into the soil and is easily ingested by children playing in or simply breathing the
lead dust Children younger than six years are especially vulnerable to nervous system
disorders, behavioral and learning problems, or even death. In urban areas where the problem
is most common, there is a higher awareness of the problem, but still not significant concern.
This may be due to lack of public education about the problem.
H-12
-------
23. Asbestos: ranking = 4
(initial ranking = 3)
This problem area was once accepted as familiar and reasonably safe. More recently,
people are succumbing to the adverse health effects of direct contact with the substance in
earlier years. As the diseases asbestosis and cancer become more prevalent as a result of
contact with asbestos, lawsuits have arisen, and the general public has become more aware of
the problem. Asbestos is no longer the necessary, cost-effective, and marketable product that
it once was, as more substitutes become available.
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments: ranking = 2
(initialranking = 4)
These water bodies are closely related to drinking-water sources and are used for
swimming and fishing. Therefore, perceived risk of a threat to them would be medium to
high where people make this connection. People fear that the pollution would reach them
directly through any of these recreational activities or through drinking water, where the water
bodies are not used for recreation, the perceived risk will be lower. If the water is not used for
drinking, the perceived risk will be still lower. Perception of risk related to drinking water
depends upon how people get their water (private wells or public supply), if there is or is
perceived to be a direct connection between the contaminated body of water and drinking
water, and if the community relies heavily on the industry(ies) that are responsible for the
contamination. In New England, lakes and ponds are generally not used for drinking water,
but mostly for recreational purposes. In this case, the perceived risk to public health and
welfare is low to medium.
H-13
-------
Attachment n-A
Summary of Public Perception Rankings
Ranking
1. Criteria Air Pollutants 3
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility 3
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants 4
4. Radon 3
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon 3
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon (non-ionizing) 1
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters 4
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters 3
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters 2
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from All Sources 3
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss 2
12. Drinking Water 5
13. RCRA Waste Sites 4
14. Superfund Waste Sites 5
15. Municipal Waste Sites 3
16. Industrial Waste Sites 3
17. Accidental Releases 4
18. Releases from Storage Tanks 3
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination 3
20. Pesticide Residues on Foods 2
21. Pesticide Application 2
22. Lead 3
23. Asbestos 4
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Inpoundments 2
-------
Available Resources Factor
Definition of Factor/Background
The resource factor assesses the amount of resources available to Region I to address each
of the 24 problem areas relative to the resources needed to address the problem area. The
focus of the analysis was on work-years needed to carry out EPA programs and/or functions.
Contract dollars were not included in die analysis unless they were used to supplement staff or
where they were the controlling factor in addressing the problem. The ranking was also
limited to program staff resources and did not take into account administrative support
resources (e.g., regional management, personnel, support services, which would be
categorized as overhead and apportioned to all program resources) or legal resources, which
are funded separately.
Sources of Information
• EPA's FY88 Operating Plan provided dfltfl on national allocations and regional
distributions of resources for the program elements.
• Workload models for each pmgram element, including pricing factors and
priority activities when available, provided information on tool need for each
element
• Interviews with each program element coordinator or Branch Chief helped
determine the source levels assigned to each problem area and an estimate of total
resource needs where no information was included in workload models.
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors
The ranking process consisted of an initial ranking based on the percentage of funding
available to Region I compared with the total resources needed to address the problem area.
The rankings and their criteria are as follows:
L Zero or very limited resources allocated; less than 5 percent of the needed
resources
2. Minimal resources allocated; less than 25 percent but more than 5 percent of the
needed resources
3. Underfunded; less than SO percent but more than 25 percent of the needed
resources allocated
-------
4. More than SO percent but less then full funding allocated
5. Adequate funding; at the workload model total pricing level or at a level
Region I feels is adequate to address the problem area
This initial yanking was detenninftd by utilizing the information in the workload models or
through discussions with the Program Managers where information was inadequate or
unavailable. The EPA distributes resources and develops workload models according to
program elements. Since these program elements do not match exactly to the 24 problem
areas defined for the risk evaluation project, a review of the FY88 workload models for each
program element and discussions with the Program Manager formed the basis for the
assignment of program elements or percentages of program elements to each program area.
The initial ranking was then adjusted up or down, based on interviews with Program
Managers, according to the following adjustment factors:
• Program Manager thinks the resources defined by the workload model are
accurate and adequate to address the problem: no change to the initial ranking.
• Program Manager thinks the resources defined by the workload model are not
adequate to address the problem: decrease the ranking by 1.
• Program Manager thinks the resources defined by the workload model are more
than that needed to address the problem: increase the ranking by 1.
• If there are no documented data on total need, the interviews with the Progr
Managers were used to determine the inin'ai and final Tanking; no adjustments
were made.
• If the Region has significantly supplemented the resources available to a
program, decrease the ranking by 1.
Several assumptions were nua^ in conducting this analysis;
L That die information in the workload model was accurate and reflected the
resources needed to address the problem area as defined. Where this was not the
case and EPA does not currently have a program to address a particular problem
or part of a problem, it was discussed in the report and the ranking adjusted
accordingly.
most cases, the Program Manager was the Branch Chief.
m-2
-------
A significant portion of the ranking process depends on the Program Manager's
honest assessment of a program's resource needs and the consistency of that
assessment across New England. The only check on this information is review
at the senior level and from the work group's collective review and ranking of
the information. In several instances, the Program Managers were asked to rank
one program relative to another program for a "reality check" on the final
rankings.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• The level of sophistication among the workload models differs significantly,
ranging from fully developed pricing factors and priority ratings for each activity
to just a distribution among the regions based on historical information.
• Almost all programs are underfunded. The average funding is about SO percent
of the total needed resources.
• Programs with little or no regulatory authority have minimal resources.
• Several programs were not included in the ranking because they either did not fit
into any one category or, if distributed among several programs, would have been
too fragmented. Both of the following programs, for example, are underfunded:
- APSL9G, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) - Title m, and
APTL3G, OFTS-Enforcement Title ffl. These programs are multimedia and
deal with developing inventories under Section 313 of SARA. (The Title m
Section 313 Program, if Tanked, would be a 2. based on the Program
Manager's estimate.)
- AFLL3A, Toxic Substances Enforcement The Toxic Substances Control
Act Program deals primarily with risks associated with direct contact with
consumer products and only the waste disposal issue (primarily PCBs) and
the asbestos-in-school program are covered by the problem definitions. (The
Toxic Substance Enforcement Program would rank 3 based on the Program
Manager's estimate.)
m-3
-------
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings
The following descriptions contain EPA account codes that represent the only consistent method of
identifying specific EPA program elements. The authors regret using such jargon (the codes) but
there is no applicable substitute.
/. Criteria Air Pollutants: ranldng=4
(initial ranking=4)
In general. Region I is funded at about 60 to 65 percent of the total needed to address the
regulatory requirements for criteria air pollutants under the Clear Air Act. The criteria air
pollution pardon is 86 percent of the Air Quality Management Workload Model, about 73
percent of the Stationary Source Enforcement Workload Model, and about 88 percent of the
Ambient Air Quality Workload Model. These models are funded at 62 percent, 57 percent,
and 73 percent, respectively, of the total need identified in each model. Each of the Program
Managers contacted felt that criteria air pollutants could be adequately addressed if funded at
the toed resource levels identified by the model However, the funds are only 60 percent of
the total need. In addition, Region I has shifted some resources slightly to address other air
problems not adequately funded, e.g., toxics and indoor air.
2. Add Deposition and Visibility: ranking=2
(initial ranking=4)
Region I currently operates a very limited program to deal with acid deposition and
visibility. For acid deposition there is no regulatory p^gram, only a public education
outreach effort Visibility problems are addressed through a limited regulatory program.
Funding for both programs is only 3 percent of the Air Quality Management Implementation
Program Workload Model The Air Quality Management Workload Model is funded at 60
percent of the total need. The Program Manager believes that these resources, however,
would not be sufficient to address the problem area if the EPA implemented a
comprehensive program to address acid deposition and visibility, and that the total need
would be considerably higher.
The work group felt that since this problem was only a small percentage of the Air
Quality Management Implementation Workload Model and the current program is very
limited, the overall ranking should be dropped to a 2.
m-4
-------
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants: ranking=3
(initial rankmg=4)
The Air Toxic Program primarily provides technical assistance to develop technical
capabilities and regulatory programs at the state level Through the Air Quality Management
Workload, this program is funded at 2.2 work-years (wy), about 60 percent of the 3.6 wy
stated as the tool need for this program. The Program Manager believes these are realistic
figures for total need. The Air Quality Monitoring Workload Model provides 0.9 full-time
equivalent (FTE) for air toxics monitoring support-about 70 percent of the total resource
need in the model The Program Manager, however, feels that the actual resource need is
higher and that current funding is only SO percent of the need.
The second area of resource need is air toxics support for the Superfund Program. This is
presently funded at 0.8 wy under TPXY9F and at 0.2 wy of the Superfund program
resources. The Program Manager believes that the total need is about 2.0 wy. In addition,
the need for air monitoring support for this program is an additional 1.0 FTE. Therefore, this
program is funded at about 33 percent of the total need, based on discussions with the
Program Manager.
4. Radon: ranking=3
(initial ranking=3)
Region I is presently allocated 1.4 wy to address radon under ATKF2D, a technical
assistance and informational awareness program. The Program Manager estimates that
another 1.0 FTE would be needed to adequately carry out this non-regulatory program. The
region also currently provides a small amount of additional resources to the program.
Therefore, the program is currently funded at about 50 percent of the total need. However,
if a regulatory program were to be implemented, this area would be severely underfunded.
The Program Manager also believes, based on the risk related to this problem, that EPA
should be expanding the current program.
m-5
-------
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon: ranking=3
(initial ranking=4)
The Air Quality Management Workload Model now provides 0.5 wy to address indoor
air pollution other than radon. Like the radon program, mis effort is for a non-regulatory',
technical assistance program only. The workload model estimates support to be at
60 percent of the total resources needed. The Program Manager, however, estimates the total
need to be 2.0 to 3.0 FTE, and the program therefore only is funded at the 20 percent leveL
The Program Manager also feels strongly that this is probably one of the most severely
underfunded programs in Region I, based on the risks associated with this problem area.
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon: ranldng=5
(initial ranking=5)
This problem area covers non-ionizing radiation only. Region I receives 0.6 wy under
the ASYF2D Radiation Program Implementation. Of the 0.6 wy, about 0.2 to 0.3 wy is
spent on non-ionizing radiation, primarily to answer publk inquiries or to support a state on
a specific case or incident The Program Manager feels that, given the risk associated with
this problem, the work-years are adequate. The remaining work-years funded by ASYF2D
deal with radiation from nuclear sources and are not included in any problem area definition.
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking=3
(initial ranking=4)
Region I is funded at about 75 percent of the total need if we include the minor permit
shortfall for permit issuance. The Water Quality Enforcement Program for the permit
program, however, is funded at 50 percent of the total need. Funding for programs to
establish standards and regulations as well as to manage water quality is approximately
75 percent of the need, and the program for ambient water quality monitoring is funded at
50 percent of need, according to the model. Because of the funding shortfall, first priority is
given to the major permit work, resulting in a minor permit backlog. While the various
program elements are ranked as 3 or 4, the Program Manager feels the adjusted rank should be
a 3. This ranking reflects the toxics work and other complexities involved in the new permits.
m-6
-------
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking=4
(initial ranking=4)
The comments for problem area #7, Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters,
apply here. In addition, the resources for the Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction
Program and Operation and Maintenance Program are funded at about 65 percent, according
to the national model The Program Manager feels that these resource estimates are accurate.
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking^
(initial ranking=4)
The Nonpoint Source Program is part of the Water Quality Management Program
element The resources to cany out the program are insufficient While the overall model is
ranked at a 4, the Program Manager feels that additional resources would be needed for the
nonpoint portion of the work.
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans
from All Sources: ranking=4
(initial ranking=4)
The Coastal Environmental Management Program includes the marine discharge waiver
(301h) and comprehensive estuarine management functions. This program is about
80 percent funded under present conditions. If additional "bays" in New England are
designated for study, additional funding will be necessary. The Ocean Disposal Permit
Program is funded at about 50 percent of the resources needed. Based on current conditions,
the Program Manager feels that these resource estimates are accurate.
11. Wetlands/Habitats Loss: ranking=2
(initial ranking=3)
The dredge and fill program is currently funded at about 20 percent of the resources
needed to do a complete job, according to the Program Manager. This includes resources
shifted from other Water Management Division programs into the wetlands program. A
limited amount of funding also is available under the Superfund Office of Water program
elements to address wetland impacts at Superfund sites.
m-7
-------
12. Drinking Water: ranking=2
(initial ranking=3)
The Public Water System Supervision Program Assistance funds about 35 percent of the
resources needed to do an effective job. The Drinking Water Enforcement Program provides
limited funding for this effort along with the Superfund Office of Water program. The latter
two programs provide approximately 75 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the resources
needed. The Water Management Division shifts additional resources from other programs to
area, fln<^ the Pmgfam Manager feels that the program is underfunded.
13. RCRA Waste Sites: ranking=2
(initial ranking=2)
The RCRA Program Subtitle C facilities are funded by Hazardous Waste Management
Strategy Implementation, A80D2D, and Hazardous Waste Enforcement, AGDD3A. This
m'opiam regulates land disposal a**d storage and treatment facilities, hazardous- waste
incinerators, and hazardous-waste generators at both operating and closed facilities. Almost
all the resources allocated for these programs, however, are used to address land disposal,
storage and treatment facilities, and hazardous- waste incinerators, with very little effort
currently allocated to address generators. New England has approximately 2 percent of the
total national universe of closed storage and treatment facilities and incinerators, 9 percent of
the closed land disposal facilities, and about 3 percent of the operating facilities in these
categories. It is anticipated that these facilities would be regulated over a five-year period and
that only 20 percent of the facilities would have regulatory action within any one year. The
available resources, however, are only sufficient to address 2 percent of the facilities.
Therefore, mis program is only funded at 10 percent of the total need. In addition, Region I
has approximately 15 percent of the national universe of hazardous-waste generators;
additional resources would be required to adequately address these facilities.
14. Super/and Waste Sites: ranking=4
(initial ranking=5)
Inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites covered by the Superfund are
funded through the Hazardous Substance Technical Enforcement Program Element TGB Y3 A
and Hazardous Substances Spill & Site Response Program Element TFAY9A, with the
exception of the resources identified under accidental releases. These resources are used
primarily to address sites on the National Priorities list (NPL) or to assess sites for future
m-8
-------
NFL listing and cover both remedial and removal actions. The total need identified in these
woikload models is an additional 7 percent above the current resources. The Program
Manager does not feel that this is a true estimate of total needs for several reasons. First, the
program is not very mature, the pricing factors have not been tested, and pricing factors
generally start tow in new programs. Second, the Superfund Program has been subject to
many changes; therefore, it has been difficult to define the actual workload. Last, the
Superfund Program is subject to significant public and political involvement, which tends to
consume large amounts of resources. In fact, the Superfund Program receives about
90 percent of the total number of Freedom of Information Act requests received by Region I.
This category also covers waste sites that may be addressed by the states. It is assumed
for this analysis that very limited EPA resources would be associated with these state actions,
other than for the state-led projects on the NFL.
75. Municipal Waste Sites: ranking=l
(initial ranking=l)
Region I did not receive funds to address RCRA Subtitle D facilities in FY88. It is
estimated that the national universe of municipal landfills is approximately 9,300. The
Program Manager estimates Region I's share to be about 5 percent Municipal sludge and
waste incinerators are regulated by the Clean Air Act and are covered under problem areas #1
and #2. In FY89, Region I will receive 2 work-years to address RCRA Subtitle D facilities,
both municipal as well as other facilities. Given the large number of facilities and the
minimum to no resources allocated to this problem area, an assigned ranking of 1 was given
to this problem area.
16. Industrial Waste Sites: ranking=l
(initial ranking=l)
A small portion of the Toxic Substances Enforcement Program Element, AFLL3A, could
be put into this problem area to address waste sites, primarily dealing with PCBs. However,
since the majority of the program deals with direct consumer contact with products, no
resources from that program were included here. It is estimated that there are more than
200,000 Subtitle D Facilities nationally, other than municipal landfills, of which
approximately 5 percent are in Region L It is assumed that these nonhazardous facilities
would fall into this problem area. Currently. Region I receives no funds to address these sites.
In FY89, Region I will receive 2.0 FTEs to address Subtitle D facilities-municipal systems as
well as these other facilities. Therefore, as with problem area #15, this problem area was
assigned a ranking of 1.
m-9
-------
17. Accidental Releases: ranking=3
(initial ranking=3)
Region I addresses accidental releases through the region's Emergency Response Team.
This team is funded by the Environmental Emergency Response and Prevention Program
Element A51B2D, Oil Spills, under Section 311 of the dean Water Act and by a small
portion (approximately 13 percent) of the Hazardous Substance Spill and Site Response
program element for chemical spills and other accidental releases to the environment The
total amount of resources needed for this program is difficult to assess, due to the nature of the
activity and its dependance on the number of spills and accidents identified. The only
indication of resources needed is obtained by examining historical records. In FY87, about
one-third of the removal actions were classified as emergency releases or spills. In addition,
this program has historically utilized about 125 percent of resources allocated. These
additional resources were used to address 25 percent more sites than planned, and the Program
Manager feels that additional sites could have been addressed if resources were available.
Another limiting factor is thyt the budget was cut $30 million nationally in FY88.
Through Title ffl of SARA and a small portion of the Oil Spills Program, EPA is
developing up-front planning programs to address these accidental releases through education
and planning in ruder tn tmnrimiT^ site cleanup and to minimize the number of releases.
These programs are funded under Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know,
APUD9G, and a small portion of A51B2D, Oil Spills. Minimal resources have been allocated
to these programs. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Program, for
example, is only funded at 11 percent of the total needed, according to Headquarters
estimates. The problem area was, therefore, estimated overall at the 50 percent level
18. Releases from Storage Tanks: ranking=4
(initial ranking=2)
Underground storage tanks regulated by RCRA are funded by program element
APCD2B-UST-Regs, Guides and Policies. Cleanup of leaking underground tanks is funded
through the LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) Trust Fund under SARA and
program element FPYV2B-HQ's Guidelines-LUST. Headquarters' original estimate of total
need for this program was 625 percent higher than current funding levels. However, the
Program Manager feels that the funding levels are adequate since the initial estimates were
based on all states participating in the program. The work group agreed with the Program
Manager and felt that this program, since adequately funded, should be given a ranking of at
least 4. The program is expected to be a delegated state-run program with little direct
regulatory action by EPA.
m-io
-------
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination: ranking=2
(initial ranking=3)
The Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) and the Ground-Water Protection
Program are funded at 45 percent and 28 percent, respectively, according to national models.
The UIC program in New England reviews Class V wells that inject nonhazardous wastes into
ground water. The Ground-Water Protection Program is a top EPA priority that is severely
underfunded, according to the Program Manager. This latter program is directed toward
coordinating agency-wide efforts to protect ground water. It is pro-active rather than reactive.
The prinking Water Enforcement Program Element provides a small amount of resources to
pursue Class V UIC violations. The Water Management Division shifts additional resources
from other programs to this area.
20. Pesticide Residues on Foods: ranJdng=3
(initial ranking=3)
See discussion under problem area #21.
21. Pesticide Application: ranking=3
(initial ranking=3)
Review of the Pesticide Enforcement Workload Model for AFKE3 A and the Pesticide
Certification and Training resource distribution for APFE3A, and discussion with the
Program Manager resulted in an inability to adequately break down these resources into the
two problem areas. Therefore, the total pesticide program was reviewed and ranked as one
problem area. There is no estimate of total need for the program. The Program Manager felt
that the current resources were between 25 percent to 50 percent of the total need. EPA has
severely understaffed the enforcement or regional portion of this program. Headquarters
receives about 600 wy to review, register, and develop labeling requirements for pesticides,
yet only allocates about 100 wy to the 10 regions to carry out an enforcement and training
program.
22. Lead: ranJdng=3
(initial ranking=3)
Region I does not receive any resources directly from the national allocation to fund a
program addressing risks associated with exposure to lead in soil. However, the region has
shifted resources, about 2 to 3 wy, to support a program and to administer a demonstration
project under SARA. The Program Manager feels that these resources are 50 percent of the
total resources needed to adequately implement this project, including field oversight and
laboratory support Future resources will depend on the results of the demonstration project
This portion of the problem would rank 2.
m-n
-------
Lead in drinking water is regulated as a primary standard under the SDWA as well as by
implementation of a provision of the 1986 SDWA Amendments that ban the use of lead
solders, flux, and pipes. The resources to address lead as a primary drinking water standard
are included in problem area #12, Drinking Water. The lead ban provision is to be
implemented by the states; therefore minimal EPA resources would be needed. The Drinking
Water Program ranked 2 overall, and a 2 ranking would be included for this portion of the
problem.
Lead in air from both mobile and stationary sources regulated under the Clean Air Act and
the resources needed to address this problem are included in problem area #1, Criteria Air
Pollutants. Criteria Air Pollutants ranked 4; therefore, the lead in air portion of the problem
should be ranked 4.
An overall average ranking for this problem area is, therefore, 3.
23. Asbestos: ranking=3
(initial ranking=4)
Region I receives 1.3 wy out of the Toxic Substances Enforcement Workload Model
AFLL3A to oversee the Asbestos in School Program. This program is primarily
implemented through contract dollars, which fund inspectors hired through the American
Association of Retired Persons. The FTE resources are currently funded at about SO percent
of the total need, according to the Program Manager. The contract dollars have decreased
slightly over the past several years and are about 75 percent of the total need for the
program.
The region receives 4.7 wy out of the Stationary Source Workload Model AFHA3A to
address National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). NESHAPs
work in Region I is almost solely asbestos-demolition/renovation related activities. The total
need from this model is predicted at 9.7 wy. Region I currently utilizes an additional 1.0
FTE, funded by regional contract dollars, to support this program. The Program Manager
feels that the total resource needs would be adequate if all the states had delegated programs,
but three states are not currently delegated. The primary activities supported by the current
resource allocation are training, auditing, and oversight.
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments: ranldng=3
(initial ranking=3)
A small portion of the Water Quality Management Program is directed toward lakes and
ponds. The overall Water Quality Management Workload Model is estimated to be
80 percent funded. However, the Program Manager believes that the portion of the program
funding lakes and ponds is only about SO percent funded. Therefore, the ranking is a 3.
m-12
-------
Attachment III-A
Summary of Available Resources Factor Rankings
FY88 Operating Plan
National Region 1
Problem Area
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Criteria Air
Pollutants
Acid
Deposition
and
Visibility
Hazardous/
Toxic Air
Pollutants
Radon
Indoor Air
Pollutants
Other than
Radon
Radiation
from
Sources
Other than
Radon
Industrial
Point
Source
Discharges
to Surface
Waters
Program Element
A2OA2D
A23A2F
AFHA3A
Total
A2OA2D
A2OA2D
A23A2F
(86%)
(88%)
(73%)
(03%)
(09%)
(12%)
TPXY9F+TG13Y3A
Total
ATKF2D
A2OA2D
ASYF2D
AFEB3A
AFDB3B
AHXB2D
A7XB2D
A53B2F
NAD2B
-
(02%)
(02%)
(50%)
(50%)
(30%)
(50%)
(50%)
Resources Resources
247.9
79.8
197.1
524.8
8.6
25.9
10.9
13.0
49.8
13.8
5.8
6.9
190.1
146.1
25.6
26.8
67.9
35.4
•Program Manager's estimate.
21.1
6.6
12.7
40.5
0.7
2.2
0.9
0.8+0.2
4.1
1.4
0.5
0.3
16.9
16.1
2.4
1.9
6.0
1.4
(continued)
m-is
Tntal Mnnrl
lUUU IwUU
Nations]
396.8
109.9
345.8
852.5
13.8
41.5
15.0
9.2
162.8
Region 1 Ranking Ranking
34.6
9.5 4 4
26.2
70.3
1.2 4 2
3.6
1.3 4 3
2.0
6.9
3.0 3 3
0.8 4 3
0.3* 5 5
3
4
4 3
4
12.2 3
4
Page 1 of 4
-------
Attachment III-A (continued)
Summary of Available Resources Factor Rankings
FY88 Operating Plan
National Region I
Problem Area
8. PQTW
Discharges
to Surface
Waters
9. Nonpoint
Source
Discharges
to Surface
Waters
10. Discharges
to
Estuaries,
Coastal
Waters,
and
Oceans
from All
Sources
11. Wetlands/
Habitat
Loss
12. Drinking
Water
13. RCRA
Waste Sites
Program Element
AFEB3A (50%)
AFDB3B (50%)
A54B26
A56B2G
AHXB2A (30%)
A7XB2D (50%)
A53B2F (50%)
AHXB2A (25%)
AMLB2F
A49B2D
AGMB2D
TPRY9F
.
A70C2D
AFFC3A
TPRY9F
A80D2D
AGD3A
Total
Resources Resources
190.1
146.1
353.0
26.8
25.6
26.8
67.8
21.3
61.5
30.2
80.6
4.2
121.1
43.2
16.8
376.7
427.8
804.5
'Program Manager's estimate.
17.0
16.1
29.6
2.6
2.4
2.0
6.0
2.0
11.0
3.0
6.1
0.3
9.7
1.8
1.3
32.6
32.5
65.1
(continued)
m-14
IUIHI NBBQ
Adjusted
National Region 1 Ranking Ranking
3
4
485.2 55.3 4
4
4
4
162.7 12.1 3
4
4
3
3
3
344.9 27.7 3
55.0 2.6 4
3
.
8045* 660* 2
4
3
4
2
2
2
Page 2 of 4
-------
Attachment III-A (continued)
Summary of Available Resources Factor Rankings
FY88 Operating Plan
Problem Area
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Superfund
Waste Sites
(+FY89)
Municipal
Waste Sites
Industrial
Waste Sites
Accidental
Releases
Releases
from
Storage
Tanks
Other
Ground-
Water
Contamin-
ation
Pesticide
Residues
on Foods
Program Element
TFAY9Q
TGBY3A
Total
AFLL3A
A51B2D
TFAY9A (13%)
APUD9G
Total
APCD2B
FPYV2B
Total
A71C2D
AFFC3A (45%)
AMMC2E
ADKE3A
APFE3A
Total
'Program Manager's estimate.
National
Resources
850.0+
606.0+
1,456.0
41.2
11.8
39.6
41.0
80.6
145.3
35.3
51.4
81.0
19.4
100.4
Region 1
Resources
62.7
44.2
0
3.9
8.0
1.2
13.1
4.3
4.0
8.3
4.5
0.9
5.2
4.0
1.7
5.7
Total Need
National Region 1 Rankln
924.0+
627.0+
1,551.0 5
1
1
4.8 3
10.0*
10.5
25.3
500* 2
314.5 12.8 3
52.1 1.7 4
181.2 19.3 3
3
(continued)
Adjusted
g Ranking
4
1
1
3
4
2
3
Page 3 of 4
m-is
-------
Attachment III-A (continued)
Summary of Available Resources Factor Rankings
FY88 Operating Plan
National Region I
Total Need
Adjusted
Problem Area Program Element Resources Resources National Region I Ranking Ranking
21.
22.
23.
24.
Pesticide AFKE3A
Application APFE3A
Lead Lead-ln-SoU
Asbestos AFLL3A (02%)
AFHA3A (27%)
Total
Lakes, AHXB2A (15%)
Ponds, and
Impound-
ments
3 3
2-3* 4-7* 3 3
1.3 2.6 4 3
72.9 4.7 127.9 9.7
6.0 12.3
12.7 1.2 3 3
•Program Manager's Estimate.
Page 4 of 4
m-16
-------
IV. Economic Impact Factor
Definition of Factor/Background
The economic impact factor of risk management evaluates the cost of controlling each
environmental problem. The cost is presented as the total cost to Region! The bearer of the
cost is, in most cases, noted in the narrative below; however, this consideration did not
influence the fi"fll ranking of the problem.
Sources of Information
The economic analysis depended primarily on cost data provided by Temple, Barker, &
Sloane, Inc. (TBS). The data were developed for EPA, to support various regulatory impact
analyses. Where other data sources were utilized, references are provided in the narrative.
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors
Problems that had a relatively low control cost received a high ranking, as the work
group dffridfd that, for all factors, a score of 5 would indicate that the problem was "easier"
to manage. The ranking scores and the costs associated with each score are as follows:
1. More than $1 billion
2. $100 million to $999 million
3. $10 million to $99.99 million
4. $1 million to $9.99 million
5. Less man $1 million
Several assumptions about the data and the evaluation criteria also were made:
1. Data supplied by TBS are sufficient and of good quality unless reports stated
otherwise. In the absence of data, professional judgment and knowledge were used to
establish a rating.
-------
2. When the cost data were given in terms of a national profile, New England's share was
determined to be 10 percent of that total.
3. The population of New England is estimated to be approximately 13 million.
4. Where several control options are listed, the "average" cost control option was used
for ranking the problem area. That is, in selecting a control option for economic
evaluation, the effective technology with the medium price tag was chosen.
5. When the cost data were presented in ranges, the upper end of the range was used in
the ranking process.
6. Ranks are based on problem area costs identified in the present. That is, projected cost
of the problem in the future was not considered.
7. The bearer of the cost was not considered in the final ranking; i.e., there was no
adjustment based on the bearer.
8. If cost data were not annualized, annualized cost was calculated based upon a 20-year
payback at 9 percent interest
9. The ranks are based on the annual cost of addressing each problem areas.
Depending on how much of the problem was addressed by the cost data, the problem
area ranking then was adjusted up or down by one rank. If the cost data addressed less than
25 percent of the problem, the rating was decreased by one rank. Also, if the work group
judged the cost data to be overestimates, an adjustment was made to increase the rating by
one rank.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Economic analyses from Regulatory Impact Analysis studies may not be an
appropriate data source for economic impact assessments. Actual cost profiles would
be more meaningful.
• Even though the economic evaluations attempted to tailor the national data to reflect
the New England situation, using national data may not be appropriate for all problem
areas. In future projects, national data should be validated if no New England data are
available.
• Each program office should identify key data sources that provide economic analyses
of environmental activities within each problem area.
IV-2
-------
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings
1. Criteria Air Pollutants: ranking = 1
The dean Air Act gives EPA statutory authority to control air pollution. Its main
objective is the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the protection of public health and welfare. Standards exist for six pollutants:
sulfur dioxide (SO?), total suspended particulates (TSP), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone
(03), nitrogen dioxide (NOj), and lead. The control options and environmental benefits are
summarized below:
A. Combustion technologies: Primary benefits include the reduction of SO2 and NO2
emissions.
B. Fuel desulfurization: Primary benefit is the reduction of SO2 emissions.
C Emission standards for motor vehicles: Primary benefits include reductions in CO,
TSP, NG»2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (precursors to 63) emissions.
D. Other methods to reduce CO, TSP, NO2, and VOCs are as follows:
G/M) ppr>gratT|s
2. Alternative fuels use
3. Emission controls on gasoline pumps
4. Volatility restrictions on gasoline
5. Expanded Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) standards for
stationary sources
6. Emission standards for other commercial products
7. Onboard hydrocarbon controls
Various control strategies for which cost data exist are as follows:
A. Power plants: Reduce 807 emissions by 50 percent by the year 2000. The estimated
cost is $6.2 billion to $8.5 trillion per year for scrubbers nationally. New England's
estimated cost is $850 million per year.
IV-3
-------
B. Mobile Sources:
1. Emissions standards for autos: Reduce GO, TSP, NOo, and VOC (precursors to
63) emissions. The estimated cost is $250 per unit The total national cost is
estimated to be $1.1 billion/year. The New England maximum cost is estimated
to be $110 million/year.
2. Sulfur removal from diesel fuel: Congress has proposed to reduce SQ^ emissions
by lowering the level of sulfur allowed in diesel fuel from 0.27 percent to
0.05 percent Annual cost is estimated to be $340 million to remove
285,000 tons of sulfur ($l,200/ton). The Office of Technology Assessment
estimates the cost to the consumer to be an additional $0.03/gallon.
3. VOC annual emissions: Applying the hydrocarbon reduction measures and
improved VM programs will reduce emissions in 1993 by 3.5 million tons. The
tool cost (national) for this reduction is estimated to be $7.9 billion to
$8.7 billion/year. The nunrimmti cost for New England is estimated at
$870 million/year.
Limits on gasoline volatility would reduce VOC emissions by 1.2 million
tons/year. The cost is estimated to be $100 million to $225 million/year. The
New England tpayinnim cost is estimated to be $22.5 million.
C Stationary Sources:
1. The cost of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on large point
sources Cower NOo levels) and utility boilers in ozone nonattainment areas is
$400 million/year, ffew England's maximum cost is estimated to be
$40 million/year.
2. Gas pump controls (stage n vapor recovery) would reduce VOC emissions by
1.2 million tons/year at a national estimated cost of $170 million/year. The
New England cost would be $17 million/year.
Summary: The total cost for controlling criteria air pollutants in New England is
approximately $1.9 billion/year. This annualized cost is based upon a summation of annual
costs listed in items A, B, and C.
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility: ranking = 3
According to EPA Region I's "1986 Year In Review," national funding for acid rain
research was an estimated $87 million in 1987. More than $2.9 billion will be spent on clean
coal technology by 1991. The New England cost is estimated to be $290 million; the annual
cost (over a five-year period) would be approximately $60 million.
IV-4
-------
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants: ranking=l
Hazardous air pollutants are controlled with the same technologies used to abate criteria
air pollutants. Proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act would require Best Available
Technology for all major sources of hazardous air pollutants. Area source emissions would be
reduced by 55 percent over the next 10 years. Costs and effects are preliminary at this time.
Technology-based standards on major sources and area source controls are estimated to
cost $8 billion to $15 billion/year nationally; the environmental benefits would include
reduction of VOC emissions by 7 million to 10 million tons per year. The New England cost
is estimated to be $1.5 billion/year.
4. Radon: ranking=3
The discussion below focuses on the detection and remediation efforts needed to control
radon in buildings. Two monitoring devices, charcoal canisters and alpha track detectors, are
relatively inexpensive, fast, and simple to use by homeowners testing radon concentrations.
For a majority of homes where remediation is needed, ventilation will be adequate to reduce
radon levels below the EPA action criteria.
Based on regulatory impact analyses completed for EPA, an estimated 10,000 fewer
cancer cases will result with the implementation of appropriate remediation efforts.
Screening Programs
These efforts will identify homes at greatest risk from radon. An estimated 7.6 million
homes-9 percent of all homes in the United States-have radon concentrations in the 4 to
20 pCi/1 range.
The National Screening Program for radon in air costs $2 billion. New England's share of
the cost is $200 million. Annualized cost would be $21.9 million/year.
The National Screening Program for water also costs $2 billion. New England's cost is
$200 million. Annualized cost would be $21.9 million/year.
Remediation
Ventilation. The EPA recommends ventilation of homes with radon concentrations at low
levels (<20 pCi/1). National cost is estimated at $1.9 billion for this remediation. The
New England cost is approximately $190 million, for an estimated 2.5 million households
affected in New England. Annualized cost is estimated to be $20.8 million.
IV-5
-------
Sub-slab suction. For high radon levels (>20 pCi/1), the Agency recommends a more
elaborate remediation method, such as sub-slab suction. Approximately 0.5 percent of the
affected homes require such elaborate methods. National cost is estimated to be $425 million.
New England's cost is $42.5 million. Annualized cost would be $4.65 million.
Granular activated carbon (water). Activated carbon treatment is a common mitigation
measure to remove radon from water. Available information suggests that a cost of $1,000
for each affected home is reasonable. By estimating that 0.05 percent of the affected homes in
New England would require remediation, an estimate of $1 million for the Region I cost
would be reasonable. The annualized cost would be $110,000.
Summary: The total economic impact would be $633.5 million, with an annualized cost
of $69.4 million per year.
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon: not ranked
Indoor air pollution is often remedied through good ventilation design and by providing
adequate maintenance and operation of the ventilation system. Controls vary in scope and
complexity. Costs for engineering and for operational controls vary widely. No specific cost
data were available. Therefore, economic impact rating was not provided for this category.
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon: ranking=5
The intended public benefit from this category is to limit the exposure to non-ionizing
radiation, specifically radio frequency radiation. A number of studies addressing this concern
have been conducted by EPA's Office of Radiation Programs during the past 12 years. Based
on a review of control options, which include extending fenced-off areas and warning signs,
the economic impact analysis has selected the control level to be 100 uW/cm2 for establishing
comparable cost estimates. The national cost for achieving the preferred control option is
$68.8 million; the New England cost is approximately $6.9 million. The annual cost would
be approximately $700,000.
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranldng=3
Control costs are provided in the form of dollars per pound-equivalent ($/lb-eq) for toxic
and conventional pollutant control of both direct and indirect discharges. The controls ensure
compliance with previously established effluent limitations. The Ib-eq measure provides a
means to compare actual treatment costs for each pollutant, using copper as a weight standard.
It is the product of the atomic weight ratio (copper standard/pollutant metal) multiplied by the
measured weight of the pollutant metal.
IV-6
-------
An estimated 9 percent of industrial discharges are not in compliance with effluent
limitations. An analysis of contractor data that provided estimates of pollutant removal (in
Ib/eq) and unit costs(in $/lb/eq) suggests that $2.2 billion (nationally) is needed to ensure
compliance on NPDES permits. The New England cost is estimated to be $220 million, with
annual cost estimated at $24.1 million/year.
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking=2
Available cost data from the EPA 1986 Needs Survey cover a wide range of costs for
various categories of infrastructure, including wastewater treatment facilities (such as
secondary and advanced wastewater treatment), new interceptor and collector sewers,
infiltration/inflow correction, rehabilitation/replacement of sewers, and combined sewer
overflow correction. The estimates below cover those cost categories that have traditionally
been added together for purposes of assessing POTW (publicly owned treatment works) needs
by the Construction Grants program: (1) Category I, Secondary Treatment; (2) Category n,
Advance Treatment; (3) Category THE, Infiltration/Inflow Correction; and (4) Category IVA,
New Interceptor Sewers. The state-by-state summary is as follows (in millions of dollars):
Massachusetts $2,083
Connecticut 420
Rhode Island 127
New Hampshire 354
Maine 191
Vermont 70
TOTAL $3,245
The total estimated cost for controlling POTW discharges to surface waters is
$3.2 billion. It is assumed that costs for the Boston Harbor project, estimated to exceed
$1 billion, are included in this estimate. Therefore, the total will be reduced by $1 billion
(to be applied under problem area #10), and the corrected total estimate is $2.2 billion. The
annualized cost is estimated to be $246 million per year.
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking=2
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution is a significant cause of the remaining water quality
problems in the nation. NFS pollution can lead to some human health risk, but ecological
risk and welfare efforts are the primary concerns. NFS discharges to surface waters include a
wide array of pollutants and effects, such as traditional concerns about cancer risks from
pesticides, ecological damage from sediments, and nutrient runoff. Controls generally focus
on changes in behavior patterns that alter the use of potential contaminants. The following
summary of control options provides limited cost data:
IV-7
-------
Conservation tillage. The traditional approach to growing crops is to till the entire field.
Conservation tillage involves tilling only a portion of the field. The average cost has been
estimated to be $30/acre. The national cost is estimated to be $4 billion/year, the
New England cost is estimated at $400 million/year. It is likely that this estimate is high,
based on the tillable acreage available in the region.
Feedlot management. Feedlots can improve management of the animal wastes generated
at those facilities. The national cost has been estimated at $2 billion/year. The New England
share is estimated to be $200 million/year. It is likely that this cost is high, considering the
feedlot activity in New England.
Other Best Management Practices (BMPs). This broad category includes BMPs
associated with mining, construction, and silviculture. Specific national cost data were not
available for these categories.
The total estimated New England cost for control of NFS discharges is $600
million/year. The initial rating of 2 may be an overestimation due to the amount of
conservation tillage and feedlot management in New England. However, there may be an
underestimation of the cost related to the Best Management Practices as a result of the lack
of data. Since these two extremes cancel any adjustment factors, the ranking will remain the
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal. Waters, and Oceans
from Att Sources: ranJdng=2
As noted in problem area #8, the 1986 EPA Needs Survey did not disaggregate capital
costs for POTW discharges to marine waters. The estimate shown below does include costs
for combined sewer overflow correction in New England (except Vermont). It is assumed
(subject to limitations) that the vast majority of costs for combined sewer management
would contribute to the improvement of coastal water. The state-by-state summary is as
follows (in millions of dollars):
Massachusetts $1,103
Connecticut 381
Rhode Island 201
New Hampshire 225
Maine 19
Total $1,929
The total estimated need for combined sewer overflow correction (excluding Vermont) to
control discharges to estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans is approximately $2 billion. The
annualired cost for this problem area is $211 million/year.
IV-8
-------
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss: not ranked
No control strategies or cost data were available. Therefore, no ranking could be
established for this category.
12. Drinking Water: ranking = 3
According to the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS), New England has
13,885 public water supplies (PWS) serving a population of 12,748,000 people. The control
costs for the facilities to meet Primary Drinking Water Regulations are listed below:
Volatile organic chemicals National: $23.1M
New England: 2.3M
Synthetic organic chemicals National: $34.6M
New England: 3.SM
Trihalomethane National: $118.0M
New England: 12.0M
Inorganics National: $37.0M
New England: 4.0M
Radionuclides Home treatment: $400 to $800 for GAG
$900 for aeration
Approximately 2 to 3 percent of the homes served by PWS are affected by radionuclides,
and 10 to IS percent of residential dwellings are affected. These residential dwellings are
homes with a private water supply source such as a privately owned well. Therefore,
assuming 3.25 million households in New England and 97,500 homes served by PWS,
approximately 12,500 residential dwellings are affected by radionuclides. Using an average
cost of $600 for home treatment, the total cost to control radionuclides would be
approximately $66 million.
Total cost for remediation of drinking-water problems would be $87.8 million per year,
with 75 percent of that cost representing the cost of individual homeowner treatment of
radionuclides.
IV-9
-------
13. RCRA Waste Sites: ranking = 3
Corrective Action
Limited corrective action cost data were available through the contractor. We assumed
that total cleanup costs for a RCRA site will be approximately SO percent of that for a
Superfund site.
According to the Regional RCRA Office, 27 sites are presently under investigation for
corrective action. Region I estimates that 200 sites could ultimately qualify for corrective
action, but the assessment will be based on present-not projected-problems. The average
cost for complete cleanup is estimated to be $15 million to $20 million per site. Therefore,
the cost estimate is $540 million for corrective action at these sites. There are also oversight
costs associated with correction; e.g., development of an investigation study and design of the
selected alternative. The cost of these activities is several orders of magnitude less than the
remediation (cleanup) costs; therefore, these oversight costs did not affect the final figure for
corrective action activities. The annualized cost for corrective action is estimated to be
approximately $60 million/year.
Incineration
The performance-based standards are for control measures with 99.99 percent destruction
and removal efficiencies (DRE) of organics. Nationally, there are 350 incineration units, with
an annual cost of $15 million. In addition, the risk-based standards for metals, HCL, and CO
emissions affect 200 units at costs of $10 million to $20 million/yr.
In New England, there are two incinerators with interim status and one proposed for
permit decision. Therefore, the realistic number of RCRA hazardous waste incinerators
presently in Region I is three, which makes the total cost (at $40,000 for DRE and $100,000
for metals for each incinerator) $420,000.'
The facilities will have to absorb the initial cost of construction as well as Operation and
Maintenance costs. However, some of this will be passed on to the consumer at a later point.
IV-10
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions (Pretreatment)
Nationally, there are approximately 300 facilities for land disposal of wastes. The cost for
these facilities varies with die requirements for specific listed wastes. The terms "California"
and "1st thirds list" refer to specific RCRA waste streams and the order in which they are
being evaluated relative to land disposal. The national cost data are as follows:
Annual Costs in Millions of Dollars
Requirement National Cost/Facility
California list statutory with
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) $132.0 $0.4
California list "EP" levels
with BDAT 783.0 2.6
Most of "1st thirds list" of
hazardous constituents with BDAT 333.0 1.1
All of "1st thirds list" with BDAT 341.0 1.1
Solvents
to 1 x 10'12 46.0 0.1
There are three land disposal facilities in New England. The annualized cost for those three
facilities, under the requirements listed, are:
Requirement Cost in Millions of Dollars
California list statutory with BDAT $1.2
California list "EP" levels with BDAT 7.8
Most of "1st thirds" with DBAT 3.3
All of "1st thirds" with BDAT 3.3
Solvents restrictions 0.3
Presently, in order to meet regulations, compliance with the "1st thirds" and solvents
restrictions standards is required. Thus, the cost for land disposal restrictions is
$6.9million/yr.
Summary. The total cost for Region I as it pertains to RCRA waste sites is
approximately $67.4 million/year.
IV-11
-------
14. Superfund Waste Sites: ranking -2
Currently, a total of 951 sites on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) are eligible for
long-term remedial action. Out of that total, approximately 60 NPL sites are located in
New England (as of early June 1988). The common control options for remediating these
Superfund sites include:
• Containment of waste
- Capping with an impermeable material to prevent leaching
— Constructing slurry walls to restrict ground-water movement
• Treatment of waste
- Ground-water treatment methods such as carbon adsorption or in-situ
biodegradation
— Excavation and dechlorination of soil to remove chlorinated organics such as
PCBs
• Destruction of waste through thermal treatment (i.e., incineration)
The estimated average costs for site cleanups range from $30 million to $40 million.
Average cost per site under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
provisions is $35 million. Therefore, the cost for New England to clean up all NPL sites
would be $2.1 billion. If EPA is able to identify a party legally responsible for the
contamination, that party bears the cleanup costs. Otherwise it is the responsibility of the
federal and state governments. The annual cost is estimated to be $230 million/year.
15. Municipal Waste Sites: ranking = 2
As noted by the Region I Waste Management Division, there are approximately
9,300 municipal waste sites nationwide. Five percent of the national total are in
New England; therefore, there are approximately 465 municipal waste facilities in Region I.
The economic impact evaluation considered the following operations:
IV-12
-------
• Solid waste landfills
To meet criteria promulgated, the following "average cost" alternative was
selected: ground-water monitoring, corrective action, post-closure care, and
installation of a leachate collection system at selected facilities, with liners and
covers to minimize infiltration into the unit. For this alternative, the cost per
landfill annually is $146,000. This makes a total cost of $65 million/year for
municipal landfills in Region L
• Solid waste incinerators
Currently, existing facilities spend, collectively, $119 million to $195 million
(annualized incremental cost) for 111 combustion facilities, or $1 million to
$1.7 million per facility. There are 40 operating municipal solid waste
incinerators in New England. Therefore, total annual cost for Region I ranges
from $40 million to $68 million.
• Recycling of municipal solid wastes
No cost data were given. It is anticipated that there will be tremendous saving
from both the handling of solid wastes as well as the preserving of natural
resources for a comparatively small amount of capital expenditures.
Summary: The solid waste landfills and the incinerators cover most of the problem.
Thus, the cost to Region I is approximately $133 million/year.
16. Industrial Waste Sites: ranking = 3
According to the Region I Waste Management Division, there are approximately
200,000 of these facilities nationally. Of that total, 5 percent are in Region I. Therefore, in
New England there are approximately 10,000 facilities. Assessment of costs for those
facilities follows:
Solid waste landfills
If the same alternative identified for municipal landfills is used (see problem area
#15), then the incremental annualized cost for all of these landfills nationally is
$204 million. New England's cost is approximately $10 million/year, which
reflects 5 percent of the national incremental annualized cost (incremental cost
includes base cost for the alternative plus average cost for disposal and for
households).
Solid waste incinerators
TBS provided no data regarding the number of industrial solid waste incinerators.
The program office does not track these facilities, but considers them a small
portion compared to landfills.
IV-13
-------
Summary: We assume that the solid waste landfills represent the majority of the
solid waste (industrial) problem. Therefore, the total cost to Region I is $10 million per
year.
17. Accidental Releases: ranking -4
The CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980) Removal Program manages the response to accidental
(emergency) releases. No specific cost data were submitted for review and evaluation.
Cleanups under the Emergency Response Program are typically $50,000 to $1,000,000.
In 1986 (the most recent available data), there were 79 incidents in New England.
Therefore, the cost to New England for accidental releases would range from
$3.95 million to $79 million. Assuming 1986 is a typical year and using an average
cost per incident, the total cost to Region I would be approximately $40 million. The
annualized cost would be $4.5 million.
18. Releases from Underground Storage Tanks: ranking -2
Nationally, there are approximately 1.4 million tanks with 96 percent storing
gasoline and petroleum products and the remaining 4 percent containing other
chemicals. In New England, there are approximately 150,000 underground storage
tanks.
In evaluating the cost, we used the EPA-recommended option. This option
provided the highest incremental cost savings with the greatest percentage of plume
area avoided. It also allowed for a greater flexibility in upgrading to new tank standards
and time for requiring leak detection. The total annualized cost per tank is $3,457,
making the total annualized cost for New England approximately $520 million/year.
Tank owners would bear the costs.
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination: not ranked
No control or cost data were identified; therefore, it is not possible to assess the
economic impact of this problem.
20. Pesticide Residues on Food: ranking -4
Major sources of pesticides include agricultural, commercial, and private uses of
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth regulators, and rodenticides. There are
approximately 650 food-use pesticides.
IV-14
-------
The various control options range from labeling foods treated with pesticides to
cancelling a pesticide. The cost data supplied by TBS were based on a case study of the
cancellation of ethylene dibromide (EDB). The EDB Case Study represents the most
recent economic information regarding the problem of pesticide residues on food.
Because the economics of labeling versus cancellation do not provide extremes of the
spectrum, developing an average of these two costs would not be appropriate. We used
a conservative approach by taking the data from EDB Case Study to provide a picture
of the cost impacts from cancelling a pesticide.
The aggregate annual impacts resulting from this action range from $26.4 million to
$42.8 million, depending on the efficiency of alternative pesticides. Using the
10 percent apportionment for New England, it is estimated that the regional cost would
range from $2.6 million to $4.3 million, with both pesticide producers and consumers
bearing the costs.
22. Pesticide Application: ranking = 4
The cost data for this problem area are based on feasible control options for the
professionals who mix, load, and apply pesticides. According to the cost data, the
potentially exposed population in this problem area is smaller than the population
ingesting pesticide-tainted foods. Control costs include:
1. Chemical-resistant gloves at $10/pair
2. Disposable full body suits at $10 to $20 each
3. Modifying an open cab tractor for which, nationally, the conversion cost ranges
from $1.25 billion to $5 billion. Assuming New England's share is 10 percent of
that cost, the range would then be $125 million to $500 million for Region I, or
an annual cost of $14 million to $55 million.
The conversion cost should represent the majority of the cost hi this problem area. The cost
bearers here are the applicators.
Summary: Since New England does not in reality represent 10 percent of the agricultural
area, these cost figures are overestimates. Therefore, an adjustment was necessary. The
original ranking was 3; with the adjustment the ranking increased by one ranking level, to 4.
22. Lead: ranking = 1
Costs and control options vary with the environmental medium. The cost associated
with controlling lead in drinking water is presented in problem #12 (inorganics: New
England = $3.7 million/yr) and lead in air is identified in problem #3 (technology-based
standards: New England = $1,500 million/yr). For deleading homes, the cost to
homeowners is approximately $10,000 per home. This figure is from a Baltimore survey
IV-15
-------
ami represents a totally lead-safe home; Le., the removal of all lead-contained material in a
home. However, to comply with Massachusetts' standards for deleading a home, which are
the most stringent regulations in New England, the cost ranges from $3,500 to $4,000 per
home. For soil remediation, the cost ranges from $3.000 to $5.000 per home. Generally, the
bearer of these last two control options is the homeowner, whereas controlling lead in water
and air would be the responsibility of the facility. The cost of controlling lead in food is
unknown.
Of the homes in New England, approximately 400,000 to 1.26 million are affected by the
problem of lead in homes and soil. Therefore, the cost for controlling this problem would be
$3.2 billion to $10 billion.
Summary: The cost of controlling lead in all media would be approximately $5 billion to
$11.5 billion, with most of the cost being borne by homeowners because the major portion
of this cost comes from lead in soil. The annual cost is estimated to be $1.26 billion/year.
23. Asbestos: ranking=2
All control strategies for asbestos-related activities must be consistent with state and
federal requirements. There are 733,000 buildings (federal, commercial, and residential)
nationally that would need asbestos control. The cost of control is approximately
$17 billion, with most of these costs reflecting cleanup of federal and commercial buildings.
Cost per building (federal or commercial) would be approximately $23,000. (The cost for
asbestos removal in a residential home is approximately $1,500.)
Li New England, 5,000 notifications have been issued regarding the need to comply with
asbestos standards. Therefore, the total cost to New England for this problem is
$115 million, with federal and commercial entities bearing the cost This would represent
the majority of the problem as well as the majority of the cost
(Cost data were from the "EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Material in Public
Buildings," February 1988, and the program office.)
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments: not ranked
The effective technology or control option for this problem is lake restoration to improve
water quality of these resources. Improvement measures include sediment removal, nutrient
fixation with alum, and weed harvesting. No cost data associated with these activities were
provided by either TBS or program offices. However, it is estimated that the cost for the
aforementioned actions would be low, with the bearer of the cost being individual
IV-16
-------
V. Legal Authority Factor
Definition of Factor/Background
For purposes of this report, "legal authority" refers to those statutory laws and
regulations that address the various pollution problem areas defined by the Risk
Management Work Group and that are implemented by EPA and/or the appropriate state
agencies. The analysis of the legal authority reflects not only the existence or nonexistence
of statutory and regulatory authority applicable to the 24 pollution problem areas, but also
attempts to account for the adequacy, on its face, of any existing law, as well as past
enforcement success. Both regulatory and enforcement-related provisions are taken into
account by the ranking, because a law may authorize a comprehensive regulatory program
but still be weak with respect to enforcement.
The ranking of each problem area was also affected by the adequacy, on their face, of
regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authorities. For example, in the
Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants problem area, the Clean Air Act is sufficient on its face, but
many air pollutants are currently not being controlled because regulations have not been
written.
Sources oflnformation
The information contained in this paper was gained by reference to the laws themselves,
as well as by discussions with both EPA attorneys and environmental scientists. An attempt
was made to obtain detailed information about state law from Region I's Attorney Generals
but, because of the time frame within which the report had to be concluded, the state offices
were not able to respond.
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors
The ranking criteria cover various levels of legal authority and implementation, as
follows:
1: A ranking of" 1" reflects the fact that there are no laws applicable to the pollution
problem in question.
2: A ranking of "2" shows that the applicable state and/or federal laws are inadequate on
their face.
3: A ranking of "3" reflects the fact that applicable state and/or federal law exists but has not
been widely implemented.
-------
4: A ranking of "4" shows that applicable federal and/or state law is adequate on its face and
is widely implemented.
5: A ranking of "5" reflects not only the fact that the applicable federal and/or state law is
adequate on its face and widely implemented, but also that EPA and/or the states have had
enforcement success in the past, Le., there is case law supporting EPA's or the states'
positions.
Conclusions and Problem Issues
In reviewing this report on legal authorities, it should be understood that the rankings
sometimes reflect an overall evaluation that had to take into account different laws for
different media. Depending on the media involved, a particular legal authority considered
on its own might receive a ranking that differed from those given to other applicable laws if
they too were considered individually.
We were not able to gather as much detailed information concerning state law as may be
desirable for an adequate appraisal of existing authorities. Moreover, local legal authorities
were not addressed in the report due to the impracticability of obtaining sufficient
knowledge about them. In certain cases, local law may be more stringent and effective than
either state and/or federal law.
Also, the assessments of each problem area were based upon the existence or
nonexistence of EPA and/or state implemented legal authorities, and were not affected by
legal authorities implemented by other federal agencies. Although the report occasionally
describes other federal agencies' authorities, we were not able to obtain as much information
about these authorities as might be desirable, and one should not be misled, for instance, into
thinking that a ranking of "1" signifies that absolutely no federal law exists. An example of
this situation is the Indoor Air Pollutants category. Although this category received a
ranking of "1" in the report, there are federal agencies other than EPA that do have authority
over such pollutants.
V-2
-------
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings
1. Criteria Air Pollutants: ranking = 5
Federal Statutory Law: dean Air Act (CAA)
Federal Regulations: 40CFR Part 50 -National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards
40 CFR Part SI - Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans
40 CFR Part 52 - Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans
EPA has set primary and secondary standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, sulfur dioxides, ozone, and paniculate matter. This list is
to be revised from time to time: Every five years the Administrator must review criteria and
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and make any necessary revisions.
The dean Air Act (CAA) required each state to submit to the Administrator, within nine
months after the promulgation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a plan providing
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of those primary and secondary
standards in each air quality control region within the state. Included in Subpart D of the
CAA is the requirement that attainment be accomplished as expeditiously as practicable but,
in the case of National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, not later than December 31,
1982. An extension was permitted to December 31,1987, for photochemical oxidants and
carbon monoxide upon a showing that meeting the earlier deadline was impossible.
The state implementation plans were required to provide that after June 30,1979, no
major stationary source shall be constructed or modified in any nonattainment area if the
source would emit the particular pollutant, unless the construction or modification plan met
the requirements of Subpart D.
The major problem with the CAA, as it applies to this category, involves some of EPA's
interpretations of its provisions. The provisions for sanctions to be imposed for state
implementation plans (SIPs) that failed on their face or in practice were given a lenient
interpretation. These decisions will affect the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance by
the end of 1987 for ozone and carbon monoxide. The December 31,1987, date referred to
above has been designated by EPA as a target date only and not a legal date by which
attainment must occur.
The CAA also lacks prescriptive requirements, an aspect that has both advantages and
disadvantages with respect to criteria air pollutants. The lack of specific requirements gives
states much flexibility in achieving attainment, which leads to greater state acceptance of and
knowledge about the SIP. However, die Act assumes a high resource base on the pan of
states and the federal government, because states are required to take a leading role and EPA
must review widely differing state technical solutions and plans from a legal and technical
standpoint, requiring a broad base of experts.
V-3
-------
Another problem with the CAA is the fact that Section 126 has been interpreted by the
Agency and the relevant case law not to cover ozone transport This is a significant problem
on the East Coast Region I's three southern states are nonattainment areas and New
Hampshire and Maine often have illegal levels as well. Congress is presently aware of the
need for a general interstate transport provision that would cover problems such as acid rain
2. Add Deposition and Visibility: ranking
Add Deposition
The pollutants that contribute to acid deposition, sulfur dioxide (SO**) and nitrogen
oxides, are themselves regulated under the Clean Air Act However, deposition can occur
even when emissions of these compounds meet EPA standards. No federal law currently
applies directly to acid deposition itself. The dean Air Act contains no clear authority to
deal with acid rain because Section 126 of the Act has been interpreted to cover only
interstate transport of air pollutants that causes a state to violate die transport portion of
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), to exceed prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments, or to violate visibility requirements.
Several bills for acid deposition control are being considered by Congress, and a special
Congressional appropriation enabled EPA to establish the State Acid Rain (STAR) program
to identify and resolve potential problems with respect to future regulation. Studies are
being funded in 36 states. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, chaired
jointly by EPA, the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Interior,
funds research to increase our knowledge of the causes and effects of acid rain.
In Region I, only Massachusetts and New Hampshire have addressed the problem of acid
rain in legislation. New Hampshire currently has a law which calls for a 25 percent
reduction statewide in die level of SOh by 1991. An additional 25 percent reduction by
1996 is called for only if federal legislation is enacted. Massachusetts currently has a law
that calls for attainment of a certain level of S02 by 1995. Regulations are to be drafted by
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering before December 31,1988.
Visibility
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Air Act (CAA) 42 U.S.CA. 7491
Federal Regulations: 40 QFR Pan 52
V-4
-------
This section of the CAA provides for the prevention of future impairment and the
remediation of any existing impairment of visibility that results from manmade pollution in
mandatory class I federal areas. Regulations have been promulgated by EPA in order to
provide guidelines to the states. For state implementation plans there is a long-term (10 to
IS years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.
However, EPA's regulations implementing this section of the Act have not yet dealt with
widespread regional haze-type visibility impairment caused in part by long-range transport
of sulfates. EPA does not believe that the state-of-the-science is sufficiently mature to
develop a regulatory program at this time. Further research is being conducted by EPA
toward the goal of regulating regional haze in the future.
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Air Act (CAA) 112, 111
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Pan 61
The following substances have been listed in the federal regulations cited above as
hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic
arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
The following substances have been listed in various Federal Registers as posing
potentially serious health effects from ambient air exposure: acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene,
cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated benzene, chlorofluorocarbon, chloroform,
chloroprene, chromium, epichlorohydrin, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, manganese, methyl chloroform, methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene, polycyclic organic matter, toluene, trichloroethylene, vinylidene chloride.
Section 111 of the CAA, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
provides broad authority to control pollutants emitted by new sources. For existing sources,
state plans are to include the regulation of pollutants not listed in U.S.GA. 7408 (a) or
7412 (b)(l)(A) but to which a standard of performance would apply if the source were a new
source.
There is no comprehensive federal air toxics program. Although Section 112 of the
CAA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), authorizes
EPA to publish a list that "shall from time to time" be revised and to promulgate regulations
for hazardous air pollutants, it is extremely difficult to place a particular pollutant in the
NESHAPS regulations. There are presently only eight substances listed as hazardous air
pollutants, while there are many others mat should be. Congress is studying the possibility
of amending the CAA to remedy this problem. Some states do have comprehensive air
toxics programs, and the states in Region I all have some type of air toxics program. The
scope of these programs varies a great deal, as does their effectiveness. Connecticut and
Rhode Island, for example, both have air toxic regulations that cover a number of pollutants.
V-5
-------
These standards are applied to sources during the permitting process. EPA has no
enforcement authority with respect to the state programs that cover toxics not regulated
pursuant to the CAA.
The programs delegated to die states pursuant to the CAA and die federal regulations are
all direcdy enforceable by EPA. Separate delegations occur for each substance covered by
the NESHAP regulations. Unlike the State Implementation Plans required for criteria air
pollutants, states do not have to accept delegated authority for any substance listed in the
federal NESHAPs, although they are encouraged to do so. For example, Vermont, Rhode
Island, and Connecticut have not accepted the "demolition/renovation" delegation for
asbestos. The other three states in Region I have accepted the delegation for a complete
asbestos NESHAP, including me "demolition/renovation" aspect
In some cases, the state NESHAP may be less stringent man the federal NESHAP. For
example, Massachusetts, which has accepted full delegation, has an asbestos statute that only
provides for a $25,000 penalty for a violation, as compared to the federal statute that allows
for $25,000 per day for a continuing violation.
4. Radon: ranking = 1
There are no federal or state laws applicable to radon.
EPA has published guidelines that recommend levels at which homeowners should take
action.
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon: ranking = 1
Federal Statutory Law: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Regulations: TSCA regulations begin at 40 CFR Parf/OO; 40 CFR Part 763
(asbestos)
The CAA does not explicidy address indoor air pollutants. EPA can indirectly address
some of the pollutants listed in the work group's definition for this category, such as
formaldehyde inflation and asbestos, under the Toxic Substances Control Act. There are
no federal regulations concerning acceptable ambient levels of these pollutants. The use of
some chemical substances, including the pesticide chlordane, can be restricted under TSCA
by EPA's pesticides program. Congress is studying the issue of indoor air pollutants and the
applicability of the CAA.
States can also regulate the use of pesticides such as chlordane and Massachusetts has a
program for formaldehyde insulation, whereby a homeowner may qualify for state funds to
V-6
-------
remove the substance from a home. However, this is a voluntary program and cannot be
required by the state. Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently studying the problem of
indoor air pollutants at the legislative level.
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon: ranking-1
There are no federal or state laws applicable to non-ionizing radiation from sources other
than indoor radon.
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 5
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Water Act (CWA) 301,303,304,306,307,318,401,
402
Federal Regulations: NPDES 40 CFR Parts 122,123,124, etc.
The National Point Source Discharges Effluent Standards (NPDES) program requires
permits for the discharge of "pollutants" from any "point source" into "waters of the United
States." State NPDES programs may be approved but are not required. In Region I,
Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have state NPDES programs that have been
approved by EPA and are run at the state level The other three states have state permitting
programs that regulate water pollution but that supplement, rather than take the place of, the
federal NPDES program.
Sections 208 and 303 of the dean Water Act (CWA) mandate that states adopt and
periodically revise standards and develop management plans to control point source and
nonpoint source pollution. Under Section 303, states are required to develop water quality
standards sufficient to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of waters, and
serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act Under this section, all the states in Region I have
included antidegradation policies in their regulations and have requirements that waters be
"free from" toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Under Section 301(b)(l)(C), EPA must
include limitations on NPDES permits sufficient to meet water quality standards, if such
standards are more stringent than the technology-based limits mandated by Section 301.
Also, states may require EPA to include more stringent conditions through their Section 401
certifications of NPDES permits.
Industrial discharges are subject to technology-based requirements that apply either
industrywide or are set on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with these requirements is to be
achieved in accordance with statutory or regulatory milestones; all industrial dischargers
must comply with "best available treatment economically achievable" or "best conventional
pollution control technology" no later than March 31,1989. New permits are issued every
V-7
-------
five years and are frequently more stringent than prior ones due to new federal standards or
more stringent state regulations.
For the most part, federal law and related regulatory schemes provide EPA with the tools
it needs to address the problem. State laws and regulations also provide additional authority
to deal with the problem.
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 5
Federal Statutory Law: dean Water Act (CWA) 307,402.405 (a)
Federal Regulations: NFDES 40 CFR Parts 122,123,124
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution, 40 CFR Part 403
As with problem area #7, Industrial Point Source Discharges, the National Point Source
Discharges Effluent Standards (NPDES) program is applicable to POTW (Publicly Owned
Treatment Works) discharges. The state laws referred to above are also applicable. In
addition, Sections 208 and 303 of the dean Water Act apply to POTWs.
As with the previous category, the federal regulatory program is generally sufficiently
effective to deal with the problem defined. 40 CFR Part 403 establishes responsibilities of
federal, state, and local governments and industry to implement National Pretreatment
Standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with treatment processes in
POTWs or that may contaminate sewage sludge.
In most cases, POTWs must develop, obtain EPA approval of, and implement
pretreatment programs to control discharges. EPA has published categorical
standards that apply industrywide. There are a variety of pretreatment compl
netreatment
ance deadlines
for indirect discharges, and therefore it is difficult to generalize about them. In addition,
POTWs establish local limits that apply to some or all discharges to the system.
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Water Act (CWA) 208,303,319
Nonpoint Source Management Programs
Federal Regulations: Water Quality Planning and Management
40 CFR Part 130
V-8
-------
Prior to the recent amendments to the dean Water Act, this problem had not been
adequately addressed under 208. Aside from the practical problems in dealing with nonpoint
source pollution, 208 authorized no federal regulatory program, requiring only state
programs.
The most recent amendments to the CWA contain Section 319, entitled "Nonpoint
Source Management Programs." It remains to be seen whether this new authority provides a
way to address the problem adequately. The conference committee's special report mentions
that many states had nonpoint source pollution control programs prior to the passage of the
recent amendments but that they were not very effective. The new law is intended to be
much more comprehensive and effective. Section 319 of the CWA requires states to submit
assessment reports and state management program*?, to be implemented within the first four
fiscal yeaxs after the date of submission. A report by each state is to be submitted for EPA
approval by August 1988, identifying all state waters that are not expected to meet water
quality standards because of nonpoint source pollution and presenting a management
program for controlling the pollution. The purpose of the programs is to control pollution
added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within the state and also to improve the
quality of such waters. At this time, all six states in Region I have submitted the required
assessments, which are in the process of being evaluated by EPA. If a state plan is approved,
EPA will provide financial assistance to that state.
40 CFR Part 130 establishes policies and program requirements for water quality
planning, management, and implementation under various sections of the Clean Water Act.
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from All
Sources: ranking = 4
Federal Statutory Law: dean Water Act (CWA) 208,301,303,304,306,
307,317,320,318,401,402,403
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Coastal Zone Management Act
Section 403 of the Clean Water Act requires the Administrator to promulgate guidelines
for determining the degradation of the waters of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and
the oceans. Any permits issued under 402 must be in compliance with these guidelines.
Sections 317 and 320 of the dean Water Act establish the National Estuary Program. Its
purposes are to identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution,
development, or overuse; promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation
management of, nationally significant estuaries; encourage the preparation of management
plans for estuaries of national significance; and enhance the coordination of estuary research.
V-9
-------
Although it is not a fault of the statute, EPA has not focused on municipal (POTWs)
discharges to coastal areas because it has concentrated on industrial discharges. In general,
varying compliance deadlines apply depending on the source, and nonpoint sources do not
need permits at all The comments made concerning point and nonpoint discharges in
problem areas #7 and #9 apply to this category as well.
The Marine Restoration and Protection Act (MRPA) of 1972 aims to identify areas of the
marine environment of special national significance due to their resource or human use
values; to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
management of these marine areas that will complement existing regulatory authorities; to
support, promote, and coordinate scientific research and monitoring of the resources of these
marine areas; to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the
marine environment; and to facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of
resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities. The Secretary of Commerce is given primary
authority to administer the MRPA. Under the MRPA, EPA is required to protect oceans
from indiscriminate dumping of wastes. The Agency is authorized to designate safe sites for
dumping and to assess penalties for improper dumping.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which is applicable to the peripheral
states, the federal government is to encourage and assist states in developing and carrying
out management programs to preserve, protect, develop, and whenever possible restore the
resources of the coastal zone of the United States. State plans must be approved by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration but are not required. Federal funds are
offered for the preparation and implementation of state plans that meet federal approval.
Although the plans are administered by the states, they must include consideration of
designated federal policy interests. EPA is not given administrative authority under the
CZMA.
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss: ranking -2
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Water Act (CWA) 404
Executive Order No. 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Part 230
Section 404 of the CWA requires both EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
protect waters against degradation and destruction caused by discharge of dredged or fill
material. This section's provisions extends to the nation's wetlands. Under Section 404
EPA has the following authority:
1. Under a memorandum of understanding with the Corps mandated by 404(q), EPA
must be consulted, and its comments considered, in the Corps' permit decisions.
2. Section 404(b)(l) requires EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, to issue guidelines
that are to be applied by the Corps in deciding whether to issue a permit.
V-10
-------
3. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to veto the Corps' issuance of a permit
4. Under an opinion of the U.S. Attorney General, EPA (rather than the Corps) has the
final authority to make the wetlands determination.
There are two problems with the CWA as it relates to wetlands. First, it only regulates the
discharge of fill and dredged material, while many other types of destruction are part of this
problem area. Second, the statute has divided the authority to address the problem between
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA.
Executive Order No. 11990, signed May 24,1977, requires federal agencies to take action
to avoid adversely impacting wetlands wherever possible, to minimize wetlands destruction
and to preserve the values of wetlands, and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies
and procedures of this Executive Order. EPA policy and guidance for carrying out the
provisions of Executive Order 11990 are set forth in the Agency's Statement of Procedures in
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A. The Executive Order applies to activities of federal agencies
pertaining to (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities,
(2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements, and
(3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to
water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
State laws governing wetlands protection in New England tend to be better established
than elsewhere in the country. However, state laws are a patchwork of varying definitions,
threshold requirements, and effectiveness. Several state laws are administered by local
conservation commissions in each city or town. States also have important authority in the
404 program by virtue of their power under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to issue,
waive, or deny water quality certification for federal permits and licenses; the states are
allowed to address interstate effects under 401(a) of the Act Where appropriate, states have
similar authority to make "consistency determinations" under die Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA). Many states have within the last few years used their 401 certification and the
CZM consistency reviews to deny or modify general permits proposed by the Army Corps of
Engineers, although the Corps is now moving to limit the state's authority in this regard.
The 401 certification process exerts considerable influence on permit decisions and can be
a valuable tool to protect wetlands, but 401 certification procedures vary greatly from state to
state within Region I and in general appear to be underused as a mechanism to protect natural
resources, especially wetlands.
Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Army Corps of Engineers must solicit
stales' views about proposed projects requiring 404 permits. EPA may also comment directly
to the states about proposed permits that will require authorization under Section 404.
States with programs that comply with EPA's state program regulations may administer
die 404 program; EPA approves the assumption of 404 permitting authority upon application
by qualified states. The Clean Water Act allows the assumption of permitting authority to
V-ll
-------
occur only for waters that are not tidal or traditionally navigable. This fact, coupled with the
lack of direct financial support for assumed programs, has left most states uninterested in
pursuing the permitting assumption of the federal program. Michigan is the only state in the
country that has assumed 404 permitting authority.
12. Drinking Water: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and 1986 Amendments
. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Pan 141
40 CFR Part 761
Subject to variances and exemptions listed elsewhere in the SWDA, Section 1411
authorizes the establishment of national primary drinking water regulations that are intended
to be applicable to each public water system in each state. However, such regulations shall
not apply to a public water system that:
1. Consists only of distribution and storage facilities (and does not have any collection
and treatment facilities)
2. Obtains all of its water from, but is not owned or operated by, a public water system to
which such regulations apply
3. Does not sell water to any person
4. Is not a carrier conveying passengers in interstate commerce
The definition of the term "public" in the SDWA is sufficiently broad to include almost
any source of drinking water that serves 25 people or IS connections. 40 CFR part 141
contains die National Primary Drinking Water regulations. 40 CFR Part 142 contains the
National Interim Primary Prinking Water Regulations Implementation.
The SDWA also contains sections that protect aquifers and wellhead protection areas,
including a section entitled "Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program." The "sole source"
program protects critical aquifer protection areas located within areas designated as sole or
principal source aquifers under the Act Under the section entitled "State Programs to
Establish Wellhead Protection Areas," states are to adopt a program to protect wellhead areas
within their jurisdiction from contaminants that may have any adverse effect on the health of
persons. A wellhead protection area is the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water
well or wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are
reasonably likely to move toward and reach.
The SDWA was amended in June of 1986. It is therefore difficult at this time to assess
the adequacy of the law. However, prior to the amendments, there was a significant
enforcement problem with the SDWA. The federal government had no direct enforcement
V-12
-------
authority because the states had primacy. A long process, which included a finding by EPA
that states had abused their authority, was required before EPA could take any enforcement
action. The 1986 amendments solved this problem to some extent, by shortening the time
after which EPA could act following insufficient state enforcement and requiring only that
EPA find the state's enforcement action "inadequate." The states still have primacy,
however, provided their requirements are "as stringent" as the federal ones. All states in
Region I have primacy.
The 1986 amendments to the Act recognize 83 contaminants for which regulations must
be developed. The Administrator must publish Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and
promulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for not less than nine of the listed
contaminants within one year of the enactment of the amendments. Another 40 of the listed
contaminants must be regulated within two years of the date of enactment. The remainder of
the contaminants are to be regulated within three years of enactment of the amendments. At
the rime of the 1986 amendments, 21 contaminants were Covered by the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. The amendments upgraded these regulations to National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. These 21 contaminants are included in the 83 identified
by the amendments.
Section 319 of die CWA provides for federal grants to states for the development of
nonpoint source pollution programs. These funds may also be used to protect ground water
(see problem area #19).
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) prohibits the spillage of PCBs onto the ground and
could be invoked if ground water used for drinking purposes were to become contaminated.
13. RCRA Waste Sites: ranking = 4
Federal Statutory Law: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Part 262,263,264,265, etc.
Subtitle C of RCRA covers hazardous waste (HW) management EPA is required to
develop and promulgate criteria for identifying the characteristics of HW and for listing HW.
Such criteria may be revised from time to time. Following these criteria, the Administrator
is to promulgate regulations identifying and listing HW. Subtitle C authorizes the
promulgation of regulations for standards applicable to generators and transporters of HW
and to owners and operators of HW treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
In general, RCRA's regulatory aspect consists of a detailed preventive program of
standards for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. This program covers
everything except solid waste management The cleanup aspect of RCRA requires
responsible parties to document releases and authorizes the federal government to undertake
studies and to take corrective action. This aspect of RCRA includes solid waste
management.
V-13
-------
40 CFR Parts 262,263,264, and 265 contain the above mentioned regulations relating to
the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of HW.
In Region I, all states except Maine and Connecticut currently have federally approved
hazardous waste management programs pursuant to Subtitle C Maine's program is in the
final stages of authorization. Connecticut has its own state hazardous waste management
program. No states have the authority to take corrective action.
There may be some double-counting with Superfund waste sites because some RCRA
landfills have become Superfund sites. Also, if a Superfund waste site is closed it must be
done in such a way as to conform to RCRA requirements.
RCRA generally addresses the elements of this problem area. The difficulty in
implementing the statute involves the unresolved question of what, exactly, is the remedial
goal EPA has the authority to study and clean up but is always struggling with die precise
standards that should be met
14. Superfund Waste Sites: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Federal regulations: 40 CFR beginning at Part 300
CERCLA requires EPA to promulgate and revise regulations designating hazardous
substances, including such elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances that
when released into the environment may present substantial danger to the public health,
welfare, or the environment EPA also must promulgate and revise regulations for the
hazardous substances listed in 101 (14):
a. Any substance in Section 311 (b)(2)(A) of the FWPCA
b. Any substance in Section 102 of CERCLA
c. Any HW having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to 3001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act
d. Any toxic pollutant listed under Section 307 (a) of the FWPCA
e. Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the dean Air Act
f . Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which EPA
has taken action pursuant to TSCA.
Recent amendments to CERCLA are the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The federal CERCLA regulations wUl be revised pursuant to SARA. The National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, established by the regulations,
V-14
-------
will put into effect the response powers and responsibilities created by CERCLA and the
authorities established by Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
The SARA amendments substantially change EPA's settlement policy and make cleanup
requirements more stringent. CERCLA requires EPA to begin 170 remedial actions and a
certain number of remedial investigations and feasibility studies by mid-1989. Thus it is
difficult to evaluate the statute or regulations at this time.
With respect to the sufficiency of the statutory law prior to SARA, not many sites have
actually been cleaned up but the Act generally addresses the problem and EPA has won most
of the litigated issues. Although Superfund generally addresses the problem for which it was
designed, the larger problem of limiting the generation of waste has not been addressed.
/5. Municipal Waste Sites: ranking = 2
Federal Statutory Law: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Municipal law
Subtitle D of RCRA addresses municipal waste sites. It provides for state-implemented
programs. EPA sets the standards for sanitary landfills but has limited authority to enforce
these standards. EPA's regulations, promulgated pursuant to Subtitle D, are currently being
revised. Under EPA's unrevised regulations, Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only
states in Region I with approved state programs.
Under RCRA Section 7003, EPA has authority to take action when an imminent hazard
exists. In reality this authority is severely limited, given the number of sites involved. Most
municipal waste sites are thought to be problem areas.
Although Subtitle D addresses the issue of regulating these waste sites, it does not address
the problem of the amount of waste being generated and the fact that we are running out of
usable space to accommodate it. Therefore, it could be said that the legislation is not really
adequate to deal with the problem. Furthermore, no federal program is authorized in the event
states do not obtain federal approval of their state programs.
16. Industrial Waste Sites: ranking-2
Federal Statutory Law: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The objectives of Subtitle D of RCRA are to assist in developing and encouraging
methods for solid waste disposal that are environmentally sound, that maximize the utilization
of valuable resources (including energy and materials, which are recoverable from solid
waste), and that encourage resource conservation. RCRA provides for federal approval of
state programs and the comments made under problem area #15 concerning Subtitle D also
apply here.
V-15
-------
17. Accidental Releases: ranking = 5
Federal Statutory Law: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Clean Water Act (CWA) 31 l(c)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Clean Air Act (NESHAP)
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, addresses accidental releases (see problem area #3).
Both the CWA and CERCLA require notification to the government of discharges of
"reportable quantities," which is dependent upon the substance involved. If the discharge is to
water, Section 311 of the CWA applies; if the discharge is to land, Section 103 of CERCLA
applies.
In terms of cleanup, CERCLA provides for Superfund response action, both for short-term
emergency removal action and long-term remedial action. The Clean Water Act also provides
for emergency removal action. There is enforcement authority under both Sections 106 of
CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA to deal with parties responsible for the discharges. The
standard under these sections is whether an imminent hazard exists. RCRA and CERCLA
both provide for cost recovery in these circumstances. It is possible to argue that, depending
on the substances involved, such releases are unpermitted disposals of hazardous waste. This
would enable the RCRA regulatory program to be applied to the problem.
TSCA provides authority to prevent the improper disposal of PCBs. Any spilling onto the
ground of PCBs is prohibited. The only acceptable disposal methods are licensed incinerators
and landfills. The Administrator is required by the statute to regulate PCBs. The federal
regulatory program is generally effective in dealing with problems posed by PCBs. State laws
and regulations addressing PCBs are not more stringent than the federal law and regulations.
18. Releases from Storage Tanks: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Federal regulations: 40 CFR Part 280--Interim Prohibition
40 CFR Part 112
Subtitle I of RCRA authorizes the federal government, and state governments under
federally approved programs, to regulate underground storage tanks (USTs) and to take
corrective action in response to releases from such tanks. These tanks may contain petroleum
or other "regulated substances." The federal regulations in 40 CFR Pan 280 address
V-16
-------
underground storage tanks for purposes of the Interim Prohibition. Under the Interim
Prohibition, owners and operators are prohibited from installing or maintaining insufficiently
protected tanks. The final EPA regulations covering underground storage tanks are expected
to be published in late spring.
EPA is attempting to delegate programs to the states in Region I. Connecticut, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Maine are farthest along in terms of obtaining the state statutory
authorities necessary for state program approval. Bills that aim to provide necessary
authorities for a federally approved program are currently before the legislatures in all six of
the Region's states. EPA began the process of state program approval in the spring of 1988
and is hopeful that all six states will eventually have delegated programs.
In Region I, all states have some authority to regulate USTs independently of Subtitle I.
Regulatory programs vary from state to state.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) contains an
amendment to Subtitle I of RCRA that establishes the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund (LUST Trust Fund). This fund applies only to petroleum releases from USTs.
EPA, and the states that have cooperative agreements with EPA, will be able to utilize the
Fund for a number of activities, the most important of which are to:
-- Order owners and operators of USTs to clean up leaks
- Conduct cleanups that are necessary to protect human health and the
environment
-- Recover the costs of these enforcement actions or cleanups
The allocation of money from the LUST Trust Fund to the states in Region I has begun.
With respect to above-ground storage tanks, the CWA and EPA's regulations
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 112 establish the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan. The program requires owners of tanks containing oil with capacity greater than
660 gallons to develop and maintain plans for the prevention of spills and for responses to
releases. However, these regulations are only applicable to releases to the "navigable waters
of the United States or adjoining shorelines," and hence would seem not to be applicable to
releases to ground water. Furthermore, these regulations only cover oil pollution and do not
cover other substances of concern to the Risk Management Work Group. Some Senators
have filed legislation addressing the issue of above-ground tanks as an attempt to obtain
clearer and more stringent rules and regulations. In Region I, state laws addressing above-
ground storage tanks are almost nonexistent, and existing laws are considered inadequate by
EPA.
This problem area involves two separate categories, underground storage tanks and
above-ground storage tanks. Had the issue of above-ground storage tank pollution been set
off as a category on its own, the problem area would have received a ranking of "2."
However, the problem area, as defined by the work group, seemed to warrant an overall
ranking of "3."
V-17
-------
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Clean Water Act (CWA) 319
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR144,145,146,147,149
40 CFR Part 761; 40 CFR Part 130
Through the Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal government has delegated underground
injection control programs to all six states in our region (see problem area #12). For this
category, Region I's major concern is Class V injection wells. Class V injection wells include
drainage wells, geothermal reinjection wells, domestic wastewater disposal wells, mineral and
fossil fuel recovery wells, industrial/commercial/utility disposal wells, and recharge wells, in
•addition to other miscellaneous wells.
Road salt, irrigation practices, fertilizer leaching, and similar sources are considered
nonpoint sources for determining legal authority. Prior to the recent amendments to the
CWA, the federal statutes have not adequately dealt with the problem of nonpoint source
pollution (see comments in problem area #9). Septic systems-another potential source-are
included in Class V injection wells.
Section 319 of the CWA, aided by the recent amendments, provides for federal grants to
states for nonpoint source management programs. Included in this grant program are funds
that can be used for ground-water quality protection. The conference committee's special
report states that the new law provides for "a much more comprehensive effort."
TSCA addresses any spill of PCBs onto the ground. If PCBs actually contaminate ground
water, the statute provides for penalties and for a grant of jurisdiction for equitable relief. The
federal regulatory program concerning PCBs is generally effective for this problem area.
State laws and programs concerning the regulation of PCBs are not more stringent than the
federal law and regulations.
20. Pesticide Residues on Food: ranking = 4
Federal Statutory Law: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Federal and state authorities are, on their face, adequate to address this problem area.
FIFRA sets pesticide tolerances. The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act monitors
pesticides in foods through marketplace sampling, authorizes regulatory action where
permitted residue levels are exceeded, and prohibits use of materials that are animal
carcinogens.
V-18
-------
States may, but are not required to, set pesticide tolerances. If they do, these must be more
stringent than those set by FIFRA. Some states also monitor pesticides on foods. All states
have authority to remove foodstuffs where health is threatened; most have authority to
implement regulatory constraints where permitted residue levels are exceeded.
The federal Food and Drug Administration has enforcement authority for this problem
area.
21. Pesticide Application: ranking = 4
Federal Statutory Law: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FEFRA establishes application parameters/restrictions through label registration and
approval. Almost all enforcement-of-use provisions of FIFRA are delegated to states through
EPA grants. Certification and training of applicators is totally within state purview (see
problem area #20).
22. Lead: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Air Act (CAA)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Parts 50,51, etc.
40 CFR Parts 141,142, etc.
40 CFR Pan 261
Lead is a criteria air pollutant regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) pursuant to the CAA (see problem area #1). Under the Act, State Implementation
Plans are designed to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for lead. There
are currently no states in New England that are nonattainment areas with respect to lead.
Even when states are not in violation of NAAQS, they must establish and submit to EPA new
source review procedures to assure maintenance of acceptable levels.
The Safe Drinking Water Act deals independently with the problem of lead
contamination. The 1986 amendments to the Act include a prohibition against the use of lead
pipes for water systems. The amendments forbid the use of pipe, solder, or flux that is not
lead-free in the installation or repair of any public water system or in any plumbing system
providing water for human consumption. Public notice is required where there is lead content
in the construction materials of the public water supply and/or where the water is sufficiently
corrosive to cause leaching of lead. Prior to the amendments, some states had such a
prohibition, but the 1986 amendments mark the first instance that this standard has appeared
in the federal law.
V-19
-------
The new SDWA regulations, promulgated on October 28,1987, establish public notice
requirements pertaining to lead. By June 19,1988, the owner or operator of each community
water system and each nontransient, noncommunity water system that is not "lead free" shall
issue notice to persons served by the system who may be affected by lead contamination of
their drinking water. This must be done even though current standards are not being violated.
The state may require subsequent notices. EPA has set drinking-water standards and has
determined that lead is a health concern at certain levels of exposure. Currently the standard
is O.OSO pans per million (ppm). Based on new health information, EPA is likely to lower
this standard significantly. The new federal regulations require all states to enforce the
requirements pertaining to public notices for lead. If the Administrator determines that a state
is not enforcing these requirements, the Administrator may withhold up to 5 percent of the
state's program grant fund.
The statutory definition of hazardous waste is very broad in RCRA and includes lead.
RCRA is not effective in dealing with the problem of lead contamination to soil, largely
because there is no authority under Section 7003 for EPA to expend EPA resources to
remediate a particular site. EPA must issue an order to the landowner or other responsible
party. If the order is not adhered to, EPA must litigate or obtain an injunction.
With respect to the normal regulatory framework in RCRA, there are two problems
concerning the control of lead pollution: First, under the RCRA regulations, for lead to be
addressed, it must be a hazardous waste under the EP toxiciry test. Lead in soil does not
ordinarily fall into the hazardous waste category under the test, i.e., it is not EP toxic. This is
the case even though lead is a hazardous waste under the statute. Even if it were considered a
hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations, lead would in many cases be exempted as a
household waste. EPA is presently working on changing the EP toxicity test. Second, the test
itself only considers toxic those substances that leach out when in soil. If the substance is
"stable" it is not considered a risk. This definition was intended to protect ground water,
however, it ignores the obvious problem of direct contact with the substance in the soil. Lead
does not dissipate in soil sufficiently to render it harmless.
Lead is a hazardous substance under the Clean Water Act The definition of hazardous
waste in Section 101 of CERCLA refers to the Clean Water Act's definition of hazardous
waste and therefore includes lead. The Superfund Amendments (SARA) authorize the
Administrator to develop a demonstration project ($15 million) to investigate the effect of
removal of lead-contaminated soil.
CERCLA more fully covers the problem of lead pollution than does RCRA. EPA has the
authority to perform removal activities. Residential yards are legally and technically within
the reach of allowable removal activities. However, as a matter of policy, EPA has decided
not to perform any removal activities on residential properties.
The SARA amendments also required an overview study of lead pollution. Affected
populations, sources of lead contamination, and the resulting effects were all part of this
study. The report was released in July 1988.
Whereas EPA has less authority to deal with interior lead pollution (except with water),
the states have more authority for interior than exterior pollution sites. The split of authority
over interior/exterior problems leads to complications at the remedy stage.
V-20
-------
23. Asbestos: ranking = 5
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Air Act (CAA) 112
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Part 61 (NESHAP);
40 CFR Part 763; 40 CFR Part 141,142
Asbestos is one of the designated hazardous air pollutants under the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air
ACL The NESHAP regulations require die removal of friable asbestos-contaminated material
(ACM) prior to demolition or renovation projects that may disturb the ACM. The intent of
the NESHAP is to prevent contamination of the ambient air. Three states in the region have
accepted delegation of the full asbestos NESHAP. Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island
have declined the demolition/renovation aspect of the asbestos NESHAP. One of the
problems with the Clean Air Act is its lack of a provision authorizing administrative
assessment of penalties in addition to court assessment of penalties.
Asbestos is covered under TSCA for inspecting structures. Depending on the amount and
condition of the asbestos found, the Act provides for repair or removal of the substance.
Regulations governing the identification and management of ACM in school buildings and
the protection of public employees who perform asbestos abatement work are found under
TSCA. Also under TSCA. the Agency has established accreditation requirements for asbestos
abatement professionals. Many states have statutes and regulations concerning asbestos
removal.
Under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, EPA is directed to promulgate
regulations that provide a framework for addressing asbestos problems in public and private
elementary and secondary schools. The rule requires schools to inspect buildings, develop
management plans, and implement response actions. EPA's final rule was issued on
October 17,1987, in accordance with die statutory deadline.
The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA) was enacted in 1984. Under
ASHAA, the Agency has funded university-based centers to provide training, provided funds
for states to develop asbestos programs, and helped schools finance abatement projects.
Many state and local authorities enforce regulatory requirements addressing the
identification and management of ACM in buildings, the removal and disposal of ACM, and
the training and accreditation of those performing asbestos abatement projects.
The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1986 address the problem of asbestos in
drinking water.
V-21
-------
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments: ranking = 3
Federal Statutory Law: Clean Water Act (CWA) 314
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Executive Order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands
Federal Regulations: See categories #7 and #9, above
In general, the Clean Water Act treats the bodies of water in this category in the same way
as other waters. Under the recent amendments to the dean Water Act, each state is required
to prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval:
1. An identification and classification, according to eutrophic condition, of all publicly
owned lakes in the state
2. A description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use requirements,
to control sources of pollution of such lakes
3. A description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate federal
agencies, to restore die quality of such lakes
The Administrator is authorized and directed to establish and conduct a lalce water quality
demonstration program. The Administrator is also required to publish and disseminate a lake
restoration guidance manual to guide state and local officials.
Under Section 3005 of RCRA, Permits for Treatment, Storage, or Disposal of Hazardous
Waste, each surface impoundment in existence on the date of enactment of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and qualifying for operation shall not receive, store, or
treat hazardous waste after a date four years following the date of enactment, unless such
surface impoundment is in compliance with certain requirements that would apply to such
impoundment if it were new. Under Section 3005, the Administrator is required to
promulgate regulations requiring each person owning or operating an existing facility or
planning to construct a new facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
to have a permit issued pursuant to this section.
RCRA is only applicable to surface impoundments that contain hazardous waste.
Executive Order No. 11990 states that "wetlands" generally includes natural ponds.
Because nonpoint source pollution is the primary problem for this category and is
addressed by the recent amendments to the Clean Water Act, this problem area received a
ranking of "3."
V-22
-------
VL Effective Technology Factor
Definition of Factor/Background
The effective technology factor identifies and evaluates the existence of pollution-control
methods that reduce the risk in each of the listed problem areas. The methods may include
pollution-control equipment and technologies and/or imposition of operation and maintenance
(O & M) or management practices. This factor addresses only the extent to which such
methods exist; costs of their imposition are covered by the economic impacts- factor
(Chapter IV).
Sources of Information
The major, and in some cases only, source of information was the regional program office
for the particular problem area. A copy of the standard questionnaire sent to them is attached.
Other sources, where needed, included any of the following:
• Regulations and associated development documents
• Program-specific guidance documents
• Training course materials, textbooks, etc.
• Other EPA publications
• EPA hotlines
• Industry/trade/scientific periodicals
Ranking Criteria and Adjustment Factors
The effective technology ranking considers the reliability and efficiency of existing
methods as well as their applicability in reducing problems that remain despite current
measures imposed in each problem area. The ranking process begins by identifying possible
technologies and fitting them into categories 1 through 4, as defined below. Category 4
includes the most reliable technologies; technologies given the lower numbers become
increasingly less certain. These initial rankings are then modified using the adjustment factors
defined below, which account for the individual technology's efficiency, the amount of the
problem to which the technology can be applied, and the size of the presently existing
problem as it relates to the technology's reduction potential.
-------
Initial Technology Rankings
1. Experimental technology: pilot-stage technology, unproven for widespread
application, or no apparent technology
2. New technology: coming out of the pilot phase but not yet in widespread
full-scale use
3. Proven technology: more time and experimentation required than in category
4 to fit the technology to individual applications:
- O & M/management practices that involve major process changes
- Borrowed technology, Le., adaptable from one industry to another
4. Off-the-shelf technology: little implementation delay for testing or
modification:
- O & M/management practices that are easy to implement
Adjustment Factors
• Base assumption for the Tanking is that the technology is 75 percent efficient
and applies to most sources of die problem area.
• If the technology exceeds 75 percent efficiency but applies only to a minority of
sources, reduce the rank by one level
• If the technology is less than 75 percent efficient and applies to or is effective for
a majority of the problem area's sources, reduce the ranking by one level.
• A technology less than 75 percent efficient that applies to or is effective for a
minority of a problem area's sources would reduce ranking by two levels.
• If a technology is less than 50 percent efficient but applies to or is effective for a
majority of the problem area's sources, reduce the ranking by two levels.
1 "Efficiency" denotes only the technology's innate efficiency, not its perceived
effectiveness on the problem area. The effectiveness accounts for both the
technology's efficiency and its applicability to the problem area, the latter of which is
separately considered in the adjustment factors.
VI-2
-------
• A technology less than SO percent efficient, which applies to or is effective for a
minority of a problem's sources, would reduce final ranking by three levels.
• If the size of the remaining problem is large enough so that technology has great
reduction potential, raise die ranking by one level unlessthe initial ranking is 1
(no apparent technology).
The following example is provided for illustration.
Applicability
Technology or
Applies to all or
nearly all sources
Applies to a
majority of
Applies only to a
small number of
pracuce efficiency orproDiem prooiems sources prooiems sources
<99%
>75%
<75%
<50%
NC
NC
01
D2
NC
NC
D1
02
NC
01
02
03
R »raise,
0 -drop_
NC a no change"
.number of levels
number of levels
Technology estimated as off-the-shelf.
Ranking °
4 :Technology = off-the-shelf
+1 :Big problem remains
-1 :< 75% efficient, applies to most of problem
size of'the problem that remains after the current level of reduction/control
activity leads to an upward ranking adjustment if the size is large enough, because
even a relatively inefficient technology might get a worthwhile reduction when
applied to a large problem. Of course, that could not be true if there were no
technology available (initial ranking of 1).
VI-3
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
A tabular summary of the effective technology rankings is attached. The ranking process
shows that while technologies available for the 24 problem areas do vary in reliability, there
are no problem areas without any effective control technologies. Furthermore, most of the
problem areas ranked fairly high (4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5), with no problem area rankings
below mid-range (3). Thus, the reliability of available technologies for most problem areas is
relatively well-proven, not experimental.
With more time and more detailed information for this ranking process, slightly different
or more accurate numbers might result, especially in problem areas with complicated mixtures
of pollutants, media, or technologies. However, given the necessary assumptions about types
of sources and changes over time, it is likely that any improvement in estimates would be
small and that the relative ranking would change very little. Therefore, we would not
recommend spending significant effort to make the ranking process for this factor more
detailed.
VI-4
-------
Summary of Effective Technology Ratings
Rating
1. Criteria Air Pollutants 4
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility 5
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants 5
4. Radon . 4
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon 4
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon 4
7. Industrial Point Sources Discharges to Surface Waters 5
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters 5
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters 4
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from All Sources 5
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss 3
12. Drinking Water 4
13. RCRA Waste Sites 4
14. Superfund Waste Sites 3
15. Municipal Waste Sites 4
16. Industrial Waste Sites 4
17. Accidental Releases 3
18. Releases from Storage Tanks 4
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination 3
20. Pesticide Residues on Foods 4
21. Pesticide Application - 4
22. Lead 4
23. Asbestos 5
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments 5
VI-5
-------
Problem Area Assessments and Rankings
1. Criteria Air Pollutants: ranking = 4
Criteria pollutant emissions are controlled by a wide range of technologies, from new
technology to off-the-shelf technology, most of which are greater than 75 percent efficient
Off-the-shelf technologies include catalytic converters for mobile sources of NOx, VOC
(precursor for ozone), and CO, scrubbers and fuel switching for stationary SO2 sources;
baghouses and cyclones for stationary paniculate sources and incinerators for stationary VOC
sources; and inmirnization of lead in gasoline. Proven technologies include solvent recovery
units or reformulation for VOC sources, burner redesign and operation for NOx and CO
control, and electrostatic precipitators for control of stationary paniculate sources. Some new
technologies, such as mobile diesel paniculate traps and internal diesel engine modifications
for NOx control, also exist. The existing criteria pollutant problem from mobile sources is
fairly small, because most of the older, less-controlled vehicles are no longer in use.
However, some of the criteria pollutants, such as ozone and SOo, still have large enough
stationary source problems to allow for great reduction potential with more technology. The
overall category ranking comes from a combination of die available technologies' rankings.
The rankings were weighted on the basis of their associated pollutant's relative contribution to
the criteria air pollutant problem. This contribution was projected from the pollutant's
relative mass of emissions, not from any assumed relative risk.
Categoiy
Technology
Efficiency
•«•• » T"V
AODncaDUlQ0
Existing
Problem
Pntilrfog
NO,
Mnftl*/ Sntiimmy
4
3
X
X
•1 NC
NC NC
3 3
SOj
Matte/ Stukouy
NA 4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA X
NA
NA
NA
NA NC
NA
NA +1
NA
NA
NA 5
CO
Motile/ Sirionuy
4
3
X X
NC NC
NC NC
4 3
PT
Mobile/ S^l'T'ry
4
2
X X
NC NC
NC
NC
2 4
oyvoc
Mobile/ StiHtamiy
4
3
X X
NC
NC
+1
NC
4 4
Off Shelf
Proven
New Technology
Experimental
None
>99%
>7S%
50%-75%
<50%
Nearly all
Majority
Small
Large
Moderate
Small
xxxxxxxxxx
Weighted Average = 3.86 = 4; Lead in air a 4 (See problem area #22.)
VI-6
-------
2. Acid Deposition and Visibility: ranking - 5
The control of the sulfur compound emissions that result in acid deposition and impaired
visibility can be accomplished by scrubbing, fuel switching, or coal cleaning. All of these
technologies are proven and require little individual adaptation. Their application, requiring
only the will to bear the costs, is greater than 75 percent efficient and suitable for most of the
problem area. The large existing problem could be reduced effectively by these
technologies.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efffo/majority (NC) + large (+1) = 5
3. Hazardous/Toxic Air Pollutants: ranking = 5
This category covers a wide array of pollutants. Although applicable technologies
depend upon both the pollutant and its source, most are off-the-shelf or at least proven
technologies. They include baghouses, cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, burner controls
and design, management/O & M practices, public education programs, incineration, flaring,
solvent recovery, reformulation, gasoline refueling controls, and others. Most of these are
greater than 75 percent efficient in controlling hazardous and toxic air pollutants. However,
problems arise both in identifying specific areas of concern and in bearing the costs of
needed controls, so the existing addressable problem is large.
off-the-shelf or proven (3 or 4) + >75% effic./majority (NQ + large (+1) = 4 or 5
4. Radon: ranking=4
Methods for reducing indoor radon levels have been developed and proven by EPA's
Office of Research and Development, but they all require some time and experimentation to
apply to individual cases. The technologies, which include such things as repairing
foundation cracks, aerating water to pre-remove dissolved radon, and directing air flow away
from the house's exterior foundation surface, are greater than 75 percent efficient and apply
to a majority of the problem area. The remaining problem that these technologies could
effectively reduce is large.
proven (3) + >75% efficVmajority (NC) + large (+1) = 4
5. Indoor Air Pollutants Other than Radon: ranking = 4
Technologies available include product substitution or restricted usage (i.e.,
formaldehyde and solvents), increased building ventilation (which takes time to design),
public education to change behavior patterns (i.e., smoking), and mechanical air cleaners.
House plants may also help somewhat, but they are not a major control method. The most
effective method is increasing ventilation, since it is a proven technology with greater than
VI-7
-------
75 percent efficiency and applies to the majority of this problem area. The large existing
problem could be reduced by ventilation measures.
proven (3) + >75% effic./majority (NC) + large (+1) = 4
6. Radiation from Sources Other than Radon: ranking = 4
The primary source of this problem is FM radio transmitters, which can be controlled by
off-the-shelf means such as creating or extending a fenced-off area around the base of the
transmitting tower. Customized technological solutions have also been proven; most involve
installation of new antennas (versus new towers). The erection of cyclone-type fences and
warning signs is greater than 75 percent efficient in controlling the problem and applies to
the majority of the problem area. At present, the problem size is estimated as moderate.
However, if a connection is found between 60-cycle magnetic fields and childhood
leukemia, the potential problem could be massive. It might require rewiring of numerous
homes and schools. Questions about effective technology in such a situation are
unanswerable at this time.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVmajority (NC) + moderate (NC) = 4
7. Industrial Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 5
Industrial dischargers usually have treatment procedures for the pollutant stream.
However, many discharges will require additional treatment for toxic pollutants and effluent
toxicity before water quality standards are met The technologies to achieve this, while
sometimes expensive, are generally well-developed. Those technologies include in-plant
process modifications, biological treatment improvements and chemical addition, filtration,
air stripping, nitrification/denitrification, and sulfide precipitation. The technologies also can
be very efficient, greater than 90 percent The large problem in this area could be effectively
reduced by available technologies.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% effic./majority (NC) + large (+1) = 5
8. POTW Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 5
Many municipal dischargers now have secondary treatment as required by the Clean
Water Act, but in many critical water quality areas additional controls are needed to abate
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), improve industrial pretreatment, eliminate chlorine
toxicity, and reduce excessive nutrients. The technology to achieve this, while often quite
expensive (particularly for CSO and nutrient control), is well known. Those technologies
VI-8
-------
include biological treatment improvements, chemical addition, dechlorination, filtration,
nitxification/denitrification, pietreatment program implementation, and for CSOs separation,
storage (in-line, off-line, deep tunnel), relocation to less sensitive areas, and treatment
These technologies can be very effective, 75 percent to over 90 percent These technologies
could effectively reduce a large existing problem.
i
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficjmajority (NC) + large (+1) = 5
9. Nonpoint Source Discharges to Surface Waters: ranking = 4
Use of technological controls or best management practices (BMPs) to abate pollution
from nonpoint sources is the primary cause of nonattainment of water quality goals in many
areas. Many critical-use areas such as shellfish beds, beaches, small streams, impoundments,
and lakes require protection from colifonn bacteria, metals, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, nutrients, and other pollutants from nonpoint sources. The
available technologies include agricultural and construction BMPs; stormwater detention of
infiltration basins; local bylawsAegulations on subsurface wastewater disposal, land use, and
drainage system design; and diversion from critical use areas. These potentially available
technologies are only estimated at SO percent to 75 percent efficiency because of the
variability associated with implementation and enforcement A large problem exists and
these technologies could effectively reduce the problem.
off-the-shelf (4) + 50-75% efficjmajority (-1) + large (+1) = 4
10. Discharges to Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Oceans from Att
Sources: ranking = 5
Discharges to estuaries include those point and nonpoint sources discussed in problem
areas #7, #8, and #9, as well as wetlands impacts (problem area #11), ocean dumping,
dredging, offshore oil drilling, etc. The major technologies are municipal and industrial
treatment facility improvements, pretreatment, CSO abatement, nutrient control where
necessary, nonpoint source controls, and wetland protection as discussed in the other
problem areas. These technologies are available (although often expensive) and efficient
There is a large existing problem that these technologies could effectively reduce.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVmajority (NC) + large (+1) = 5
VI-9
-------
11. Wetlands/Habitat Loss: ranking = 3
The primary technologies or practices available in this area include enforcement,
education, local regulations, and advanced identification of sensitive areas. These
technologies, while not very sophisticated but potentially available, are only estimated at
SO percent efficiency because of the variability associated with implementation and
enforcement The technologies could effectively reduce a large existing problem.
off-the-shelf (4) + <50% efficVmajority (-2) + large (+1) = 3
12. Drinking Water: ranking = 4
The technologies available include filtration, activated carbon, aeration, corrosion
reduction, improved monitoring, and source protection. These technologies are currently
available, and efficiency is estimated at greater than 75 percent The size of the existing
problem is estimated as moderate.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75 % efffc/majority (NQ + moderate (NC) = 4
13. RCRA Waste Sites: ranking = 4
Available technologies cover a wide range, depending upon the wastes in question. Off-
the-shelf technologies include incineration, physical/chemical treatment biological
treatment air/steam stripping, injection, carbon adsorption, and encapsulation. Proven
technologies include in-situ biological treatment flushing, freezing, precipitation, ion
exchange, photochemical treatments, thermal fusion, and electrokinetics. For this problem
area, the person questioned judged the most effective technologies to be incineration,
physical/chemical treatment and biological treatment which he termed off-the-shelf.
However, the work group deemed most technologies for this problem area to be "proven."
They apply to a majority of the problem's sources, with greater than 75 percent efficiency.
A large problem exists in this area, despite currently applied technology.
proven (3) + >75% effic./majority (NC)+large (+1) = 4
14. SuperfundWaste Sites: ranking = 3
The technologies available for Superfund waste sites include impermeable caps, simple
permeable caps, RCRA-type landfills, incineration, conventional biological treatment, in-situ
biological treatment in-situ chemical treatment solvent extraction, dechlorination, and
oxidation/reduction. These technologies are waste-dependent and can generally be grouped
into four categories: incineration, containment chemical treatment and biological treatment
All of them have efficiencies of at least 75 percent if not 99 percent; however, the portion of
the problem to which they apply varies greatly, resulting in different rankings for the groups.
VI-10
-------
Averaging the rankings resulted in the overall ranking.
Specifically:
Category
Technology
Efficiency
Applicability
Existing Problem
Ranking
•OCIOCVtttlOD
3
X
NC
+1
4
4
X
NC
+1
5
Chemical
Treatment
2
X
NC
NC
2
Biological
Treatment
3
X
-1
NC
2
Description
Off Shelf
Proven
New Technology
Experimental
None
>99%
>75%
50%-75%
<50%
Neatly all
Majority
Small
Large
Moderate
Small
xxxxxxxxx
Avenge ranking a 3.
4 O +JLO =3
4
Overall:
mostly proven technology (3) + >75% efficient/small applic. (-1) + large (+1) = 3
15. Municipal Waste Sites: ranking = 4
Available technologies range from off-the-shelf to experimental and include sewage
sludge incinerators, municipal waste incinerators, liners, leachate collection systems,
monitoring wells, slurry walls, capping with runoff collection, pump-and-treat systems, gas
collection systems, fixation/stabilization, and biodegradation. Either incineration or a
VI-11
-------
combination of liners, V-achatg collection systems with treatment, capping, and slurry walls is
the most effective technology. All are proven technologies, are generally greater than
99 percent efficient, and apply to nearly all sources of the problem. Nevertheless, the existing
problem is large enough to allow application of further technology to have a great impact
proven (3) + >99% efficVnearly all (NC) + large (+1) = 4
16. Industrial Waste Sites: ranking = 4
The available technologies for this problem area are generally the same as those for
Municipal Waste Sites (problem area #15); therefore, the ranking is the same.
17. Accidental Releases: ranking = 3
The technologies or practices available for accidental releases include spill prevention
control plans, inspection programs, dikes, emergency response plans/training, and employee
training/safety programs. These technologies, while fairly simple and potentially available,
are only estimated at 50 percent to 75 percent efficiency because of the variability associated
with implementation and enforcement and the accidental situations. The size of the existing
PXpPxSFn js CStllUfltCd 3S mQflftffttfti
off-the-shelf (4) + 50-75% efficVmajority (-1) + moderate (NQ = 3
18. Releases from Storage Tanks: ranking=4
The primary technologies or practices available in this area include tank testing
requirements, site evaluations, and tank upgrading (protective coating, fiberglass). The
technologies are currently available, and efficiency is estimated at greater than 75 percent (the
major variable being proper installation). The existing problem is large, and these
technologies could effectively reduce the problem.
off-the-shelf (4) + 50-75% efficTmajority (-1)+large (+1)=4
19. Other Ground-Water Contamination: ranking = 3
The technology or practices available include wellhead protection programs (under the
Safe Drinking Water Act). States are given some flexibility in designing these programs.
Many are still developing work plans, which are reviewed by EPA. Other practices include
Sole Source Aquifer Designation, nonpoint source assessment and management programs, the
VI-12
-------
Underground Injection Control program and proposed pesticide strategy. The practices, while
potentially available, are only estimated at SO percent to 75 percent efficiency because of the
variability associated with implementation and enforcement The work group judged these
practices to be "proven." The size of the existing problem that these technologies could
address is estimated as large.
proven (3) + 50-75% efficVmajority (-1) + large (+1) = 3
20. Pesticide Residues on Foods: ranking = 4
Under FIFRA, EPA establishes pesticide tolerance levels for raw agricultural commodities
and, under FDCA, FDA enforces the residue tolerances on food and feed in interstate
commerce. Residue tolerance levels must be established before the pesticide's use on the
food/feed crop is allowed. Most of these levels are set at one-hundredth of the pesticide's "no
observed effect level" (NOEL), as determined for each chemical by animal exposure studies.
Where more uncertainty exists about the studies, the tolerances may be set as low as
one-thousandth of the NOEL. This method of controlling the problem area applies to nearly
all sources, and is greater than 75 percent efficient The work group judged that it qualified as
an "off-the-shelf technology," as we defined that category. The size of the existing problem is
estimated as
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVnearly all (NC) + small (NC) = 4
21. Pesticide Application: ranking = 4
Many methods are available for controlling this problem area. The most readily applied
include use of protective clothing, use of appropriate application equipment for a given
scenario (i.e., ultra-low volume techniques for aerial agricultural spraying or injectors for
termiticide application), and observation and compliance with directions and precautionary
statements. A newer technology that shows great promise is integrated pest management
(IPM). IPM relies on biological, chemical, and physical control measures, along with proper
timing of application and certain cultural practices. Although it requires much more research,
and each pest problem will need separate control methods or "programs," IPM is potentially
the most effective technology because it can be adapted to all areas of pesticide use, including
agriculture, household pest control, termite control, and lawn care. Like the other methods
currently in use, IPM has an efficiency greater than 75 percent The large existing problem in
this area could be effectively reduced by the technologies.
proven (3) + >75% efffo/nearry all (NC) + large (+1) = 4
VI-13
-------
22. Lead: ranking = 4
Lead is a problem in all three media: air, water, and soil Since there are no major lead
smelters in New England, Region I's lead in air problem can be greatly reduced by
minimizing lead in gasoline. Lead in drinking water comes mostly from corrosion of lead
piping and can be most effectively controlled by the use of corrosion inhibitors, although pH
adjustment and/or CaCO? saturation will also work. Soil or dust lead problems can be
reduced by removing and: replacing lead-contaminated topsoiL This method is most effective
when the replacement soil is also seeded. Other methods of reducing contact include removal
of lead-containing paint and damp-mopping surfaces where leaded dusts may settle. All of
the technologies are greater than 75 percent efficient and apply to most or nearly all of the
problem's sources. The existing lead problems in air, water, and soil were estimated
respectively as moderate, large, and large.
Air
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVmajority (NC) + moderate (NQ » 4
Water
proven (3) + >75% efficVnearly all (NC) + large (+1) = 4
Soil:
proven (3) + >7S% efficTmajority (NC) + large (+1) = 4
23. Asbestos: ranking-5
Asbestos in drinking water can be effectively controlled by coagulation, sedimentation,
and filtration if its source is the water itself. Corrosion control with zinc compounds or pipe
replacement is effective for piping sources, which account for most of the problem in water.
Most of the air-related asbestos in New England comes from building demolitions and
renovations. Emissions control is effectively achieved by proper wetting techniques,
enclosure of the removal area with plastic sheeting, maintenance of slightly negative pressure
within the enclosure, air filtering with HEPA filters, and proper waste disposal. If not
removed, asbestos building materials can be encapsulated to m\mrm^. airborne emissions.
All of the above technologies are simple to apply, greater than 75 percent efficient, and
applicable to nearly all sources. The remaining asbestos air problem is large, whereas the
water problem is small. In view of this and the fact that the major route of exposure is
inhalation, the overall ranking was influenced more towards the air ranking.
Air
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVnearly all (NC) + large (+1) = 5
Water
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficYnearly all (NC) + small (NC) = 4
VI-14
-------
24. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments: ranking = 5
The technologies described in problem areas #7, #8, and #9 (point and nonpoint sources)
are applicable for upstream sources to impoundments. In addition, lake restoration
technologies that improve water quality in affected lakes should be added. These include
sediment removal, nutrient fixation with alum, weed harvesting, and others. These
technologies are currently available, and efficiency is estimated at 75 percent to 90 percent,
with the higher efficiencies for point source controls and the lower for nonpoint and lake
restoration techniques. These technologies could effectively reduce a large problem.
off-the-shelf (4) + >75% efficVmajority (NC) + large (+1) = 5
VI-15
-------
Effective Technology Questionnaire
Problem Area:
1. Considering the size and nature of the pollution problem remaining (after existing
controls) in the area cited above, list what pollution control technologies or management
practices you consider capable of further problem or risk reduction. Please list below by
category of technological sophistication and uncertainty:
• Off-the-Shelf, little implementation delay for testing or modification
• Proven Technology, more time and experimentation to fit technology/practices to
individual case than above
• New Technology, coming out of pilot phase but not yet in widespread full scale use
• Experimental Technology, pilot stage unproven for widespread use
2. Of the above technologies please list those which you think would be most effective.
-2-
Note: The remaning questions refer to the Technology in Item 2 Above.
VI-16
-------
3. Please characterize the technology listed in Item 2 above by checking the most
appropriate description of this technology (check only one).
Off-the-shelf
Proven technology
New technology
____ Experimental technology
No apparent technology
4. What is your estimate of the efficiency of this technology? (Note: an efficiency estimate
of the technology itself is requested, not the amount of the total problem it addresses.)
>99%
>75%
50-75%
50%
5. How large a portion of the problem does this technology address?
Nearly all sources
Majority of problem area
Small portion of problem
6. Absolute size of the problem currently remaining (after existing controls).
Large enough to allow technology to have a great impact
Moderate
Small
Name
Phone Number Mail Code
Thanks for your assistance.
VI-17
------- |