March 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduce!on:
Agency:
Issues :
Appendix:
Purpose of book
Updating procedures
Background
Goals and Priorities
Highlights
Congressional
Pending Legislation
List of Testimony
Budget
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
International Activities
Administration and Resources Management
Regional and Field Operations
Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Research and Development
Risk Communication
Acid Rain
Air Toxics
Asbestos
Biotechnology
Clean Water
Dioxln
Ground Water
Lead in Drinking Water
Lead in Gasoline
Ozone: Smog
Ozone: Stratospheric
PCBs
Pesticides
Radon
RCRA
RCRA: Land Ban
RCRA: UST Regs
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund: Facts and Figures
Superfund: SARA Highlights
Title 3
Wetlands
Publications
Quotes
Speech schedules
Statutes
Glossary
-------
EPA Speaker's Handbook
-------
(0
I
Agency
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
EPA SPEAKER'S HANDBOOK
Introduction
This handbook was developed by OEA's Office of Public
Affairs as a ready reference for those who regularly speak for
the Agency at meetings and conferences and/or to media
representatives.
The contents include basic facts about EPA as a whole as
well as Environmental Issue Profiles and backup information to
keep you up-to-date on current topics of major public/media
interest. The handbook will be revised regularly to ensure its
reliability as a reference tool.
As you know only too well, EPA's responsibilities span a
broad range of environmental issues that in one way or another
affect every citizen and every community across the nation. Any
one of these issues can spark questions at a public meeting or
during an interview. None of us can have all the answers all the
time, but we hope this handbook will help keep you informed about
major issues, especially those outside your own administrative
field.
We welcome any suggestions that will help us make this
handbook more useful to you.
Jennifer Joy Wilson
Assistant Administrator
for External Affairs
en
o>
C\J
-------
KEEPING THE EPA SPEAKER'S HANDBOOK UP TO DATE
Many, if not all, of the issues treated in the Speaker's
Handbook are subject to frequent change. The Speaker/Editorial
Services group within OEA's Office of Public Affairs has the lead
responsibility for updating the Speaker's Handbook as
developments occur.
Contents of the handbook are tabbed by topic for easy
reference. The table of contents also is arranged by topic
because updating requirements make reference by page numbers
impractical.
Staff members designated to maintain the handbook will be
notified by E-mail when revisions are to be made because of
legislative or regulatory actions or other developments affecting
one or more issues. Information updates will be prepared and
distributed promptly, with a cover note specifying where the
material should be inserted in the handbook, pages to be deleted,
etc.
New issues will be added as they come to the fore, replacing
topics no longer of major current interest. Our goal is to keep
the handbook as concise as possible so the information included
will be easily accessible.
All material for the handbook will be dated to provide a
chronological benchmark for users.
Varied sources of information will be utilized to keep pace
with changes that mandate updating of the handbook. We hope that
Speaker/Editorial Services liaison representatives will help by
reporting developments in their own programs that should be
reflected in the handbook.
If you have suggestions or questions about the handbook,
please call the Office of Public Affairs at 382-4361. We
appreciate your cooperation.
-------
Background
00
8
*•
en
Q.
-------
March 1988
ADMINISTRATORS OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The following is a listing of people who have served as EPA
Administrator, as well as the dates they held the position. The
Agency was created on December 2, 1970.
William D. Ruckelshaus Dec. 4, 1970 - April 30, 1973
Deputy: Robert W. Fri
Robert W. Fri (Acting) May 1, 1973 - sept.24, 1973
Russell E. Train Sept. 25, 1973 - Jan. 20, 1977
Deputy: John R. Quarles Jr.
John R. Quarles Jr. (Acting) Jan. 21, 1977 - March 7, 1977
Douglas M. Costle March 7, 1977 - Jan. 20, 1981
Deputy: Barbara Blum
Steven D. Jellinek (Acting) Jan. 20, 1981 - Jan. 24, 1981
Walter C. Barber Jr. (Acting) Jan. 24, 1981 - May 20, 1981
Anne M. Gorsuch (Burford) May 20, 1981 - March 9, 1983
Deputy: John W. Hernandez Jr.
Lee L. Verstandig (Acting) March 10, 1983 - May 18, 1983
William D. Ruckelshaus May 18, 1983 - Jan. 7, 1985
Deputy: Alvin L. Aim
Lee M. Thomas (Acting) Jan. 8, 1985 - Feb. 6, 1985
Lee M. Thomas Feb. 7, 1985 -
Deputy: A. James Barnes
-------
Goals/Priorities
o
2L
e/>
S
-------
MAR
EPA PROGRAM PRIORTIES -
1. Reduce risks from exposure to existing pesticides and toxic
chemicals.
o Reduce risks from existing pesticides
o Reduce risks from existing toxic chemicals
o improve ground-water protection
o Control drinking water contaminants
2. Reduce risks from disposal of hazardous waste and stabilize
imminent threats from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
o Require proper management of permitted hazardous waste
facilities
o Control releases of uncontrolled hazardous waste
o Support development of additional hazardous waste
treatment and disposal capacity
o in coordination with the States, focus underground
injection control permits and enforcement efforts on
existing facilities that present the greatest threat to
underground sources of drinking water
3. Reduce exposure to unhealthy air quality conditions.
o Control air toxics
o Coordinate with the States to take necessary actions,
including enforcement against significant VOC sources, to
reduce ozone levels in areas that will not meet the 1987
attainment deadline
o Continue development and implementation of an assessment
and mitigation program for radon
o Overhaul national air pollution controls for particulate
natter
o Strengthen technical assistance and support development of
State contractor licensing and certificate programs to
promote effective remedial actions for asbestos in schools
and other public buildings
-------
Maintain and improve water quality.
o Take every possible aionith the States to meet the
July 1, 1988, deadline under the National Municipal Policy
o Focus on critical water quality problems
o Protect our coastal waters
5. Reduce damage to sensitive environmental areas.
o Protect wetlands
o Address acid deposition and other issues concerning the
long range transport of air pollutants
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
VOLUME I
OVERVIEW
February 1987
-------
PREFACE
BY
LEE M. THOMAS
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is broad.
The challenges we face are complex and varied. Operating under
nine basic statutes and portions of several others, we have in
place major programs to protect every environmental medium.
Over the past 16 years, we have seen significant
improvements in the quality of our air, water, and land
resources. Still, much remains to be done.
Although EPA's mission enjoys broad public support, our
agency nonetheless must operate on finite resources. Therefore,
we must choose our priorities carefully so that we apply those
resources as effectively as possible.
While we have made much progress to date, the cost or
further environmental improvements in many areas will be high.
For example, removing additional increments of toxics from
industrial effluents or cleaning up contaminated ground water to
background levels can be enormously expensive. The unit cost of
moving ever closer to the point of zero discharge, zero
contamination, and zero risk increases exponentially.
Yet, this agency must proceed to carry out its mandates and
to set its priorities. With this in mind, last spring I asked a
task force of EPA career staff members to examine relative risks
to human health and the environment posed by various
environmental problems. I am grateful to the 75 agency
professionals who helped in this effort.
These employees assembled available data and applied their
best professional judgment on this complex and controversial
subject. Their report—although subjective and based on
imperfect data—represents a credible first step toward a
promising method of analyzing, developing, and implementing
environmental protection in America.
This study is not the definitive work on the subject of risk-
based programs, but we hope it will initiate an important
discussion of the concept. In time, with better data and more
dis-cussion, I believe the merit in this idea may prove to be an
invaluable tool.
in sharing this report I hope that it will stimulate an
informed discussion. We plan no immediate changes in priorities
until this discussion takes place. We welcome your reactions.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
established in 1970, the nation's most pressing environmental
problems were obvious, important polluters and pollutants were
the visible ones: soot and smoke from cars and smokestacks, and
the raw sewage and chemicals from municipal and industrial
wastewater.
Since 1970 the nation has done much to abate the most
visible forms of pollution, but there is still much unfinished
business. Moreover, new problems have also been "discovered or
have risen in importance, such as indoor radon, global climatic
change from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, acid
precipitation and hazardous waste. Many of these new problems
a're difficult to evaluate, as they involve slow, cumulative
changes with very serious possible ultimate effects, amidst
considerable scientific uncertainty. Many involve toxic
chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects at levels of
exposure that are hard to detect. And many involve persistent
contaminants that can move from one environmental medium to
another, causing further damage even after controls have been
applied for one medium.
The complexity and gravity of these issues make it
particularly important that EPA apply its finite resources where
they will have the greatest effect. Thus, the Administrator of
EPA commissioned a special task force of senior career managers
and technical experts to assist him and other policy makers in
this task. The assignment was to compare the risks currently
associated with major environmental problems, given existing
levels of controls. However, there was no thought that risks
alone ought to determine agency priorities. Thus, the results of
this project cannot be used by themselves to set priorities.
Methodology
In conducting the project, we organized and limited our work
in four important ways. First, we divided the universe of
environmental problems into 31 pieces. Each of the pieces
represents an environmental problem area defined along lines
corresponding generally with existing programs or statutes. For
example, some of our 31 problems areas are: criteria air
pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, contaminants in drinking
water, abandoned hazardous waste (e.g., Superfund) sites,
pesticide residues on food, and worker exposures to toxic
chemicals.
Second, we considered four different types of risk for each
problem area: cancer risks, non-cancer health risks, ecological
effects, and welfare effects (visibility impairment, materials
damage, etc.). Each type of risk was analyzed separately. There
were no decisions that one type was more important than another,
-------
and we made no attempt to "add" risks for a problem area across
the four risk types.
Third, in view of the already massive scope of the project,
we decided to limit it by not considering:
o the economics or technical controllability of the risks;
o the qualitative aspects of the risks that people find
important, such as the degree to which the risks are
voluntary, familiar, or equitable;
o the benefits to society of the activities that cause the
environmental problems; and
o the statutory and public mandate (or lack thereof) for
EPA to deal with the risks. Some problems among the 31
are primarily within the purview of other agencies.
Finally, because the intent of the project was to identify
areas of unfinished business, we assessed risks as they exist
now__given the levels of control that are currently in place. We
did not aim to assess risks that have been abated.
The method we used to compare environmental problem areas
can best be described as systematically generating informed
judgments among agency experts. About 75 career managers and
experts representing all EPA programs participated over a period
of about nine months. The participants assembled and analyzed
masses of existing data on pollutants, exposures, and effects,
but ultimately had to fill substantial gaps in available data by
using their collective judgment. In this sense, the project
represents expert opinion rather than objective and quantitative
analysis. But despite the difficulties caused by lack of data
and lack of accepted risk assessment methods in some areas, the
participants feel relatively confident in their final relative
rankings.
Results
The major results from the project are rankings of the 31
problems areas for each of four types of risk. The rankings are
based on risks existing today, assuming that current controls
stay, in place. We found the following:
o No problems rank relatively high in all four types of
risk, or relatively low in all four. Whether an
environmental problem appears large or not depends
critically on the type of adverse effect with which one
is concerned.
o Problems that rank relatively high in three of four risk
types, or at least medium in all four include: criteria
air pollutants; stratospheric ozone depletion; pesticide
-------
residues on food; and other pesticide risks (runoff and
air deposition of pesticides).
o Problems that rank relatively high in cancer and non-
cancer health risks but low in ecological and welfare
risks include: hazardous air pollutants; indoor radon;
indoor air pollution other than radon; pesticide
application; exposure to consumer products; and worker
exposures to chemicals.
o Problems that rank relatively high in ecological and
welfare risks, but low in both health risks include:
global warming; point and non-point sources of surface
water pollution; and physical alteration of aquatic
habitats (including estuaries and wetlands) and mining
waste.
o Areas related to ground water consistently rank medium or
low.
In some respects, these rankings by risk do not correspond
closely with EPA's statutory authorities. For example, in two
relatively high health risk areas EPA shares jurisdiction with
other agencies that have more direct responsibility: consumer
products (the Consumer Product Safety Commission) and worker
exposures to toxic chemicals (the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration).
The rankings by risk also do not correspond well with EPA's
current program priorities. Areas of relatively high risk but
low EPA effort include: indoor radon; indoor air pollution;
stratospheric ozone depletion; global warming; non-point sources;
discharges to estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans; other
pesticide risks; accidental releases of toxics; consumer
products; and worker exposures. Areas of high EPA effort but
relatively medium or low risks include: RCRA sites; Superfund;
underground storage tanks; and municipal non-hazardous waste
sites.
This divergence between what we found in terms of relative
risks and EPA's priorities is not necessarily inappropriate.
Some problems appear to pose relatively low risks precisely
because of high levels of program effort that have been devoted
to controlling them. And these high levels of attention may
remain necessary in order to hold risks to current levels.
Overall, EPA's priorities appear more closely aligned with
public opinion than with our estimated risks. Recent national
polling data rank areas of public concern about environmental
issues as follows:
•.
o High: chemical waste disposal, water pollution, chemical
plant accidents, and air pollution;
-------
o Medium: oil spills, worker exposure, pesticides, and
drinking water;
o Low: indoor air pollution, consumer products, genetic
radiation (except nuclear power), and global warming.
A final item resulting from the project is the agenda it has
given EPA for improving data and methods for performing
environmental risk assessments. We have found it impossible to
perform this project in a quantitatively rigorous fashion. The
best information we have is on the environmental causes of
cancer, but it is weak even here. There is a general lack of
information on and attention to welfare and ecological effects.
Exposure data are often poor in all four areas, even in problem
areas where major regulatory efforts are under way. No generally
accepted methods exist for assessing ecological or non-cancer
health effects.
Despite the numerous difficulties involved in performing
this project, the participants are confident in its general
results and are enthusiastic about organizing environmental
protection more around the goal of reducing risks. -This study
should stimulate discussion among policy makers and the public as
to what EPA's priorities should be. A collective resolve that
the debates about environmental policy should include more
information of the type in this report would be a very
significant outcome of this project.
-------
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. NO PROBLEMS RANKED CONSISTENTLY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ACROSS ALL
FOUR RISK TYPES. Whether an environmental problem appears
large or not depends critically on the type of adverse
effect with which one is concerned. In many cases a problem
is ranked high on one and/or the other health risk
categories and low on ecological and welfare risk, or vice
versa. This makes the job of using these rankings to set
priorities especially tricky, and emphasizes the importance
of value judgments.
o Problems that received relatively high rankings in three
of the four risk types, or at least medium in all four,
include criteria air pollutants, stratospheric ozone
depletion and pesticide residues on food and "other"
pesticides risks.
o Problems that ranked relatively high on health but low on
ecological or welfare effects (or by definition are not
an ecological problem) include radon, hazardous air
pollutants, indoor air pollution, drinking water,
pesticides application, and consumer and worker exposure
to chemicals.
o Problems that ranked relatively high on ecological and
welfare effects but low/medium on health include global
warming, point and non-point sources of water pollution,
physical alteration of aquatic habitats (including
estuaries and wetlands), and mining waste.
o Problems where EPA has programs to prevent future risks
are difficult to rank on a risk basis—new toxic
chemicals, biotechnology and. pesticides.
2. THE PROJECT HAS DEVELOPED A USEFUL TOOL TO HELP SET
PRIORITIES. Despite their limitations, the data and
judgments assembled in this project are sufficiently well
founded for EPA to use in the priority setting process. As
noted in the introduction, many factors (including laws,
technology and cost) must be considered in setting
priorities. Thus, while the results of this project are not
sufficient by themselves to determine EPA's priorities, the
feasibility of organizing environmental protection more
around the fundamental goal of reducing risks is clear and
the concept appears compelling.
3. RISKS AND EPA'S CURRENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES DO NOT ALWAYS
MATCH. In part, these differences seem to be explainable by
public opinion on the seriousness of different environmental
problems.
-------
o Areas of high risk/low EPA effort—radon, indoor air
pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming,
accidental releases of toxics, consumer and worker
exposures to chemicals, non-point sources of water
pollution, "other" pesticide risks.
o Areas of medium or low risk/high EPA effort—active
(RCRA) and inactive (Superfund) hazardous waste sites,
releases form storage tanks and municipal non-hazardous
waste.
o The data appear to support the contention that EPA has
been more concerned about pollution that affects public
health, as opposed to protection of natural habitats and
ecosystems, in all programs except surface water
protection.
o Problems related to ground water consistently ranked
medium or low in most respects. This may be because of
our lack of understanding of these issues. It is also
because exposure to ground water—whether of humans,
ecosystems or economic values—is significantly limited.
Other types of exposure (e.g., air, pesticides) are
simply much more direct and widespread. Ground-water
protection also raises significant issues concerning
intangible aspects of risks.
o This divergence between risks and priorities is not
necessarily inappropriate. Not only must many factors
beside risk (legislation, technology, etc.) be considered
in setting priorities, but some problems appear to pose
relatively low risks precisely because of the high levels
of effort that have been devoted to controlling them. It
may be necessary to continue to invest in permit
processing, inspections and enforcement in order to
maintain a high level of compliance.
o In this context it is interesting to note that EPA's
priorities appear more closely aligned with public
opinion than with estimated risks. Public polls
conducted over the last two years by the Roper
Organization indicate that the public appars to be most
concerned with chemical waste disposal, water pollution,
chemical plant accidents and air pollution, in that
order. Oil spills, worker exposure, pesticides and
drinking water are rated as medium risks, and indoor air
pollution, consumer products, genetic engineering,
radiation and global warming are ranked as comparatively
low risks.
4. STATUTORY AUTHORITIES DO NOT MATCH NEATLY WITH RISKS.
o In two relatively high health risk areas EPA shares
jurisdiction with other agencies: consumer and worker
-------
exposures to chemicals. Good coordination with CPSC and
OSHA is needed.
o In some other relatively high risk areas neither EPA nor
other Federal agencies have extensive statutory
authorities: indoor air pollution, C02 and global
warming/ and non-point sources of water pollution.
5. NATIONAL RANKINGS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT LOCAL
SITUATIONS —LOCAL ANALYSES ARE NEEDED. This analysis is not
a guide to what may be the most serious problems in a
particular area or for particular individuals. Any attempts
to set local priorities should take into account local
conditions (e.g., presence of Superfund sites, presence of
wetlands, etc.). Indeed, more widespread use of risk as one
basis for setting environmental protection priorities would
be beneficial to all levels of government.
6. SOME CHEMICALS SHOW UP AS MAJOR CONCERNS IN MULTIPLE PROBLEM
AREAS, notably lead, chromium, formaldehyde, solvents and
some pesticides. This suggests the need for integrated
strategies to deal with them.
7. MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED IN SEVERAL AREAS. The basic data
on many subjects studied in this project are surprisingly
poor. The general weakness of exposure data is a special
problem because exposure is such an important determinant of
risk. In addition, specific data on the different types of
risks and environmental problems are often lacking. More
research would be very useful to clarify the issue of how
serious various environmental problems are, particularly in
the instances described below:
o The best information available is for cancer risk. Even
there, however, it was not nearly as good as one might
expect.
o The data and methods available for assessing non-cancer
health risks are poor. Exposure data are surprisingly
poor, even on chemicals that are objects of major
regulatory efforts. There is no general methodology for
assessing non-cancer risks.
o There is no generally applicable methodology for
ecological risk assessment. The number of different
types of ecological systems, the relative scarcity of
ecosystem exposure data and methods, and scientific
uncertainties confound the problem. Moreover, the
extraordinary complexity of ecological systems prohibits
objective assessment of ecological risks.
o While there are generally accepted methods for assessing
welfare effects, there is a general scarcity of data and
-------
analysis in this area. Many programs have paid little or
no attention to these effects.
o Intangible aspects of risk play a very important part in
the way the public values environmental problems,
particularly those related to ground water. However, we
do not understand them very well and perhaps under-
estimate them.
o The data on active and inactive hazardous waste sites,
biotechnology, and new chemicals are very poor.
o There are two areas where the risks could be very great,
but our understanding of the problems is not very good:
global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion.
o The overall impact of pesticides on health and ecosystems
is both large and not well understood, either by the
science community or the public.
8. EPA SHOULD NOW STUDY OTHER AREAS IMPORTANT TO SETTING
PRIORITIES. Had this exercise been conducted five, ten or
twenty years ago, the results would have been rather
different. For example:
o only recently have some serious environmental problems
been "discovered," such as radon and other indoor air
pollutants;
o some problems that were once much more serious are now
much better controlled, such as direct and indirect
discharges to surface water; and ,
o some parts of the old problems are still serious, such as
some of the criteria air pollutants and certain pesticide
exposures.
Over time, as some problems are brought under better control
and as more is learned about others the relative rankings of
environmental problems described in this report are likely to
change. But this is not likely to happen quickly. Thus, while
EPA should carry out the research on specific items mentioned
above, it should now focus more effort on the systematic study of
the other factors involved in priority setting, such as costs and
feasibility of addressing the unfinished business described in
this report.
-------
MAR 1988
EPA MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Risk reduction: EPA's basic mission is to reduce the level of
risk to health and to the environment posed by pollution.
Toward that end, the Agency will focus its resources, and
those of society at large, where pollution causes the most
damage.
Balance environmental gains against the goals: Environmental
protection actions should be designed to achieve the greatest
social benefit. The Agency will strive to manage its
resources to achieve the greatest overall benefits for the
public.
Environmental federalism: We recognize that each level of
government has a proper role in public health and
environmental protection, and that the concerted and
coordinated efforts of federal, state, and local agencies will
best serve the public interest.
Better environmental science: We will work to expand the
knowledge available to manage health and environmental risks.
This priority involves improving the scientific basis for
environmental protection decisions.
Negotiation and consultation: In finding solutions, we will
expand the use of negotiated regulations and consultative
proceedings with a wide range of representatives from
industry, environmental organizations, state and local
government, and the general public.
Enforcement: We will enforce environmental laws vigorously,
consistently and equally to achieve the greatest possible
environmental results.
Human Resources: We will promote excellence and growth in EPA
staff at all levels.
-------
Highlights
I
ff
-------
MAR 1988
OFFICE OF POLICY. PLANNING AND EVALUATION
FY 1Qfl7-1988 HIGHLIGHTS
Published the final emissions trading policy statement
and developed a strategy for communication.
Risk assessment in context of determining priorities:
The geographic integration program has met its
objectives over approximately five years of operations.
Each of the four IEMPS (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Santa
Clara and Denver) has met with a different degree of
success, depending on its unique operating constraints
and the interests of local advisory committees.
Comparative risk project: Agency assessment of the
risks posed by 31 health/environmental problems
addressed by EPA.
Developed a two-and-one-half day training course on
risk and decision-making and established a core of
facilitators within each Program and Regional Office.
Began, with OAR, an extensive evaluation of materials
designed to raise public awareness of radon testing.
Released report on EPA use of Regulatory Impact
Analyses from 1981-1986.
Completed cost/benefit study on reducing lead in
drinking water and, with OW, executed communication
strategy.
Published "Unfinished Business: a Comparative Asses-
sment of Environmental Problems," a categorical
assessment of the risks of 31 environmental problems.
Developed a 2-day course on regulatory development.
-------
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
US/USSR JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WIDE RANGE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS; MEMORANDUM SIGNED FOR FUTURE COOPERATION ON
ENV. PROBLEMS
US/MEXICO SIGNED AGREEMENT TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION CAUSED BY
COPPER SMELTERS ALONG BORDER
LEE THOMAS SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH NEW YORK AND CANADA TO CUT TOXICS
IN NIAGARA RIVER
US/MEXICO SIGNED BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES, PROVIDING FOR NOTIFICATION
AND PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT
LEE THOMAS SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH POLAND FOR COOPERATION IN
SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
SIGNED ANNEX UNDER AN EXISTING PROTOCOL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT WITH CHINA; EPA-CHINA NATIONAL EPA WORKING GROUP
MEETING FOR THE PROTOCOL HELD
LEE THOMAS SIGNED MOU WITH ENVIRONMENT ADMINISTRATION OF
REPUBLIC OF KOREA FOR COOPERATION IN FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
US-JAPAN JOINT PLANNING AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD
IN TOKYO
EXCHANGE OF LETTERS "AGREEMENT" BETWEEN EPA AND PHILIPPINE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT ON ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO RESTORATION OF POLLUTED RIVERS
MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER -
9/16/87 - SIGNED BY 24 NATIONS AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.
SINCE THE SIGNING 7 ADDITIONAL NATIONS HAVE SIGNED; WE ARE WORKING
TO RATIFY THE PROTOCOL IN THE US AND ENCOURAGING OTHER NATIONS
TO DO THE SAME.
-------
MAR 1988
"TRHLIGHTS
OF PFSTTriDES M?n TOXIC SUBSTANCES
issued final regulations establishing threshold of planning
miantities for 402 extremely hazardous compounds.
Sunced numerous restrictions on continued use of dinocap;
Evoked tolerances on maximum residue for chlordane DDT,
a!d?in die!d?in; modified suspension of dinoseb on dry peas,
lentils and chickpeas; make new policies to cut potential
r!sx rom ?ox?c inert 'ingredients in Pesticides; commenced
special review of EBDC fungicides; cancelled all uses of
cadmium except on golf courses, and negotiated for the
cancellation of cyhexatine.
op tees ranging-
$150^000 to S163T100 for product registration; monies to be
iSeS msTpre-^ufacture notification for micro-organisr,
unoer ?lcA and granted permit to company " manufacture
genetically-engineered organism and reinstated field test
-------
MAR 1988
HIGHLIGHTS OF FY1987
FROM THE OFFICE OF WATER
To Implement the Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987,
the Office of Water developed State Clean Water Strategies
to encourage States voluntarily to set forth their priorities
for action over a multi-year period and to provide a basis
for targeting their water pollution prevention and control
efforts on water resources they determine to be most
valuable and/or most threatened.
To further implement the Water Quality Act, the Office of Water
issued draft guidance on the State Revolving Fund, Nonpolnt
Source Pollution, Clean Lakes, and State Water Quality-based
Toxics Control Program Review.
Established the Office of Wetlands Protection. EPA also
worked with the Conservation Foundation to establish the
Wetlands Policy Forum to explore how Federal, State and local
wetlands policy can be improved to benefit both environmental
protection and economic development.
Established the National Network for Water Policy Research
Analysis which sponsored 35 water policy studies conducted
by Masters candidates from 18 universities. The Network
was then expanded to Include the entire Agency for FY88.
Issued final public notification regulations which are
requirements that apply to all public water systems that
fail to meet applicable drinking water standards, fail to
monitor, or have existing variance or exemptions to these
requirements. These regulations include a new requirement
to notify customers of potential lead contamination.
Published "Lead In Drinking Water" pamphlet which was
widely distributed nationwide.
Released the Report to Congress on RCRA Municipal Lagoons
which presented findings of a study of municipal wastewater
treatment lagoons and their effects on ground-water quality.
Issued final rule promulgating drinking water standards of
eight volatile organic chemicals, monitoring requirements,
conditions for receiving variances and exemptions, and
monitoring requirements for fifty unregulated contaminants.
Also Issued guidance on wellhead protection and sole source
aquifer designation.
Issued the Report to Congress on the 1986 Assessment of
Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
The Report said It will cost $76 billion to construct or
improve municipal wastewater treatment facilities with known
water quality or public health problems.
-------
MAR 1988
1987-88 HIGHLIGHTS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
- First phase of Western Lake Survey showed no lakes are now
acidic.
- Released Executive Summary on Kanawha Valley Toxics study.
- Completed health risk assessment on formaldehyde, a possible
carcinogen.
- NAPAP concluded that only a few hundred US lakes have been
damaged to the point of having no buffering capacity (zero
alkalinity).
- Began pilot study of pesticides in water.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
- Completed the largest survey of indoor radon undertaken to
date and found elevated radon levels in 21% of the 11,600
homes tested in 10 states.
- Set final standards under Clean Air Act limiting emissions of
particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen from new industrial,
commercial, and institutional steam-generating boilers.
- Lee Thomas signed protocol on behalf of the US for
international control of CRCs to protect the stratospheric
ozone layer. Approved 83-0 by U.S. Senate.
- OAR and ORD completed Phase I of the Eastern and Western lake
surveys under NAPAP to determine effects of acid deposition.
- Established new final rules to control small particulate
matter air pollution.
Established regulations limiting particulate emissions from
wood-burning stoves.
Proposed ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment policy
including measure for on-board cannisters.
-------
FY 'B7 High!lohts
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Genera I
- Issued comprehensive overview of national hazardous waste
management practices (The Hazardous Waste System, June)
- established Federal Facilities Task Force to serve as a focal
point on RCRA/CERCLA compliance Issues
- neootiated first agreement under §120 of Superfund for the Twin
Cities Amnunltion Plant and negotiated the first RCRA corrective
action order at a federal facility
- initiated Environmental Priorities Initiative - an Integrated
approach to identifying and addressing environmental problems
RCRA
- banned land disposal of untreated spent solvents and
-------
Congressional
CO
§
01
-------
United States External Affairs (A-100AE)
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460
Agency
_ ^_^_ _ Congressional Liaison
&EPA
100TH CONGRESS
3/15/88
LIST OF COMMITTEES & SUBCOMMITTEES, OF INTEREST TO EPA, ARE AS FOLLOWS:
A. COMPLETE LIST OF COMMITTEES & SUBCOMMITTEES, WITH THEIR CHAIRMAN & RANKING
MEMBERS. EACH ONE EXERCISES JURISDICTION OVER EPA STATUES AND/OR PROGRAMS.
1. SENATE:
a. Total Senate Committees: 14
b. Total Senate Subcommittees: 21
c. Grand Total for Senate 35
2. HOUSE:
a. Total House Committees: 18
b. Total House Subcommittees: 42 *
c. Grand Total for House: 60
3. SENATE & HOUSE GRAND TOTAL:
a. Committees: 32
b. Subcommittees: 63
c. GRAND TOTAL FOR BOTH: 95
B. BREAKDOWN BY TOPIC, STATUE, AND/OR PROGRAM OF COMMITTEES & SUBCOMMITTEES
THAT EXERCISE OVERSIGHT AND/OR JURISDICTION OVER EPA STATUES OR PROGRAMS.
C. EPA STATUES AND/OR PROGRAMS LISTED BY JURISDICTIONAL COMMITTEES AND/OR
SUBCOMMITTEES.
* NOTE: The Office of Indian Affairs is not considered a Subcommittee,
however it is counted as one for the purpose of this list.
-------
Pending
Legislation
CD CD
CO 3
0) 3
r»(Q
5'
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•larch 25, 1988 OFFICE OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
SUBJECT: Legislative Report fp^ Wee* °f ™* 21'25' L988
FROM: Jennifer Joy Wils*^, /lU^f-
• . * _
-------
-2-
2. Issue. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Senate
The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
(Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT) postponed the March 23 mark-up
and re-scheduled it for March 30. Committee staff is working on a
package of amendments that will include a re-registration fee
proposal and language on who is responsible for storage and disposal
of suspended pesticides.
House
The rtouse Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research,
and Foreign Agriculture (Chairman George Brown, D-CA) has scheduled
a general hearing on FIFRA on March 30. Dr. John Moore, Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances will testify for
the agency.
3. Issue. Drinking Water
On Tuesday, March 22, 1980 the House passed and cleared for the
President S.J. Res.185, to designate the period commencing on
May 2, 1938, and ending on May 8, 1988, as "National Drinking
Water Week."
4. Issue. TSCA
The House Energy and Commerce Committee (Chairman John Dingell, D-MI)
mark-up of H.R.3070, the PCB Regulatory Improvenent Act of 1987,. -
is postponed until after Easter recess.
5. Issue. Radon/Indoor Air
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is considering introduction of three
radon amendments to the Indoor Air Bill, S.1629, at the Senate
Environment and Public Works Environmental Pollution Subcommittee
nark-up, which is anticipated within the next two weeks. The potential
amendments would: 1) authorize funding for the establishment of regional
radon training centers; 2) include day care centers in EPA's national
radon assessment; and 3) direct EPA and HUD to enter into a memorandum
of agreement to initiate cooperative efforts to reduce the public's
risk to radon exposure. The release, within two weeks, of a GAO Report
scrutinizing HUD's radon reduction activities may trigger a hearing
in Chairman Lautenberg's Environment and Public Works Subcommittee
on Superfund and Environmental Oversight. Deputy Administrator
A. James Barnes would be asked to testify for EPA. In particular,
the Subcommittee would be interested in Mr. Barnes] views as to
potential EPA/HUD cooperative radon reduction initiatives.
-------
-3-
UFCOMIrtG (iEARINGS
I Monday, March 28 - House i*iergy and Commerce Subcanmitteeon Transportation,
£urism and Hazardous Materials (Chairman Thonas Luken, IM)H) will hold
Shearing to consider legislation introduced by Representatives Michael
Oxley (SoH) and Jack Fields (R-TX) to extend the compliance deadlines
for school districts under the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response
Act of 1986. Dr. John Moore, Assistant Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances will testify for the agency.
->. Wednesday, Kirch 30 - House Agriculture Subcommittee on Departnental
Operations and R>reign Agricultural (Chairman George Brown, 1X30 will
hold a hearing to review activities of the pesticides office. Dr. John
ftxre? Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances
will testify for the agency.
3 'fednesday, torch 30 - Senate Environment *nd Public Works Subcommittee
^Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances (Chairman Max Baucus, D-MT)
and Subcommittee on Environmental Protection (Chairman George Mitchell,
D-ME) have scheduled a tentative hearing on bills introduced by
Senator Baucus (S.570) and Senator Chafee (S.571) which proposes more
stringent regulation of ozone depleting chemicals than is required by
the Montreal Treaty. EPA witness to be announced.
4. Wednesday, April 6 - House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee
on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and Environment
(Chairman James Scheuer, D-NY) will hold a field hearing in Research
Triangle Park, NC., on environmental health tr-ds in the 21st century.
to. Sn Sexton, Director of Health Research for the Office of Research
and Development will testify.
5 April 11 and 12 - Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on ™D Independent
Sncies (Chairman William^ Prolcmire, D^I) will hold a hearing on FY 1989
budqet. Administrator Lee Thomas, Deputy Administrator A. James Barnes,
and EPA Assistant Administrators will testify on behalf of the Agency.
6. Wednesday, April 13 - House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Transoortation, Tourism and Hazardous Materials (Chairman Thoraas Luken,
D-OH)'will hold a hearing on municipal incineration ash legislation
Which Chairman Luken plans to introduce shortly. Administrator Lee -Thomas ,
accompanied by J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator for Solid
VJaste^nd Emergency Response will testify on behalf of the Agency.
7 Thursday, April 14 - POSTPONED - Senate Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection (Chairman G^6/1^";'
D-ME) will hold a hearing on Coastal Pollution, Near Coastal Waters and
National Estuaries Programs. EPA witness to be announced. Hearing
possibly being rescheduled for April 20th.
-------
- 4 -
UPCOMING HEARINGS (cont'd)
8. '.fednesday, April 20 - House Public Works and Transportation Subcommittee
' on Investigations and Oversight (Qiairnan Janes L. Oberstar, D-MN)
will hold a hearing to discuss the Office of Technology Assessment's
oreliminary evaluation of Superfund Records of Decisions signed since
the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Attention is expected to focus on the use of innovative technology
and permanent remedies in the clean-up process. Administrator Lee Thomas
will'testify for the agency.
9. Thursday, April 21 - House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee
on Natural Resources, Agriculture, Research and Environment (Qiairnan
James Scheuer, D-NY) will hold a hearing on EPA's Office of Research
and Development FY 1989 budget. Dr. Vaun Newill, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development will testify for the agency.
10. Wednesday, April 27 - House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee
on Natural Resources, Agriculture, Research and Environment (Chairman
Janes Scheuer, D-NY) will hold a hearing on NAPAP Interim Assessment
and Research to be conducted between now and 1990. Dr. Courtney Riordan,
Director of Acid Deposition, Environmental itonitoring and Quality
Assurance, Office of Research and Development, will testify for the agency.
HEARINGS HELD
1 March 22 and 23 - House Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD-Independent
' Agencies (Chairman Edward Boland, D-MA) held hearings on FY 1989 budget
request. Administrator Lee Thomas, Deputy Administrator A. James Barnes,
and EPA Assistant Administrators testified on behalf of the agency.
2 Thursday, torch 24 - Senate Environment and Public Works Joint Water
Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee (Chairman
Daniel P. Moynihan, D-NY) and Subcommittee on Hazardous Wastes and
Toxic Substances (Chairman Max Baucus, D-MT) held a hearing on
grcundwater legislation. No EPA witness.
3. Thursday, March 24 - Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation
and Forestry (Chairman Wyche Fowler, D-CA) held a hearing on the
Conservation Reserve Program. Linda Fisher, Assistant Administrator
for Policy, Planning and Evaluation testified for the agency.
4 Thursday, torch 24 - House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and Environment (Chairman Gerry
Stuids, D-MD) and Subcommittee on Oceanography (Chairman Mike Lcwry, D-WA)
held a hearing on Coastal Pollution including the Near Coastal Waters
Program and the NPDES Permit Program. Tudor Davies, Director of the
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, and Jim Elder, Director of
the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, testified for the agency.
5. Friday, torch 25 - POSTPONED - Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee
on Government Efficiency/ Federalism and District of Columbia (Chairman
James R. Sasser, D-TN) will hold a grcundwater hearing on S.1992.
Larry Jensen, Assistant Administrator for Water will testify.
-------
EPA LEGISLATIVE ALT
ITIES
ACT
CLEAN AIR ACT
(expired 9/30/81)
RADON
APPROPRIATIONS
STATUS
Senate - Subcommittee mark-up took place
June 29 and 30. Title I-IV were unanimously
approved. Subcommittee marked up and approved
Title V on July 29. Full Committee mark-up
began on September 16, with bill being reported
October 22 (14-2).
S. 1894 and Report Mb. 100-231 was introduced
by Senator Mitchell and other Members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works on Nov. 20.
House - Legislative hearings on acid rain
(H.R.2666) on July 9 and 10 by Vfexman
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.
carbon monoxide (CO) and Ozone nonattainment
bill introduced on July 28 (H.R.3054).
Four Hearings held (8/3, 9/23, 9/28 and 9/30).
Subcommittee mark-up of the Committee Print on
Title I (H.R.2666) held February 18, 23, 24,
March 1 and 2. Mark-up of Title II (H.R.3054)
to continue.
H.R.3110 introduced by Congressman Florio
to require EPA to establish a standard for
exposure to radon in indoor environments.
Considered at Waxman's Health Subcommittee
hearing on H.R.2837, the Radon State
Program Development Act.
House Appropriations Committee hearings
held March 22 and 23.
NEXT STEP
Floor action.
House - Subcommittee markup on
Committee Print to continue.
Senate Appropriations Committee
hearings scheduled for April 11 & 12.
FIFRA
(expired 9/30/86)
H.R. 2463 introduced May 19.
S.1516 introduced July 21.
House Sub. Hearings 5/10&17. Senate Committee
hearing 7/30.
Senate markup scheduled for
March 30, 1988.
House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing
scheduled for March 30, 1988.
-------
EPA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES (cont'd)
ACT
TSCA
(expired 9/30/83)
STATUS
NEXT STEP
The President signed 10/22/86 (Asbestos in Schools)
(P.L. 99-519).
House - H.R.3070 to amend TSCA to require intermediate
handlers of PCB's to meet notification manifest and
financial responsibility requirements, the Asbestos
Information Act of 1987, H.R.2693, to require asbestos
manufactures to file technical protocols with EPA,
H.R.3893, to extend the compliance deadlines of the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986
(Senate companion bills S.2025 and S.2024) and
Senate - S.981 and S. 1809 to require EPA to set
standards for identification and nlwtement of asbestos
in Federal and Commercial buildings.
MPRSA
(expired 9/30/82)
R&D AUTHORIZATION
(expired 9/30/81)
CERCLA (Superfund)
(expires 12/31/91)
RCRA
(expires 9/30/88)
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
(expires 6/19/91)
CLEAN WATER ACT
(expires 9/30/90-
except revolving
fund authorized
through r ^994)
House Subcommittee hearings 4/1. H.R. 2355
Subcommittee mark-up bill reported 5/7. Full
Committee mark-up, bill reported 5/13. Passed
House as amended 6/4/87.
The President signal 10/17/86
(P.L. 99-499).
President signed 11/8/84
(P. L. 98-616).
Senate held hearing towards end
of first session. Looking at
reauthorization issues
for Subtitle D-Solid Waste
The President signed 6/19/86
(P.L. 99-339).
Bill enacted into law by Congressional
override 2/4/87 (P.L. 100-4).
Senate Action
Senate and House raauthorization
bills possible by late Spring.
-------
Testimony
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK
Testimony, 20 November 1987 - 11 March 1988
Statement of J. CRAIG POTTER
Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
of 1987." [9 p.]
EPA's views on S. 1629. the Indoor Air Quality Act
Statement of ROBERT HANNESCHLAGER
House Committee on Science. Space, and Technology
Statement of RICHARD E. SANDERSON
.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
""'Environmental Protection Agency's experience vith Che
0
National Environmental Policy Act. I/ P-J
Testimony of VICTOR KIMM
Deputy Assistant Administrator
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
2 December 1987
by Congressman Synar." [18 p.
Touris.. .no Ha^s Material
PCB Disposal Program
- -»-«
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
.3.toeCdtscurss19t" Subtitle D solid waste program under RCRA."
[22 p.l
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK: Testimony, 20 Nov 87-11 Mar 88 — page 2
Director! Office of Environmental Engineering & Technology Demonstration
Office of Research and Development ...,,4.1.,
before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
»toesp^akrto9"u about the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in
promoting innovative treatment technologies." [13 p.]
Statement of SHELDON MEYERS
Director, Office of Radiation Programs
before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
Sto'pre'sent"'! current activities of the EPA In the area f bi^l-1 -
transuranic radioactive waste management and disposal. [b p.j
Instant Aam}n!str.for?EOHice of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
before ^Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism, and Hazardous Matenals
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
"tdiscuss Toxic Substances Control Act PCB Disposal Program and
S " MW, which was recently introduced in the House of Representatives
by Congressman Synar." [18 p.]
Testimony of ROBIE G. RUSSELL
Regional Administrator, Region 10
before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
"oTscuss EPA-s counts on the Department of the Interior's ^U
^^
S£=i interes
wtsirtnd Caler quality impacts at existing oil de.elop.ent sites on the
North Slope." [6 p.]
M^istrator ~rlolid Wast, and Em.rgency Response
oSore "h. Su.c±Itt« on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
ocnn. valuable series of hearing, on EPA's management and
Implementation of the Superfund program. 116 p.J
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK: Testimony. 20 Nov 87-11 Mar 88 - page 3
Statement of LAURENCE J. JENSEN
Assistant Administrator for Water
before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
.
are already under way to address concerns in this area. [20 p.]
Statement of RONNIE LEVIN
Economic Impact Analyst
Office of Policy. Planning, and Evaluation
before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
10 December 1987 „ , ,Q ,
"to discuss the issue of lead in drinking water. [29 p.J
Statement of DOUGLAS D. CAMPT
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
"oTro^de events on the -Pesticide Monitor!^ Improvements Acf
(B.R. 3504)." (10 p.)
House Committee on Government Operations
"oTisctss Z you the Asency's efforts to implement the facility closure
requirements under RCRA." [16 P-l
Statement of JAMES M. SEIF
Srihel^rit"; on^ansporation. Tourism, and Hazardous Materials
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
recent'^slve'oil spiU in FloreHe. Pennsylvania." US p..
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK: Testimony, 20 Nov-11 Mar 88 — page 4
Statement of TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR.
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
for « t. and notification of oil
EPA initiatives in this area." [8 p.]
Statement for the record of JAMES M. SEIF
Regional Administrator, Region 3
before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
recent massive oil spill in Floreffe, Pennsylvania." [15 p.]
4
Statement of MARIAN MLAY
Director, Office of Groundwater Protection .,„... „„,,,,
Before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
views on ground-water protection." [13 p.]
Statement of LEE M. THOMAS
Administrator of EPA lat.lnfie
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
on September 16, 1987." [7 p.]
Statement of TUDOR T. DAVIES
Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
beiore tne Subcommittee on Environmental Protection «d the
Subcommittee on Superfund and ^^"bSc^ork
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
oerore you on the Agency's
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK: Testimony, 20 Nov 87-11 Mar 88 — page 5
Statement of CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT
Senate Coranittee on the Environment and Public WorKS
"o'olscuss "'"region's perspective on the Issue of ocean oUpo.al of
municipal sewage sludge." [7 p.]
Testimony of LEE M. THOMAS
Administrator of EPA
=
, Transportation, and Infrastructure
— -
Testimony of CHRISTOPHER J. DAGGETT
Regional Administrator, Region 2
before the Subcommittee on Oceanography and the
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
".TIES our'region's perspective on the issue of ocean disposal of
municipal sewage sludge." [9 p.]
Testimony of DAVID G. DAVIS
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
25 February 1988 for Section 404 of the
in
the State of Washington," 15 p.]
Office
2 March 1988
made by the U.S. Environmental
Office -
[8 p.l
-------
SPEAKERS HANDBOOK: Testimony, 20 Nov 87-11 Mar 88 - page 6
Statement of DR. ALVIN R. MORRIS
Director, Water Management Division, Region 3
before the Subcommittee on Water Resources
House Public Works and Transportation Committee
the Convention Center here in December.
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
"discus!* 'the Environmental Protection Agency's Global Climate Change
'program and its reUtlon to international ««•"•. 'J-JJ.1 *
this issue." 19 p.]
Statement of J. Winston Porter
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
••? amrCreSp"onsible for implementation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
£ e ation and Liability Act (CERCLA)...! 'PP""^^^'*
to discuss our efforts to implement these programs at federal facil
and to comment on the five federal facility bills that have been introduced.
[17 p.]
Ass AlifistratoHor Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Before te Subcommittee on Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances
and the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works
torngou up to date on the Environmental Protection Agency's
efforts to implement the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
of 1986, or AHERA." [23 p.]
-------
03
C
a
CD
(D
Budget
-------
FINGERTIP FACTS FOR THOSE TIMES OF SHEER PANIC
February 18, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dollar/Personnel Suranary:
FT 1981 thru FT 1989 P. 1
Program Summaries:
Superfund
Research
Enforcement
Construction Grants
State Grants: Budget Authority...
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
Budget Comparisons: Aggregate/
Incremental Changes vs FY 1981
Budget Authority-Operating Programs
Budget Authori ty-Superfund
Budget Author!ty-LUST
Budget Authority-Operating, LUST & Superfund..
Uorkyear CeiI ing
. 7
. 8
. 9
. 10
. 11
DOLLAR SUMMARY - BUDGET AUTHORITY ($ MILLIONS)
Program
Operating
Superfund
LUST
Total
1981
Approp.
$1,353
$75
SO
SI.428
1982
Approp.
S1.086
S190
SO
SI,276
1983
Approp.
81,049
$210
$0
SI,259
1984
Approp.
$1.172
$460
$0
$1.632
1985
Approp.
$1,348
$620
$0
$1,968
1986
Approp.
$1,470
$493
$0
$1,963
1987 1988 1989
Approp. Cur. Est. Bud. Est.
$1.542
$1,133
$25
$2,700
$1.581
$1,499
$39
$3.119
1989 Budget percentage increase over prior years.
Operating
Superfund
LUST
Total
20X
2033X
OX
130X
SOX
742X
OX
157X
55X
662X
OX
160X
39X
248X
OX
101X
21X
158X
OX
67X
11X
225X
OX
67X
6X
41X
OX
21X
3X
7X
28X
5X
$1,629
$1.600
$50
$3.279
Const. Grants
Grand Total
$1.605
$3.033
S2.400
$3,676
$2,430
$3,689
$2,435
$4,067
$2,400
$4,368
$1,774
$3.737
$2,361
$5,061
$2,304
$5,423
$1,500
$4,779
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERSONNEL SUMMARY (TOTAL FTE CEILING)
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Final Plan Final Plan Final Plan Final Plan Final Plan Final Plan Final Plan Cur. Est. Bud. Est.
Total FTE
Ceiling
Operating
Superfund
LUST
Total
13,060
70
0
13.130
11,576
585
0
12.161
10,249
776
0
11,025
10,541
1,057
0
11,598
11,269
1,357
0
12,626
11,645
1,816
0
13,461
11.767
2,416
85
14.268
11,730
2.633
85
14,448
11.730
2.750
90
14.570
Agency Total
On-Board End of Year (Unless otherwise noted)
12,355 11,681 11,172 12,232 13,165 13,348
14.538
N/A
N/A
Conversion Table -
PFTE
OPFTE
10,171
1,747
9,364 •
1,854
On-Boards Comparable to Ceiling
9,277
1,516
10,565
1,334
11,616
1.239
11,980
1,094
13,025
1,210
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
11,918
11,218
10,793
11.899
12,855
13,074
14,235
N/A
N/A
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affaire (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
fcEPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988
PRESIDENT'S
PROPOSED 1989
EPA BUDGET
PROVIDES
$4.8 BILLION
Elly Seng (202) 382-4384
R-30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Lee M. Thomas today announced that President Reagan has
proposed a total fiscal 1989 budget of almost $4.8
billion for the agency. Excluding construction grants,
the program budget totals almost $3.3 billion and 14,57
workyears. The President's 1989 budget includes
substantial increases in funding for the Superfund
program. EPA research and development activities are
also increasing by nearly $23 million, as emphasis is
placed on reducing uncertainties in risk assessments
and stratospheric-ozone depletion.
Some specifics of EPA's budget include:
— Excluding construction grants, the Administration
is requesting almost $3.3 billion supported by 14,57(
workyears. This budget is $159 million more than
EPA's 1988 current estimate.
— Within the total, the operating programs increase
by $48 million while the workyears remain constant.
Emphasis will be given to those programs designed
to meet statutory requirements and address emerging
environmental issues.
— When prior-year appropriations are included, EPA's
planned Superfund program increases $200 million.
Virtually, the entire increase will support remedial
site activities that directly result in the cleaning
up of National Priority List sites. In addition,
workyears for the program increase to 2,750.
(more)
-------
-2-
— EPA efforts in the leaking underground storage tank trust
fund program increase by $10.6 million. The increase will
expand state cooperative agreement funding.
— Funding for the construction-grants program totals $1.5
billion, which will be split evenly between grants and
funding for approved state revolving funds. EPA is beginning
the transition from federally subsidized construction grants
to state revolving funds as a means for financing construction
of municipal wastewater-treatment works.
— EPA will provide a total of $10 million for activities that
will lead to reduced uncertainties in risk assessments. In
addition, the budget provides a significant increase to
support the President's stratospheric-ozone-depletion
initiatives. This effort will develop information in time to
make recommendations in 1994 as required by the Montreal
Protocol.
— A total of $60 million is included in the President's 1989
budget for the transportation, storage and disposal of
cancelled or suspended pesticides. In 1989, EPA expects to
make substantial progress on the safe and effective disposal
of those pesticides.
— EPA will continue to emphasize implementation of its responsi-
bilities under the reauthorized Clean Water Act. Additio^
resources are being devoted to programs that will protect
the nation's wetlands and near coastal waters. EPA will aiso
increase programs for controlling the discharge of toxic and
hazardous pollutants as well as increase technical assistance
to states.
— EPA's state grants increase slightly to $290 million. EPA
will continue to work with the states to assist them in
developing strong programs to carry out their responsibilities,
In announcing the budget proposal, Thomas said, "In light of the
constraints set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement between the
Administration and Congress, I believe that the request we are proposing
reaffirms the President's commitment to provide the resources necessary to
protect human health and the environment." He'went on to say, "The request
for EPA provides growth in programs that are vital to meeting the most
critical environmental challenges facing EPA. In developing our 1989
budget, I have directed resources toward programs I believe will help us
meet these significant challenges and demonstrate our public commitment to
environmental protection."
R-30 (more)
-------
-3-
Thomas continued, "By the end of 1989, we anticipate that engineering
_ J design work will be underway or completed on nearly 900 of the National
Priority List sites. Our focus, however, will continue to shift toward
expanding the number of sites in the final and most important phases of
cleanup. This will be accomplished by moving a steady stream of fund-
financed projects to actual cleanup, while also overseeing a growing number
of new responsible-party actions. In 1989, we anticipate managing or
overseeing a total of 145 new remedial designs and 85 new constructions of
which 75 designs and 50 new constructions will be fund-financed. These
actions are consistent with the mandatory remedial-construction schedule
set forth in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act."
Thomas added, "In the emergency-response program, expanded authorities
will allow us to pursue more complete removals which are consistent with
long-term remedy of an NPL site. In our remedial program, we plan to
complete over 20 construction projects, while responsible parties are
expected to add another 10. The completion of these activities represents
a major step toward protecting public health and the environment from the
dangers posed by past hazardous-waste practices.
"Superfund enforcement efforts will be broadened to achieve more respon-
sible-party settlements through aggressive use of our expanded authorities
under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. EPA will also pursue
intensive cost-recovery efforts to recoup costs previously paid by the trust
* -nd."
Thomas announced EPA plans to implement the transition from construction
grants to state revolving funds. He said, "This proposal will ensure that
adequate financial resources are available to continue progress in construc-
ting municipal facilities needed to comply with the Clean Water Act.
"This proposal will also provide states with increased control and
responsibility in the construction of municipal wastewater-treatment
facilities. By 1994, the state revolving funds will be self-sufficient,
and federal funding will be phased out."
In concluding Thomas said/"I believe we have developed a budget that
will enable EPA to continue to protect human health and the environment
through its established programs. The EPA budget also underscores the
Administration's commitment to push forward to Better understand and control
the many existing and emerging environmental issues facing the nation."
R-30 f # •
-------
STATEMENT OF LEE M. THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ON
ERA'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1989
FEBRUARY 18,1988
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I AM HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENTS 1989 BUDGET REQUEST
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. IN LIGHT OF THE BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS SET FORTH IN THE BIPARTISAN BUDGET AGREEMENT BE-
TWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS, I BELIEVE THAT THE REQUEST
WE ARE PROPOSING REAFFIRMS THE PRESIDENTS COMMITMENT TO PRO-
VIDE THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT AND MEET EPA'S STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE BUDGET REQUEST FOR EPA PROVIDES FOR GROWTH IN PROGRAMS
THAT ARE VITAL TO MEETING THE MOST CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHAL-
LENGES FACING EPA. IN DEVELOPING OUR 1989 BUDGET, I HAVE DIRECTED
RESOURCES TOWARDS PROGRAMS I BELIEVE WILL HELP US MEET THESE
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES AND DEMONSTRATE OUR PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. I HAVE BUILT EPA'S BUDGET ON THE FOL-
LOWING FOUR THEMES:
• DIRECT RESOURCES TO MEET EPA'S STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES
AND EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES.
• REAFFIRM EPA'S COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT OUR REGULATORY EFFORTS.
• CONTINUE OUR ESSENTIAL PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATES.
• UNDERTAKE LONG-TERM AND PERMANENT REMEDIAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS AT SUPERFUND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES.
-------
OVERVIEW
IN 1989, OUR TOTAL DOLLAR REQUEST IS ALMOST $4.8 BILLION. IN OUR
OPERATING PROGRAMS WE ARE REQUESTING $1.6 BILLION AND 11,730
WORKYEARS. IN SUPERFUND, WE ARE REQUESTING $1.6 BILLION AND 2,750
WORKYEARS. WHEN WE INCLUDE ANTICIPATED FUNDING FROM PRIOR AP-
PROPRIATIONS, OUR TOTAL SUPERFUND PROGRAM IN 1989 WILL BE APPROXI-
MATELY $1.7 BILLION WHICH IS $200 MILLION OVER OUR PLANNED PROGRAM
IN 1988. FUNDING FOR THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (LUST)
PROGRAM TOTALS $50.0 MILLION AND 90 WORKYEARS. COMBINED FUNDING
FOR ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS - OUR OPERATING PROGRAMS, SUPERFUND,
AND LUST — REPRESENTS AN INCREASE OF FIVE PERCENT ABOVE OUR 1988
LEVEL
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES $1.5 BILLION FOR THE CON-
STRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO BE DIVIDED EVENLY BETWEEN CON-
STRUCTION GRANTS AND STATE REVOLVING FUNDS. THIS REQUEST, WHEN
COMBINED WITH PREVIOUS APPROPRIATIONS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S $12.0 BILLION PHASE-OUT PLAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE FURTHER ON THE KEY INITIATIVES THAT ARE
CENTRAL TO THE PRESIDENTS 1989 BUDGET REQUEST FOR EPA.
-------
MEETING ERA'S STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
IN 1989, WE WILL CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO MEET ERA'S STATUTORY RE-
SPONSIBILITIES. ALTHOUGH THE RECENT BIPARTISAN BUDGET AGREEMENT
PLACES LIMITS ON OUR ABILITY TO INCREASE OUR PROGRAMS, I HAVE DI-
RECTED RESOURCES TO MEET THE MOST CRITICAL CHALLENGES FACING
EPA.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR RE-
QUIREMENTS UNDER THE REAUTHORIZED CLEAN WATER ACT WE HAVE PRO-
VIDED INCREASES FOR PROGRAMS THAT WILL PROTECT OUR MOST VALU-
ABLE WATER HABITATS, ESPECIALLY WETLANDS AND NEAR COASTAL WA-
TERS. WE WILL ALSO INCREASE OUR EFFORTS TO CONTROL DISCHARGES OF
TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO STATES.
IN OUR AIR AND RADIATION PROGRAMS, THE 1989 BUDGET DIRECTS RE-
SOURCES TOWARDS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL OZONE
AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PMJ ATTAINMENT STRATEGY. WE WILL ALSO IN-
CREASE OUR EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE RISK FROM RADON GAS AND CON-
TINUE OUR EFFORTS TO DEVELOP NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SOLU-
TIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION.
OUR EFFORTS IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS WILL EMPHASIZE
WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION, AND
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO PRODUCE A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE
NATIONAL PROBLEM OF HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
-------
IN THE PESTICIDES PROGRAM, WE ARE REQUESTING $60.0 MILLION TO EN-
SURE THAT EPA IS ABLE TO TRANSPORT, STORE, AND MAKE SUBSTANTIAL
PROGRESS ON DISPOSAL OF CANCELLED OR SUSPENDED PESTICIDE PROD-
UCTS THAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE HAVE INCREASED THE SUPPORT FOR STATE COOPERATIVE AGREE-
MENTS IN THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (LUST) PROGRAM IN
1989. THROUGH THESE AGREEMENTS EPA WILL CONTINUE TO FUND DEVEL-
OPMENT OF STATE PROGRAMS TO RESPOND TO THIS IMPORTANT ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROBLEM AND WILL TARGET RESOURCES TO EXPAND THE NUMBER
OF RESPONSE ACTIVITIES AND CLEANUPS IN STATES WITH HIGHLY DEVEL-
OPED PROGRAMS.
EMPHASIS ON LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS AT SUPERFUND SITES
BY THE END OF 1989, WE ANTICIPATE THAT PLANNING WORK WILL BE UN-
DERWAY OR COMPLETED ON NEARLY 900 OF THE NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST
(NPL) SITES. OUR FOCUS, HOWEVER, WILL CONTINUE TO SHIFT TOWARD EX-
PANDING THE NUMBER OF SITES IN THE FINAL AND MOST IMPORTANT PHASES
OF CLEANUP. THIS WILL BE ACCOMPISHED BY MOVING A STEADY STREAM OF
FUND-FINANCED PROJECTS TO ACTUAL CLEANUP, WHILE ALSO OVERSEEING
A GROWING NUMBER OF NEW RESPONSIBLE PARTY ACTIONS. IN 1989, WE
ANTICIPATE MANAGING OR OVERSEEING A TOTAL OF 145 NEW REMEDIAL
DESIGNS AND 85 NEW CONSTRUCTIONS OF WHICH 75 DESIGNS AND 50 NEW
CONSTRUCTIONS WILL BE FUND-FINANCED. THESE ACTIONS ARE CONSIS-
TENT WITH THE MANDATORY REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SET
FORTH IN THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
(SARA).
-------
IN THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM, EXPANDED AUTHORITIES WILL
ALLOW US TO PURSUE MORE COMPLETE REMOVALS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE LONG-TERM REMEDY AT AN NPL SITE. IN OUR REMEDIAL PRO-
GRAM, WE PLAN TO COMPLETE OVER 20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, WHILE
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE EXPECTED TO ADD ANOTHER 10. THE COMPLE-
TION OF THESE ACTIVITIES REPRESENTS A MAJOR STEP TOWARD PROTECT-
ING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH FROM THE DANGERS
POSED BY PAST HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES.
IN OUR RESEARCH PROGRAM, WE WILL INCREASE EFFORTS TO EXPLORE
ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE A KEY
TO ACHIEVING PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AT NPL SITES.
FINALLY, WE HAVE BROADENED OUR ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS SIGNIFI-
CANTLY. WE WILL ACHIEVE MORE RESPONSIBLE PARTY SETTLEMENTS
THROUGH AGGRESSIVE USE OF OUR EXPANDED AUTHORITIES UNDER SARA.
WE WILL ALSO PURSUE MORE INTENSIVE COST RECOVERY EFFORTS TO
RECOUP COSTS PREVIOUSLY PAID BY THE TRUST FUND.
-------
VIABLE AND COST EFFECTIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
THE PRESIDENTS 1989 BUDGET FOR ERA'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM TOTALS $375.0 MILLION AND 1,848 WORKYEARS, AN INCREASE OF
$22.7 MILLION AND 17 WORKYEARS OVER 1988.
A MAJOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY IS REDUCING THE UN-
CERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT SO THAT EPA CAN MAKE BETTER IN-
FORMED REGULATORY DECISIONS AND ESTABLISH A SOUND BASIS FOR OUR
RESEARCH PRIORITIES. IN 1989, $10.0 MILLION WILL BE DEVOTED TO PROJ-
ECTS DESIGNED TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IM-
PROVE OUR DECISIONMAKING CAPABILITIES.
OUR RESEARCH EFFORTS WILL ALSO BE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY TO
SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S INITIATIVE ON STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DE-
PLETION. THIS RESEARCH WILL ENABLE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ABOUT THE RISKS POSED BY OZONE DEPLETION
IN PREPARATION FOR THE 1994 SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT REQUIRED BY THE
MONTREAL PROTOCOL
-------
CONTINUING OUR ESSENTIAL PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATES
IN 1989, FUNDING FOR THE STATE GRANTS PORTION OF THE BUDGET TO-
TALS $290.0 MILLION, A SLIGHT INCREASE ABOVE 1988. EPA WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE STATES TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING STRONG PROGRAMS
TO CARRY OUT THE STATES'RESPONSIBILITIES. THE 1989 PRESIDENTS
BUDGET RECOGNIZES THAT CONTINUED COOPERATION OF THE STATES IS
NECESSARY TO MEET OUR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS TRANSITION
AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE 1989 PRESIDENTS BUDGET IS OUR PLAN
TO IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION FROM CONSTRUCTION GRANTS TO STATE
REVOLVING FUNDS (SRFs) FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSISTANCE. IN
1989, OUR $1.5 BILLION REQUEST WILL ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO CONTINUE PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTING
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
STATE REVOLVING FUNDS WILL PERMIT STATES TO PROVIDE VARIOUS
FORMS OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING LOW INTEREST/LONG TERM
LOANS, REFINANCING, LOAN GUARANTEES AND BOND INSURANCE. THIS
APPROACH WILL ALSO PROVIDE STATES WITH INCREASED CONTROL AND
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREAT-
MENT FACILITIES. BY 1994, THE STATE REVOLVING FUNDS WILL BE SELF
SUFFICIENT AND FEDERAL FUNDING WILL HAVE BEEN PHASED OUT.
-------
CONCLUSION
THE BUDGET I HAVE PUT FORTH TODAY REFLECTS MANY DIFFICULT DECI-
SIONS. IN THESE TIMES OF LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES I BELIEVE WE
HAVE DEVELOPED A BUDGET THAT WILL ENABLE EPA TO CONTINUE TO PRO-
TECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH ITS ESTABLISHED
PROGRAMS. THE EPA BUDGET ALSO UNDERSCORES THE ADMINISTRATION'S
COMMITMENT TO PUSH FORWARD TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND CONTROL
THE MANY EXISTING AND EMERGING ISSUES FACING THE NATION. I LOOK
FORWARD TO DISCUSSING MY PROPOSALS WITH CONGRESS AND I AM OPTI-
MISTIC THAT THIS BUDGET WILL RECEIVE PROMPT AND FAVORABLE CONSID-
ERATION.
I AM PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
8
-------
CONTACTS FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S FY1989 PRESIDENTS BUDGET
COMPTROLLER
ASSOCIATE COMPTROLLER
BUDGET DIVISION DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATE BUDGET DIVISION DKECTOR
BUDGET PLANNING & SYSTEMS BRANCH
BUDGET FORMULATION & CONTROL BRANCH
DAVID P. RYAN
RICHARD BASHAR
ALVIN PESACHOWTTZ
JACK EDWARDSON
EDWARD CALLAHAN
JACK SHIPLEY
475-9674
475-9674
475-8340
475-8340
4754157
382-4176
PESTICIDES & TOXIC SUBSTANCES
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
CHRISTINA PARKER
LESLIE BALDWIN
382-2914
(382-4170)
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
CLARENCE E. MAHAN
DAVID OSTERMAN
382-7500
(3824179)
AIR & RADIATION
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
JERRY KURTZWEG
GEORGIA CALLAHAN
382-7415
(475-7164)
WATER QUALITY & DRINKING WATER
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
MARYBLAKESLEE
LESLIE BALDWIN
382-5698
(3824170)
HAZARDOUS WASTE, SUPERFUND &
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
(LUST) PROGRAM
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
THAD JUSZCZAK
RON BACHAND
3824510
(3824165)
ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE MONITORING
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT)
SALLY MANSBACH
GEORGIA CALLAHAN
382-3125
(475-7164)
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT:
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
& RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING
& EVALUATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
(BUDGET DIVISION CONTACT
FOR MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT)
DIANE BAZZLE
DON FLATTERY
DAIVABALKUS
MARY FREE
ED CANADY
BILL STEWART
GEORGIA CALLAHAN
3824057
382-5623
3824083
3824020
3824912
382-8880
(475-7164)
-------
EPAS
FY1989
BUDGET
FEBRUARY - 1988
-------
EPA S 1989 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
o MEETS PROGRAM PRIORITIES WITHIN THE
BUDGET AGREEMENT
o MEETS STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES AND
ADDRESSES EMERGING PROGRAMS
o MAINTAINS OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE STATES
o EXPANDS COMMITMENT TO R&D
o CONTINUES SUPERFUND GROWTH
-------
OUR OPERATING, SUFBRPUND AND LUST
PROGRAMS ARE GROWING
-------
OUR BUDGET IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE *12 BILLION PHASE-OUT OP
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
12.361
« IN MILLIONS)
12304
FT 1987
BUDGBT
AUTHORITY
FY198S
CURRENT
ESTIMATE
FT 1989
PRESIDENTS
BUDGBT
-------
OUR OPERATING PROGRAMS INCREASE IN
1989, DESPITE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
(* IN MILLIONS)
•1,552
11,581
•1,629
WORKTBAR8
FT 1987
ACTUALS
11,241
FT 1988
CURRENT
ESTIMATE
11.790
FT 1989
PRESIDENTS
BUDGET
11,730
-------
EMERGING PRIORITIES
(I Df MILLIONS)
OZONE 166
RADON U3
GLOBAL/CFCs 118
PESTICIDES
DISPOSAL 160
SOLID WASTE 110
CLEAN WATER 1266
-------
WE
RESOURCES FOR
AND
« IN MILLIONS)
»3TS
»349
FT 1987
ACTUALS
FT 1980
CURRENT
ESTIMATE
FT 1989
FRBSIDBlfTS
BUDGET
-------
OUR R&D REQUEST WILL ADVANCE OUR
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO IMPROVE
DECISION MAKING
C* IN MILLIONS)
SUFBRFUND CLEANUP
TECHNOLOGIES
•32
CLEAN
WATER
125
CFC»
•12
EXPLORATORY
•24
HAZARDOUS
RADON/
INDOOR Am
•8
REDUCING RISK
UNCERTAINTIES
NO
-------
OUR GRANT
STRONG COM!
RAM
THE
<• IN MILLIONS)
1302
•288
1290
FT 1965
FINAL
PLAN
FY1986
FINAL
PLAN
FT 1987
FINAL
PLAN
FY1988
CURRENT
ESTIMATE
FY 1989
PUBS.
BUD.
-------
THE LUST FRO(
BY 28 FERCE1
(I IN MILLIONS)
ISO
139
114.4
NEW
DOLLARS
W01
FT war
ACTUALS
27
FT19tS
CUUBNT
BBTIMATB
63
FT 1989
BUDGET
90
-------
SUPERFUND CONTINUES ITS RAPID
GROWTH IN 1989
<» Df MILLIONS)
M.051
•UOO
•1,500
11,128
NEW
DOLLARS
11,600
NBW
DOLLARS
WOBEYRARB
FT 1987
ACTUALS
2,1T4
FT 1968
CURRBNT
2.633
FT 1989
FLAN
2,750
-------
OVER 80 PERCENT OP OUR SUPERFUND
RESOURCES PROVIDE DIRECT SITE SUPPORT
DIRECT
SITE
SUPPORT
82.0%
SITE
RELATED
5.0%
PROGRAM
SUPPORT
13.0%
-------
THE INCREASE IS DIRECTED TO
THE FINAL SITE CLEANUP STAGE
C* IN MILLIONS)
•695
1485
1154
FY19ff
ACTUALS
FY1960
CURRENT
BSTOfATB
FT 1989
PLAN
-------
IN SUMMARY. THE PRESIDENTS
REQUEST FOR EPA IN 1989 WILL:
o MEET SUPERFUND MANDATES
o ADDRESS EMERGING PROGRAMS
o ENHANCE R&D SUPPORT
o SUSTAIN THE FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
-------
m
o
Enforcement 1
-------
MR 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Inclusion of Enforcement Theme in EPA Speeches
FROM: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Lee and Jim have emphasized the need to project the
enforcement message to the regulated community. In your public
appearances, the inclusion of the enforcement topic goes a long
way towards achieving this goal.
Enforcement activity is the backstop for voluntary
compliance. Maximum deterrence, however, can only be achieved
when those regulated are made aware of our enforcement efforts.
To that end, I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in
including the enforcement theme or examples thereof wherever
practical in remarks that you make to the public. To aid you in
this effort, I have asked Terrell Hunt of my staff to be
available to provide you with information, facts, case histories,
etc., and even assist in drafting portions of speeches dealing
with'enforcement. Mr. Hunt can be reached at (202) 475-8777.
OECM looks forward to working with you and your staff in
this regard.
-------
March 1988
. nVF.RVIEW OF CURRENT EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
o Record enforcement in 1986 and 1987:
— 373 civil referrals in 1986, highest in history;
274 civil referrals in 1987, second highest in history.
-- over 3,200 administrative orders issued by EPA in 1987,
highest in history (reflects trend towards greater use
of administrative enforcement by Agency).
record $24 million in civil penalties assessed in
1987. Sixty percent of the total of all EPA civil
penalties have been collected over the last three years.
— State enforcement also at high levels. State agencies
referred 723 cases to their Attorneys General
for prosecution in 1987—twice the previous year.
States also initiated 3200 administrative orders.
II. CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT: EPA'S STRONGEST DETERRENT
o EPA's criminal enforcement program is expanding. During
the last four years RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act, CERCLA
and Clean Water Act have been amended to add or enhance
criminal authorities and sanctions:
— 55 criminal investigators in field around the
country.
— Over the last two years EPA and DOJ have brought
charges against 164 defendants and 124 defendants
have been convicted of or pled guilty to criminal
violations. Last year alone judges ordered criminal
fines of $3.6 million and judges handed down 84 years
in sentences, of which 25 years will be served.
o Recent trends in criminal enforcement:
— EPA/DOJ policy to charge highest corporate official
with violation; over one half of all indictments were
against corporate directors, presidents, vice
presidents or other policy-level officials. It is no
defense to argue that managers "didn't know what their
employees were doing."
— About one-half of criminal prosecutions have been for
RCRA or Superfund violations. Criminal investigators
now working more closely with Programs to pursue
appropriate potential criminal cases for all media
(e.g., first FIFRA criminal enforcement action in
-------
— SARA "DUMPBUSTER" Amendment provides awards up to S10K
to citizens who provide information leading to arrest
and conviction of individuals violating criminal
enforcement provisions of Superfund. Interim Final
Rule soon to be published in Federal Register and
program under way later in FY 1988.
o EPA criminal enforcement program is working with other
federal agencies such as the U.S. Customs Service and
FBI to detect and prosecute environmental crimes. EPA
may report criminal violations to SEC.
o EPA is helping States develop their own criminal
enforcement capabilities to detect/prosecute
environmental crimes:
— Agency helps fund the Northeast Hazardous Waste
Project, a consortium of 13 States which train State
hazardous waste enforcement personnel in criminal
investigative techniques.
— Agency is providing support for similar consortia of
Western and Midwestern states.
III. DEFINING/EXECUTING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES
o EPA has an annual Strategic Planning Process to identify
enforcement priorities. Programs also define Significant
Noncompliance to ensure that the most important violations
are systematically addressed.
o The 1987 civil judicial docket reflects the Agency's
increasing emphasis upon controlling toxics. For example,
over 30% of the CWA (NPDES) cases involved toxic
discharges and almost 40% of the Stationary Source Air
cases involved toxic pollutants (NESHAPS for asbestos D/R,
benzene, vinyl chloride).
o Other 1988 Program enforcement priorities include:
— Air: non-attainment (ozone).
— Water (NPDES): Municipal compliance.
— Drinking Water Standards: persistent problems.
— CERCLA: private party response.
— RCRA: corrective action and permitting.
— Federal Facilities Compliance.
-------
o EPA also emphasizes "follow through" to ensure that
consent orders and consent decrees are complied with
completely and expeditiously.
IV. STREAMLINING ENFORPF.MEMT AND ENHANCING IMPACT
o EPA's "timely and appropriate" enforcement criteria sets
goals for making progress in resolving violations and
returning to compliance. In addition, we have begun
several initiatives to "speed the process along."
A. Resolving violations Quickly and Efficiently
1. F.xpanded Use of Administrative Orders
o Programs are making greater use of AOs to
facilitate more rapid enforcement response and save
civil referrals for the most environmentally
significant and/or resource intensive cases, and for
enforcing compliance with administrative orders.
2. Field Citations and Short Form Motires of Violation
(NOV)
o Under a field citation, inspectors issue the
complaint (including the penalty) at the conclusion
of the inspection for "routine" and easily
detectable violations that do not require additional
legal or analytical review.
o Under a short form NOV, a standard Notice of
Violation is filled out by Regional program personnel
along with a proposed settlement and penalty. The
violator can agree to the amount or face additional
enforcement action and higher costs later on.
o Mobile Sources has been using Short form NOV's
successfully for several years and two Regions are
currently involved in one-year pilots to use them to
resolve asbestos and pesticide violations.
3. Managing Judicial Litigation
o Agency and DOJ are taking new approaches for the
efficient management of judicial litigation:
— expanding use of direct referrals from EPA Regions
direct to DOJ.
— improving and formalizing the process of
pre-filing negotiations.
— expanding the use of written case-management
plans.
-------
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution
o OECM recently issued final guidance on the use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques (mediation,
arbitration, fact-finding and mini-trials), all of
which involve the use of neutral third parties to
facilitate the negotiation of consent decrees.
o ADR may be useful for routine matters which may not
warrant the costs of formal litigation; for cases with
difficult technical issues that may benefit from
independent analysis; or for cases with multiple
parties or issues.
o The Administrator has strongly encouraged the Regions
to nominate cases which meet the criteria for ADR.
B. Adequate Sanctions
1. Recouping the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance
o EPA developed a generic civil Penalty Policy to
recapture at a minimum the economic benefit of
noncompliance and has developed a computer model to
help Regions calculate that benefit. Penalty levels
have increased significantly since then. (Recent
reauthorizations of statutes have also granted and/or
increased administrative and criminal penalty authori
for all programs but Air and FIFRA.)
2. Contractor Listing
o The Agency has expanded its contractor Listing
Program for violators of the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act. This is one of EPA's most powerful enforcement
sanctions.
o Violators put on the List (mandatory listing for
criminal violations; discretionary listing for civil
violators) are not allowed to bid on any government
contract for the period they are on the List. One
listed company lost the opportunity to obtain over $50
million in government contracts while on the list.
o Eighteen facilities were on the List during 1987. Seven
came into compliance and were removed from the List
while 11 others were still on it at the beginning of
1988.
-------
Protects c Aflta. (A;^
Agency Washington DC 20460
EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1988
Robin Woods (202) 382-4377
EPA RELEASES The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
STATISTICS7 referred the second highest number of enforcement
cases in its history to the U.S. Department of Justice
and set an all-time record for the amount of civil
penalties assessed in fiscal year 1987. In addition,
state agencies last year developed and referred
their highest number of cases to state courts and
maintained strong administrative enforcement programs.
EPA also expanded its administrative penalty and
contractor listing programs while maintaining and
resolving a large civil and criminal judicial case
docket.
State environmental aqencies, which now enforce
most of the federal environmental laws under authority
delegated by EPA, referred 723 cases to state attorneys
general tor prosecution under state law, compared with
408 in the previous year. In addition, states took a
total of 3,183 administrative enforcement actions under
the air, water and hazardous-waste laws, compared with
4,106 in 1986.
EPA referred 304 civil and 41 criminal cases to
the Justice Department, compared with 342 and 41 in
those categories in 1986. The Justice Department filed
285 EPA civil cases in 1987, compared with 260 cases
last year. At the end of 1987, EPA had 387 active
civil judicial orders and consent decrees, compared
with 322 in 1986 and 282 in 1985.
R-16
-------
- 2 -
EPA issued 3,194 administrative orders i.n 1987 compared with 2,626
in 1986 and 2,609 in 1985. The largest -increase in administrative orders--
from 781 in 1986 to 1,051 in 1987 -- occurred under the Toxic Substances
Control Act, primarily in the PCB and asbestos programs.
EPA established a new all-time record for the largest amount of
civil penalties imposed in a year, based on a preliminary analysis. The
agency imposed over $24 million in penalties in 1987 compared with
$20.9 million in 1986, and $22.9 million in 1985. The penalties imposed
in these three years account for 60 percent of all of EPA's penalties
imposed since 1974. EPA program offices generally have increased their
use of penalties and the size of typical penalties under both judicial
and administrative authorities.
Thomas L. Adams, Jr., EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring, said, "The record for 1987 reflects a strong
commitment by EPA and the Department of Justice to ensure compliance
with our environmental standards. The statistics also indicate that the
states are equally committed to taking appropriate enforcement action.
"The higher admininistrative figures reflect a commitment by the
agency to use more aggressively the administrative enforcement powers
Congress has provided'under most of the environmental laws. At the
same time, we will continue our strong use of the federal courts when
injunctive relief, court-imposed sanctions or criminal prosecution is
the appropriate response to a violation."
EPA's criminal enforcement program has referred 82 cases for criminal
prosecution over the pasjt two years. In 1987, 58 defendants were
convicted or entered guilty pleas, compared with 66 in 1986 and 40 in
1985. During 1987, federal judges imposed fines totalling $3.6 million
and prison terms of 84 years against individuals convicted of violations
of federal environmental laws.
EPA also is increasing its use of the contractor listing sanctions
under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. As of Sept. 30', 12 facilities
were on EPA's "List of Violating Facilities." EPA may place facilities
on the list when their owners or operators have been convicted of criminal
violations of the clean air and clean water laws (or which have had
continuous or recurring violations of those laws). Listed facilities are
barred from receiving future contracts, grants, loans or any other form of
assistance from any branch of the federal government. A facility remains
on the list until it demonstrates that it has corrected the condition that
gave rise to the listing.
Federal enforcement activities also included an expansion of the
direct referral program with the Justice Department, which allows EPA
regions to refer civil cases directly to Justice with simultaneous EPA
headguarters review. Of the above 304 cases referred to Justice in 1987,
141 were direct referrals, compared with 90 of 342 cases referred directly
in 1986.
Adams noted, "During 1988 we will be pursuing an active
docket of 820 civil judicial cases and conducting agressive criminal
enforcement and contractor listing programs. We also will expand the
administrative enforcement programs, particularly under the new statutory
authorities given to EPA' under the reauthorized Clean Water and"Safe
Drinking Water Acts."
R-16 # t #
-------
- 3 -
SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORI2ATION ACT
With the support of the increased funding, and strong enforcement
and settlement provisions in the statute, the Agency increased the
number of injunctive actions under §106 and the number of cost
^it-^i^*^^ T* X ^i™: j; ?„ „ »...
there were364 RI/FS agreements, and 19 remedial action consent
decrees These agreements require actions by the
sible parties with a value of close to $200 million. The
Agency
resoonsible parties with a value of close to $200 million. The
Agency also issued a number of significant and comprehensive policies
designed to help implement SARA.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT/FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
The number of administrative enforcement actions rose for
both the toxic substances (TSCA) and pesticides (FIFRA) programs.
Penalties collected this past year were the highest ever obtained
under the TSCA premanuf acturing notice program. In addition, f ive
civil judicial actions were referred under FIFRA and e >9jt K"ona
were referred under TSCA during the fiscal year. Most J*""*
actions are for collection of penalties previously assessed through
administrative orders. One TSCA case (Noble Oil) was significant
in that it represented enforcement of an administrative order
issued in the first TSCA enforcement case to be appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Agency also obtained, in the first
reported decision on the subject, a favorable decision in
U.S. District Court upholding its right to require information
under a TSCA investigative subpoena.
# t f
-------
EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
CIVIL CASES REFERRED HY EPA TO DOJ
FY 1980 THROUGH FY 1987
Air - Stationary
Water - NPDES
Sjfet Drinking Water
RCRA
Superfund
TSCA
PFFRA
Air - Mobile Sources
Total
* NPDES and SDWA cases contained
** RCRA and Superfund cases contained
*** FIFRA and TSCA cases contained
(CAPO 1/15/88)
FY 1980
80
56
*
5.1
**
1
***
20
210
FY 1981
52
37
*
14
**
1
***
14
118
FY 1982
31
45
*
29
**
2
***
5
112
FY 1983
60
- 56
*
33
**
7
***
9
165
FY 1984
66
95
*
60
**
14
***
16
251
FY 1985
86
88
5
13
35
8
11
30
276
FY 1986
109
108
11
43
41
10
14
6
342
FY 1987
100
85
7
23
54
9
4
22
304
-------
Air - Stationary
Water - NPDES
Safe Drinking Water
RCRA
Superfund
TSCA
FIFRA
Total
901
*NPDES and SDWA orders contained
EPA ENFORCCNENT ACFIVITY
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
FY 1980 THROUGH FY 1987
FY 1900
86
569
*
-
_
70
176
FY 1981
112
562
*
159
-
120
154
FY 1982
21
329
*
237
-
101
176
FY 1983
41
7fll
*
436
-
294
296
FY 1984
141
1644
0
554
137
376
27J2
FY 1985
122
1028
3
327
160
733
236
FY 1986
143
990
0
235
139
781
318
EY 1987
191
1002
212
243
135
1051
360
1107
864
1848
3124
2609
2626
3194
(CAPO 1/15/88)
-------
- FY 1981 Throuqh FY 1987
JUUlCldJ. \_aaca
Air-Stationary
CWA
SDWA
RCRA
CERCLA
TSCA
FIFRA
Air-Mobile Sources
TOTALS
I til. EU
1981
56
30
2
13
6
0
0
8
115
All w ^ ** • »
1982
29
11
3
2
5
0
0
1
51
1983
77
56
20
2
30
4
2
13.
204
1984
55
81
6
9
31
5
5
17
209
1985
66
60
9
6
32
7
8
24^
212
1986
82
103
5
23
30
4
6
6
260
Active Judicial Cases
On September 30, 1987, the OECM automated Docket system
reported that there were 820 civil judicial cases active as of
that date. The following breakdown shows where the cases were in
the enforcement process on that date.
- Cases pending at EPA Headauarters - 62
- Cases pending at DOJ/U.S. Attorney - 183
- Cases pending at Court ~ 53°
- Cases pendinq at EPA Region - 45
Total 82°
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT
—
penalty increasd from $5,500 to $13,100.
CLEAN WATER ACT - NPDES
that need construction to meet the July i o ared with 23 in the
the same as last year-
1986 to over $50,000 in FY 1987.
With the new CWA amendments EPA was given the authority to
many kinds of violations in the future.
development of new cases
-------
- 2 -
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
EPA's Safe Drinking Water program was given a new enforcement
tool this year — authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to
issue administrative orders, with penalties if appropriate, rather
than having to work solely through the courts. Under the amended
SOWA, EPA proposed 123 and issued 61 final administrative orders
for the Public Water System program. The Underground Injection
Control program proposed 89 administrative orders and issued 18 final
orders in FY 1987. Because of its use of the new administrative
authority, the SDWA program referred seven cases in FY 87, compared
with 11 cases in FY 86.'
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Fiscal Year 1987 also marked continued prosecution of the many
civil judicial cases filed last year as part of the "Loss of Interim
Status" initiative.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 required, among
other things, that land disposal facilities for which owners and
operators did not (1) certify compliance with groundwater monitoring
and financial responsibility requirements and (2) submit a final
(Part B) permit application would lose interim status on November 8,
1985. This loss of interim status (LOIS) provision requires that
all noncomnlyinq land disposal facilities be closed.
The Agency's response to the LOIS violations that are
potentially the most harmful to the environment — the continued
operation of facilities lacking adequate groundwater monitoring,
insurance or closure resources -- has been comprehensive. Enforcement
actions have been taken to address 97% of these violations, and
the prosecution of these actions remained a high priority for the
Agency in 1987.
Under RCRA, the agency referred 23 judicial cases to DOJ in FY 1987,
compared to 43 cases referred in FY 1986. The larqe majority of
the cases referred last year, FY 1986, were part of the one-time
LOIS initiative. The 1987 numbers reflect the changing nature of
the LOIS initiative from referral of cases to litigation and settlement
of these cases. Seven of these filed cases have been settled.
At this time, EPA does not anticipate that many additional
LOIS violations will be discovered. The focus of EPA's effort
with regard to LOIS in FY 1988 will be to continue litigating the
LOIS cases which have been filed, and to monitor the closure of
all the facilities that were required to close.
EPA took 243 administrative actions in FY 1987, compared with
235 actions in FY 1986. According to initial calculations, the
RCRA program maintained its high level of administrative penalties,
and increased the numbers of very large cases.
In addition, RCRA increased its percentage of cases with a penalty
to 88% in FY 1986 and 89% in FY 1987.
-------
STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY SUMMARY
PROGRAM TOTALS
FY 1985 TO FY 1987
_
PROGRAM
AIR*
WATER
RCRA
TOTALS
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS
1985
448
2,936
459
3,843
1986
760
•
2,827
• •
519
4,106
1987
907
1,663
613
I
3,183
CIVIL
REFERRALS
1985
182
137
82
401
1986
162
221
25
408
1987
351
286
86
723
*Air data is lagged one quarter and reflects 4th Qtr of
first year through 3rd Qtr of next year.
(OCAPO 12/02/87)
-------
International
0)
r+
o'
QJ
-------
The Growing International Dimension to
Environmental Issues
Remarks by A. James Barnes
Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Before the ALI/ABA Course of Study on Environmental Law
February 12, 1988
Last spring the World Commission on Environment and
Development produced a landmark study entitled: "Our Common
Future." The report begins very simply: "The Earth is one but
the world is not." I believe that one simple sentence captures
the essence of the environmental challenge we face as we head
into the 21st century. Because the world is now irrevocably
linked by economics as well as by ecology, we must bridge the
divisions among nations if we are to solve our common,
interrelated, economic/environmental problems.
Those interested in environmental policy have long
understood the interdependent nature of the natural environment.
From an ecological perspective, everything is connected to
everything else. Indeed, in the United States these
interrelationships were a critical motivating factor in the
establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970.
In explaining to the Congress why he wanted to create the new
Federal agency, President Richard Nixon wrote: "Despite its
complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must
be perceived as a single, interrelated system."
-------
-2-
Even though ecological interdependence is a global
phenomenon, most of our past actions to protect the environment
have focussed on "local" problems. In the United States we
have worked to protect particular water bodies and airsheds,
and to clean up particular hazardous waste sites. We have
passed Federal laws to restrict the use of specific chemicals
in this country.
As our environmental consciousness awakened, the
international dimension was not ignored. For example, in 1972,
only two years after the establishment of EPA, an historic
United Nations conference in Stockholm brought the nations of
the world together to discuss environmental problems common in
many parts of the globe. But at that conference the
representatives from developed countries spent most of their
time discussing the importance of taking environmental issues
seriously, while many representatives from developing countries
argued that environmental concerns were merely a pretext for
restraining their much-needed economic development.
During the 1970s some bilateral efforts were made to
exchange scientific or technical information or to solve problems
along a common border. For example, the United States and Canada
signed the Great Lakes Agreement in 1972, and multilateral efforts
were made to confront the CFC/ozone depletion issue. But, from
the perspectives of either scientific understanding or political
cooperation, international environmental issues were in a very
embryonic stage.
-------
-3-
Now, in the late 1980s, all that has changed. For a number
of reasons, international environmental issues are now headline
news. National governments are meeting in various international
fora to find cooperative ways of protecting shared natural
resources. I believe that the emergence of an international
environmental consciousness is going to continue to grow through
the rest of this century. And it has ramifications for all of
us, whether we are lawyers, environmentalists, government policy-
makers, or simply individuals concerned about the overall quality
of life shared on a pebble spinning through space.
Probably the single biggest force shaping this new
international consciousness is the now almost commonplace
belief that people today are living and working in a globally
interdependent economy. This perception has been fostered by
recent wide swings in foreign trade balances, and by the effect
of those fluctuations on national economies. It has been boosted
into the mainstream of international thought by the October
stock market crash, when investors everywhere suddenly realized
that when a stockbroker in Tokyo or Hong Kong sneezed, a
stockbroker in London or New York caught a cold. In an essay
printed in the January 3 Washington POST, Harvard social
sciences professor Daniel Bell wrote: "We have today an
international economy, heavily interdependent and almost
integrated, tied together in 'real time'.11
-------
-4-
This new economic reality is having a profound effect on
environmental policy, because—at root—many environmental
questions are economic questions. Commonly, environmental laws
are mechanisms by which the environmental costs of economic
activity are internalized in "real time." Environmental laws
require society to change its economic calculus and explicitly
recognize that the dispersion of wastes into the air and water
is not a free good, the disposal of solid wastes is not a free
good, and the long-term health effects of exposures to toxic
substances is not a free good. They must be paid for—by
someone, at some time. Environmental laws simply require that
some of those costs are paid up front and not by our children
years or decades from now.
Thus the emergence of a global economy has transformed the
concept of a global ecology from environmental mysticism to
economic fact-of-life. The economic activities of the different
nations, viewed both singly and in the aggregate, have real-
world, real-time effects on everyone living on earth. We do
not do our business in a vacuum; we all touch everyone else in
ways that have sometimes become painfully apparent. The nuclear
accident at Chernobyl, Russia, and the chemical fire and spill
at Basel, Switzerland, imposed substantial environmental and
thus economic costs on neighboring countries. These accidental
disasters generated an enormous amount of press coverage world-
wide, and that publicity emphasized for the moment a truth that
-------
-5-
pertained before the accidents, and a truth that pertains today:
we all have a large stake in the way that other countries manage
their environmental and public health affairs.
The linkages between the interdependent global economy and
the interdependent global ecology are apparent at three different
levels. First, they are apparent in the kinds of environmental
degradation that are "global;" that is, they have the potential
to affect the lives of literally everyone on earth. Second,
they are apparent in those "regional" environmental problems
that are caused by one country, but impose environmental and
economic costs on its neighbors. And third, as the global economy
becomes more and more tightly interwoven, an international
dimension is becoming apparent even in those kinds of
environmental problems that in the past, and still today, are
considered "local."
Over the last several years, a new class of environmental
problem has evolved. These problems are global, because they
touch the lives of everyone who lives on this earth. The
depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, global warming
trends, loss of species, and ocean pollution are good examples.
In each case, the problem is being caused largely by activities
in a limited number of countries, and the economic benefits are
being enjoyed in a limited number of countries. Yet the
environmental costs of those activities will be born by all
human beings in all countries.
-------
-6-
Resolving this kind of global issue will be extraordinarily
complex. Global environmental problems tend to be caused by
total loadings of different kinds of pollutants, most of which
are emitted by the economically developed nations. As the
global economy and global population expand, those total loadings
will tend to increase. The economically developed nations may
be willing to reduce their per capita pollutant loadings in the
interests of the global environment, but at the same time the
developing nations will be working very hard to expand their
economies in order to "catch up." Thus existing economic
inequities may make it very difficult for different nations
with widely differing cultural, political, and economic systems
to see that it is in their best national interests to work for
the common, global interest in a kind of global partnership.
Fortunately, we recently have witnessed the negotiation
of a global compromise that subjugated national interests to
the more global common good. Last September, 24 nations signed
the Montreal Protocol to curtail the production and use of
chlorofluorocarbons and halons worldwide. That treaty, which
now needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, is an exemplary
model on a number of counts. It shows that two dozen different
national governments are capable of agreeing on an environmental
protection program before major health or environmental problems
occur. It shows the importance of developing a scientific
consensus before attempting to reach a political consensus.
-------
-7-
Most important, it shows that nations as diverse as Denmark and
Egypt and New Zealand and Japan can grapple successfully with
globally interrelated economic and environmental issues.
The nations who negotiated in Montreal had to cut through
a thicket of thorny questions. How much control is necessary?
How quickly should controls be imposed? How long will it take
to develop acceptable substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and
halons? How can the different consumption patterns of developed
and developing nations be accommodated? How can nations act
together to limit the international trade of controlled
substances?
The Montreal Protocol is truly remarkable for the innovative
ways it addressed such complicated questions. For example,
developing countries that now use very small amounts of CFCs
are allowed to increase consumption for 10 years before they
are required to abide by the agreement. International trade in
products containing CFCs is banned or restricted with nations
not party to the agreement. The Montreal Protocol also prohibits
any new agreements to provide financial assistance to nonparties
that want to produce CFCs or halons. Clearly, the Montreal
Protocol is a watershed in the evolution of international
environmental policy.
In the years ahead we will have ample opportunity to apply
the lessons learned in Montreal. Another global environmental
issue—the "greenhouse effect"—is looming. Because of total
-------
-8-
loadings of carbon dioxide and trace gases in the atmosphere,
global temperatures and the sea level may rise. If we want to
limit global loadings of C02 in the future, developed countries
must be willing to limit their emissions of industrial pollutants.
Yet developing countries will be trying to industrialize at the
same time. It will not be easy to balance those competing
economic and environmental goals.
A quick look at energy consumption and population data shows
why. If global per capita energy use is to remain the same in
2025 as it is today, total global energy use would have to
increase by 40 percent to match expected population increases.
That kind of increase would have grave implications for a global
warming trend. Even worse, if everyone in 2025 were to consume
energy like industrialized countries do today—that is, if
developing countries were to "catch up" to us—, total global
energy use would have to increase by 500 percent. Thus any
global partnership that we attempt to negotiate in the years
ahead will have to factor in the needs of developing countries,
much like the Montreal Protocol did. However, to the extent
that energy use is more important to economic growth than CFC
production, the negotiations are likely to be that much more
complicated and contentious.
The difficulty in balancing national economic growth with
global environmental protection is already evident in many
parts of the world. How can the economically developed nations
-------
-9-
convince the less fortunate countries that they should not cut
down their forests, if timber harvesting or clearing land for
crop production on a national level is seen to be a key element
of economic survival? Massive deforestation worldwide clearly
poses a global environmental problem, but impoverished timber-
cutters are much more likely to worry about their next meal
than about global environmental quality in the next century.
Clearly, people living in economically developed countries
can more easily afford to worry about their grandchildren's
quality of life. Yet, if we don't convince the developing
countries to think about it, and think about it soon, we face
more deforestation, more species loss, and—ultimately—less of
a future for everyone on earth. This necessary balancing of
global economic growth today with global environmental protection
tomorrow is one of the most challenging international issues we
face as we head toward the 21st century.
But it's not the only one. We also face a host of what I
call "regional" environmental problems; that is, problems whose
causes are rooted in the economic activities of one country,
but whose costs are borne by its neighbors. Accidents with
transboundary environmental effects are one example; I have
already alluded to the international economic consequences of
the Chernobyl and Basel incidents. The movement of hazardous
and solid wastes between nations is another. The transboundary
air pollution that is causing ongoing political debate in North
-------
-ID-
America and Europe is yet another. In each case one nation,
or group of nations, is concerned because it does not share in
the benefits, but pays part of the cost, of economic activities
on the other side of an international border.
Even so-called "local" environmental issues are taking on
an international dimension, in large part because of the ease
with which businesses can locate or relocate to countries with
the lowest production costs. One of the reasons the United
States passed environmental legislation in the 1970s was to
"level the playing field" among the 50 states; we did not want
one state to gain an economic advantage by disregarding public
health and environmental quality.
We face the same problem globally in the 1980s and beyond.
Uneven environmental laws from nation to nation are affecting
the global competitiveness of older industries like steelmakers
and refiners. Because pollution control laws in the United
States are relatively strict, the ability of U.S. companies to
compete in a global economy is diminished. Thus those companies
argue strenuously against any proposals that would strengthen
domestic environmental laws.
Environmental controls also affect the siting of new
industries. For example, American scientists are now leaders
of the new biotechnology industry, and all Americans look
forward to the economic benefits that biotechnology is likely
to bring. But even if they were reasonable from a public health
-------
-11-
perspective, restrictive regulations this country could drive
the fledgling industry elsewhere. In short, the globe is in
much the same predicament that the United States was in during
the 1960s. How do we provide a level playing field, in this
case globally, so that human health and environmental quality
are not sacrificed for the sake of economic competitiveness?
Answers to all these questions are being formulated, and,
based on what I have seen over the last year or two, I have
great hope for the future. In international meetings like a
recently-completed OECD conference on accidental releases,
groups of nations are defining their shared environmental
goals, developing mutual codes of conduct, and differentiating
among the expected roles of industry, labor, and government
entities. Scientists in different nations are sharing the
kind of information needed to build an international political
consensus. Government officials are beginning to discuss the
kinds of consistent environmental regulations needed to "level
the playing field" globally. Bilateral and multilateral agree-
ments are being negotiated. The United States, for example, has
negotiated bilateral agreements with Mexico regarding hazardous
wastes and transboundary air pollution, and we are negotiating
more than two dozen bilateral agreements with other nations.
I predict that these kinds of international negotiations
are going to become much more common in decades ahead. Indeed,
the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development
sees the world balancing on the edge of a very bleak future if
-------
-12-
we do not develop the sense of international partnership needed to
address international environmental problems that are manifested
globally, regionally, and locally.
The emergence of international dimensions to environmental
issues and the need to develop an international partnership will
affect the way lawyers like you advise clients, it will affect
the way government officials like me respond to local and national
environmental issues, and it will affect the way all of us live
our private and public lives. If we are indeed linked to
everyone else on earth, in both an economic and an environmental
sense, then we have to think of everyone else on earth when we
make our economic and environmental choices.
The fragile and holistic nature of the shared human.
experience has been most clearly depicted in that stunning
photograph of the earth, taken from space, where we see a small
multicolored sphere set against the blackness of space. From
that perspective, we appear to live a very tenuous existence.
But the interdependence of the global ecology is both its
weakness and its strength. Whatever we do here, for
better or worse, touches everyone else. So we have to make
sure that what we do, as individuals and as a nation, is for
the better. We need to keep in mind the old Indian saying:
"The Earth is not inherited from our fathers, but borrowed from
our sons." If we act accordingly, we will be able to return to
future generations all the interrelated bounty that we have
enjoyed so much ourselves.
-------
March 1988
EPA'S BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
BRAZIL
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN CETESB (COMPANHIA
SE^CNOLOGIA DE SANEAMENTO AMBIENTAL) AND EPA
CANADA
OP UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN EPA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMEN? OF™E GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REGARDING ACCIDENTAL
AND SN!U?HOR?ZED DISCHARGES OF POLLUTANTS ALONG THE INLAND
BOUNDARY
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN EPA AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF Tllfi fciNV.KONMENT, GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CONCERNING RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
arRFPMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND ?HE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CONCERNING THE TRANSBOUNDARY
MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
CHINA
IE, OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
f ur THE STATE COUNCIL OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA AND fePA FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION IN
THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FRANCE
,„ EPA AND THE OFFICE OF THE
AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF
THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE
GERMANY
MENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS
INDIA
IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ITALY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
JAPAN
ACREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND ?S GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN ON COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
KOREA
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOD) BETWEEN EPA AND THE ENVIRONMENT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
MEXICO
-SSS Sff JScSSSiffS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE BORDER AREA
"
FOR SOLUTION OF THE BORDER SANITATION PROBLEM
AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - TIJUANA, BAJA
CALIFORNIA
ANNEX II- AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED
ANNEX II. AfaKj QF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES
REGARDING POLLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ALONG
THE INLAND INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY BY DISCHARGES
OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
ANNEX I II i AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED
ANNEX A£ AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES
REGARDING THE TRANSBOUNDARY SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
ANNEX IV- AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED
ANNEX IV. Jggg* ^EJUCA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES
REGARDING TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION CAUSED
BY COPPER SMELTERS ALONG THEIR COMMON BORDER
NETHERLANDS
"ESS?
NIGERIA
IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PHILIPPINES
TO RESTORATION OF POLLUTED RIVERS
-------
POLAND
AGREEMENT BETWEEN EPA THE THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC ON
COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TAIWAN*
rilTDFLINES FOR A COOPERATIVE PROGRAM IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN (AIT) AND THE COORDINATION
COUNCIL FOR NORTH AMERICAN AFFAIRS (CCNAA)
UNITED KINGDOM
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN EPA AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND CONCERNING COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
USSR
AGREEMENT ON COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
YUGOSLAVIA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL '.REPUBLIC OF
YUGOSLAVIA ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION
*EPA was invited to cooperate with the American Institute in
Taiwan (AIT) in activities under an AIT-CCNAA agreement on
environmental cooperation
-------
OIA STAFF ASSIGNMENTS
March 1988
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR (ACTING)
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
DIRECTOR, MULTILATERAL STAFF
DIRECTOR, BILATERAL STAFF
DIRECTOR, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES STAFF
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, US-USSR
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENT
SHELDON MEYERS
SCOTT A- HAJOST
ALAN SIELEN
CONRAD KLEVENO
EDWIN JOHNSON
SIDNEY G. SMITH
BILATERAL ASSIGNMENTS
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Canada
China, Peoples
Republic of
Developing Nations
Eastern Europe
Egypt
France
Germany (Federal
Republic of)
German Democratic
Republic
Greece
India
Israel
Jane Lovelace
David Strother
Conrad Kleveno
Ed Johnson
Conrad Kleveno
Jane Lovelace
Edwin Johnson
George Patrick
Sidney Smith
Amy Evans
Jane Lovelace
Jane Lovelace
David Strother
David Strother
David Strother
Jane Lovelace
Jane Lovelace
382-7394
382-4892
382-4896
382-4878
382-4896
382-7394 (L)
382-4878 (L)
382-4878 (B)
382-4886 (L)
382-4897 (B)
382-7394
382-7394
382-4892
382-4892
382-4892
382-7394
382-7394
-------
-2-
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Nigeria
Poland
Scandinavia
Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
USSR
Yugoslavia
David Strother
Jane Lovelace
Conrad Kleveno
Lauren Fondahl
David Strother
Jane Lovelace
Sidney Smith
Amy Evans
David Strother
Jane Lovelace
David Strother
Jane Lovelace
David Strother
Sidney Smith
Amy Evans
Sidney Smith
Amy Evans
MULTILATERAL ASSIGNMENTS*
CCMS (NATO)
EC
ECE (general)
(air)
FAO
IAEA
IIASA
I MO
Alan Sielen
George Patrick
Lynn Schoolfield
David Strother
Wendy Grieder
Jamie Koehler
Jane Kim
Ed Johnson
Alan Sielen
Pete Christich
Pete Christich
Alan Sielen
382-4892
382-7394
382-4896
382-4890
382-4892
382-7394
382-4886
382-4897
382-4892
382-7394
382-4892
382-7394
382-4892
382-4886
382-4897
382-4878
382-4897
382-4875
382-4878
382-4891
382-4892
382-4887
382-4894
382-4888
382-4878
382-4875
382-4893
382-4893
382-4875
(L)
(B)
(L)
(B)
(L)
(B)
(L)
(B)
(L)
(B)
(B)
*See attached Index tor explanation
of acronyms used.
-------
-3-
IRPTC (UNEP)
LRTAP (long-range
transboundary air
pollution)
NEA (OECD)
OECD
General
Chemicals
IEA
WMPG
Biotechnology
Jane Kim
Jamie Koehler
Alan Sielen
Pete Christich
Pete Christich
Jane Kim
Pete Christich
Wendy Grieder
Alan Sielen/Jane Kim
382-4888
382-4894
382-4875
382-4893
(L)
(B)
382-4893
382-4888
382-4893
382-4887
382-4875/382-4888
PAHO
General
Western Hemisphere
Wendy Grieder
Conrad Kleveno
382-4887
382-4896
UNEP
General
Reg. Seas (general)
Reg. Seas (Carib.)
Reg. Seas (Pacific)
WCED (World Commission
on Environment and
Development)
WICEM (UNEP Industry
Conference)
George Patrick
Jamie Koehler
Conrad Kleveno
Alan Sielen
Ed Johnson
Ed Johnson
George Patrick
382-4878
382-4894
382-4896
382-4875
382-4878
382-4878 (L)
382-4878 (B)
WHO
General
IPCS
WMO
Pete Christich
Pete Christich
Jamie Koehler
382-4893
382-4893
382-4894
-------
-4-
ISSUE ASSIGNMENTS
Acid Rain (general)
Acid Rain (Canada)
Air
Antarctic Treaty
Arctic Policy (general)
Arctic Policy (USSR)
C02/Climate Change
CFCs/Ozone Layer
Modification
Chemicals
Codes of Conduct
Environmental Health
Environment and
Economics
Grants and Contracts
Hazardous Waste
Exports (policy)
Export Notices
Marine Pollution
Ocean Dumping
Law of the Sea
Vessel Pollution
Nuclear Exports
Pesticides
Toxic Substances
Trade
Jamie Koehler
Conrad Kleveno
Jamie Koehler
Alan Sielen
Jamie Koehler
Sidney Smith
Jamie Koehler
Jamie Koehler
jane Kim
Jane Kim
Pete Christich
Pete Christich
David Strother
Wendy Grieder
Djuna King
Alan Sielen
Alan Sielen
Jane Kim
Jane Kim
Jane Kim
382-4894
382-4896
382-4894
382-4875
382-4894
382-4886
382-4894
382-4894
382-4888
382-4888
382-4893
382-4893
382-4892
382-4887
382-4875
382-4875
382-4875
382-4888
382-4888
382-4888
-------
March 1988
INDEX TO ACRONYMS USED IN OIA STAFF ASSIGNMENTS
CCMS Committee on the Challenges of
Modern Society
EC European Communities
ECE Economic Commission for Europe
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IEA International Energy Agency
IIASA International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis
IMO International Maritime Organization
IRPTC International Registry of Potentially
Toxic Chemicals
Ipcs International Programme on Chemical Safety
LRTAP Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
PAHO Pan American Health Organization
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
WCED World Commission on Environment
and Development
WICEM World Industry Conference on
Environmental Management
WHO World Health Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
Waste Management Policy Group
-------
OARM
o
>
30
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1988
Ellv Seng (202) 382-4384
GRIZZLE
CONFIRMED AS
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR
Charles L. Grizzle has been confirmed by the Senate
to be EPA's Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management.
He will be directly responsible for providing
executive support for all the programs of the agency
and the management of four key offices: Comptroller,
including all financial and budget policy and operation;
Human Resources Management, encompassing executive
recruitment and development; Information Resources
Management, which includes agency-wide ADP processing
and procurement, data management and computer network
design; and Administration, covering the areas of pro-
curement, including Superfund contracts and agreements,
grants to states, universities and other institutions,
facilities management, and health and safety policies
for the entire agency.
Grizzle served from 1983 until this appointment as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). He also served as con-
fidential assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture and
as a staff assistant to the Director of the Office of
Operations and Finance. He joined USDA in 1982.
From 1974 to 1981, he worked as a bank officer for
the First National Rank of Louisville (Ky.). He received
his bachelor's degree from the University of Kentucky in
Lexington. He was born in Argillite, (Greenup County)
Ky.
R-33
-------
March 1988
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Total Agency employees in Headquarters - approximately 7,800
Total Agency employees in the Regions - approximately 6,700
Information on obtaining financial assistance from EPA - Grants
Administration division (202) 382-5240
Information on EPA contracting opportunities - contracts
Division/ Client Services (202) 475-8229
The Agency bought software in 1987 to convert EPA's accounting
and budgeting system to an Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). IFMS will affect every administrative and
program office in the Agency.
The Agency is enhancing competition and expanding the business
base in the Superfund removal and remedial programs by
implementing a strategy to eliminate large zone contracts and
emphasize more competitive site specific and regional
contracts.
The Agency, GSA, and OMB have agreed that EPA Headquarters be
consolidated into one facility in the Washington, D.C. area.
Currently, EPA personnel in Washington are located in three
locations; Waterside Mall, Crystal City and the Fairchild
Building. Planned occupation of the new facility is 1992.
The Agency has been involved in an effort to improve State
data reporting on delegated programs and strengthen State/EPA
data sharing in general. This program includes a concerted
effort to upgrade information technology in the Regions.
-------
STAFF OFF1CM_
IMfS
•OMMISHUTOM
DEPUTY ADH1NISTFUTOF!
tin
COVMBIL
„£££!£!
O. OTCMIIOM
BfiST
orrct or
rcinciou AHO
IO>C 8UMt»HC«5
I arm or I I _OFricEpr I I "ISaf?
tuummtm I I _Ft>noM(i I I EMEROI
RESOURCE! KOMI | | TOIIC EueSIAMCEB | | REiFOI
(MCaOCMCT
MtroNSI
I t
-------
•030
Regional and ii
5'
Field Operations 2
-------
MAR !933
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations
Robert S. Cahill
REGION I
Michael R. Deland (617) 565-3400
Regional Administrator
Paul G. Keough (617) 565-3402
Deputy Regional Administrator
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
REGION II
Christopher Daggett (212) 264-2525
Regional Administrator
William Muszynski <212) 264-0396
Deputy Regional Administrator
26 Federal Plaza-Room 900
New York, NY 10278
REGION III
James Seif (215) 597-9814
Regional Administrator
Stanley Laskowski (215) 597-9812
Deputy Regional Administrator
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
REGION IV
Lee DeHihns (404) 347-4727
Acting Regional Administrator
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
REGION V
Valdas Adamkus (312) 353-2000
Regional Administrator
Frank Covington (312) 353-2000
Deputy Regional Administrator
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
REGION VI
Robert Layton, Jr. (214) 655-2100
Regional Administrator
John rioeter (214) 655-2100
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
REGION VII
Morris Kay (913) 236-2800
Regional Administrator
William W. Rice (913) 236-2800
Deputy Regional Administrator
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
REGION VIII
James Scherer (303) 293-1603
Regional Administrator
Alexandra Smith (303) 293-1603
Deputy Regional Administrator
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2413
REGION IX
Dan McGovern (415) 974-8153
Regional Administrator
John C. Wise (415) 974-8153
Deputy Regional Administrator
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
REGION X
Robie G. Russell (206) 442-5810
Regional Administrator
Ralph Richard Bauer (206) 442-5810
Deputy Regional Administrator
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
OPPE
o
TJ
TJ
m
-------
- S;a:es 0" re r'
or e.oi: AiH-'S lA-'O".
Wasnmgtar DC 20*60
AEPA Note to Correspondents
MAR !988
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1987
Linda J. Fisher has been confirmed by the Senate
to be EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). In that
position, she will oversee the agency's development
of policy and manage the agency's regulatory process.
Fisher, who until this appointment was Executive Assis-
tant to EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas, served as the
agency's chief expert on Superfund reauthorization. She
also has served on the staff of the House Appropriations
Committee and as a legislative assistant to two congress-
men. A native of Columbus, Ohio, Fisher is a graduate of
the Ohio State University College of Law and Miami Univer
sity in Oxford, Ohio. She succeeds Milton Russell, who
resigned in March, as Assistant Administrator for OPPE.
Fisher, 35, who resides in Alexandria, Va., is the
daughter of Jack and Jane Fisher of Upper Arlington, Ohio
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Division
R-185 202-382-4355
-------
SUMMARY OF THE
TESTIMONY OF
LINDA J. FISHER
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 10, 1988
Ms. Fisher was asked in the committee's letter of
invitation to discuss the response to global climate problems,
especially the "greenhouse effect," and describe current
government programs, EPA's efforts, and the role of interna-
tional organizations.
The statement explains the "greenhouse effect," sources con-
tributing to it around the world, and possible results of its
increase.
EPA's interest and role in the matter are described, with
reference to CAA authority, past experience in dealing with
stratospheric ozone depletion, ongoing studies resulting from
Congressional concern, and the role mandated by the Global
Climate Protection Act of 1987, with an emphasis on research.
The statement then describes EPA's international activities,
including joint US-USSR research, UN programs, and a US-
China agreement; and concludes with a statement of EPA's long-
term involvement in U.S. government research and development
of strategies for dealing with the effects of global atmospheric
warming.
-------
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF LINDA FISHER
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
U.S. SENATE
March 24, 1983
The purpose of the testimony is to discuss the progress being made
under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) portion of the Food
Security Act of 1985.
The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to assist owners and
operators of highly erodible lands in conserving and improving soil
and water resources of their farms or ranches. The objectives are
(1) to remove fragile lands from production and in doing so to reduce
the nation's aggregate soil erosion; (2) to stabilize commodity
prices; (3) to reduce production of surplus agricultural commodities;
(4) to create a better habitat for fish and wildlife; and (5) to
reduce sedimentation and improve water quality. While all of these
are important objectives the last two are of particular interest
to the Agency.
EPA's major interest in the CRP relates to water quality manage-
ment. This interest is due in part to the pervasiveness of nonpoint
source water pollution. EPA is also examining the CRP's potential to
address groundwater quality concerns.
The Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief last December
announced policy initiatives involving the CRP. These initiatives
are intended to: (1) increase the number of acres eligible for the CRP
as well as to preserve environmentally sensitive areas not covered by
the previous rule. EPA believes there are many areas of the country
that will be able to include more environmentally vulnerable land
within the total acres that can be placed in the CRP. It may be
possible to expand eligibilities to include some of the remaining
acres in the current program for water quality at no additional cost;
and (2) allow states and other private organizations to "piggy-back"
or supplement the federal CRP dollars to encourage additional enroll-
ment. EPA endorses this improvement.
EPA will continue to support the USDA to ensure the continued
success of the Conservation Reserve Program.
-------
MAR !983
USE OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES TN ENVIRONMENTAL RULEMAKING
While recognizing the limitations of benefit-cost analyses,
EPA is finding these analyses to be increasingly usefuls tools in
helping to provide the balance required in complex regulatory
decisions. The Agency conducts benefit-cost analyses as one of
the components of a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
During the period 1981-1986, 15 RIAs were completed, and a
1987 study of those 15 RIAs brought to light some of the
important contributions of benefit-cost analyses for
environmental rulemaking.
1) Analysis improves environmental regulation.
EPA's benefit-cost analyses have resulted in several
cases of increased net benefits to society from
environmental regulations. Three of the RIAS showed
that the net benefits from recommended improvements in
the regulations would exceed $10 billion. The
total cost of preparing all of the 15 RIAs studies was
approximately $10 million. Thus, our analyses yielded
a return on investment of 1,000 to l.
2) Benefit-cost analyses often provides the basis for
stricter environmental regulations.
Environmentalists often fear that economic analysis
will lead to less strict environmental regulations
in an effort to save costs, but our study reveals
that the opposite is just as often the case. For
example, the most dramatic increase in net benefits
($6.7 billion) from EPA's RIAs resulted from a
recommendation for much stricter standards — to
eliminate lead in motor fuels.
3) Alternatively, benefit-cost analysis may reveal
regulatory alternatives that achieve the desired
degree of environmental benefits at a lower cost.
Four of the analyses studies (used oil, TSCA
premanufacture review, FIFRA data requirements, and
the National Contingency Plan) showed how less costly
regulations would achieve results equivalent to the
more expensive alternatives. In two of these cases
(used oil and the National Contingency Plan), the
analyses showed that the less costly alternatives
would lead to greater reductions in environmental risk.
-------
- 2 -
4) Statutory restrictions limit EPA's use of benefit-
cost analysis for many regulations.
Many environmental statutes prevent EPA from consi-
dering costs and even some benefits when setting
environmental standards. EPA was able to consider
the full implications of its benefit-cost analyses
when setting only 6 of the 15 regulations studied.
EPA's experience shows, however, that some of the
traditional statutory decision criteria, such as
"health effects thresholds" and "technical feasi-
bility," frequently do not provide clear distinc-
tions for decision making. Being able to consider
the full range of benefits and costs associated
with alternative standards would enhance the infor-
mation available in making these decisions.
5) The average cost of an RIA is low.
The average cost of EPA's 15 RIAs was $685,000.
This amounts to about 0.1% of the minimum cost of a
major rule over five years. (By definition, a major
rule has a cost of at least $100 million per year.)
6) EPA can improve its benefit-cost analyses by expanding
the available scientific and economic database and by
following more rigorously EPA's own guidelines for
preparing RIAs.
Only 6 of the 15 benefit-cost analyses presented a
complete analysis that included monetized estimates of
the net benefits of regulatory alternatives. For many
of these analyses, the necessary scientific and/or
economic data were either inadequate or unavailable.
In the case of some of the other analyses, on the
other hand, EPA simply did not thoroughly carry out
all of the specific types of analyses called for in
the RIA guidleines.
-------
OFFICE OF POLICY. PLANNING AND EVALUATION
Kev information for Designing Radon Communication Programs
In defining an effective radon message, the following issues
should be stressed:
1) Seriousness of the risk - e.g. "radon can cause lung
cancer."
2) Personalization of the risk - e.g. "you may be at risk
from radon."
3) Action an individual can take.
Knowledge of radon health risks, testing and mitigation can
help, but are not sufficient in and of themselves to motivate
individuals to test their homes for radon. Instead,
personalization of the risk appears to be a critical element in
determinining why certain individuals test for radon. Those who
believe radon is a problem in their community and who have spoken
to someone about radon or know another individual who has tested,
are more likely to take action.
concern about the impact of radon on property values is both
a positive and negative motivator. Some individuals test
because they are concerned about home values, while others do not
test to avoid having to disclose possible high radon. Length of
residence in a community also appears to influence an
individual's perception of the seriousness of radon risks. Those
who have lived in an area tend to be more skeptical about radon
than new residents.
state and federal government agencies are trusted sources
when communicating about radon risks, but they should also work
through other credible sources in the community (e.g. the Mayor,
family physicians, etc.). Homeowners knowledgeable about radon
who have tested and/or mitigated are also credible sources in
speaking about radon.
Media and community outreach programs achieve different
outcomes. Media outreach increases awareness of an issue while
community outreach is better at educating people about an issue.
In combination, media and community outreach are likely to be
more effective than either alone.
-------
R&D
3D
OP
O
-------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's dual role of:
- setting standards and limitations for pollutants and
- taking corrective steps to reduce and control pollution
- requires a diverse research and development program.
Major offices in research address key issues:
- human health effects and exposure to pollution
- ecosystem processes and effects research
- health and environmental assessment
- environmental engineering and technology
- exploratory research through grants and university
centers
- environmental monitoring, measurement methods
and quality assurance
The work is performed through 14 field laboratories in nine
locations around the country.
The Research and Development budget in FY'88 provides $352 million
which includes a workforce of about 1750 scientists, engineers, managagers
and other specialists.
Research generally considers the entire pathway from the sources,
transport, exposure, receptor, effects on receptors and corrective or
mitigating steps.
Broad categories of research include:
Air Quality Hazardous Waste Toxic Substances
Water Quality Underground Storage Tanks Interdisciplinary
Radiation Superfund Multi-media energy
Drinking Water Pesticides Technology Transfer
Some areas that are emerging and receiving increasing emphasis are:
Global Climate Change Biotechnology
Reduction of Uncertainty in Risk Assessment Air toxics
Indoor Air Quality (including radon) Waste Minimization
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Municipal Waste
Innovative Technologies for Hazardous Waste Incineration
Acid Deposition Regional Ozone Modeling
-------
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
INFORMATION
CINC OH
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ACID
DEPOSITION ENV
MONITORING &
QUALITY ASSURANCt
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS
STAFF
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
MANAGEMENT
STAFF
ACID DEP I
ATMOS
RESEARCH
DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING
SYSTEMS DIV
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING
SYSTEMS LAB
RTP. NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING &
SUPPORT LAB
CINC.. OH
OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AND
TEC HNOLOGY
OEMONSTRAT ION
AIR AND ENERGY
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LAS
RTP, NC
HAZARDOUS HASTE
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LAB
CINC. OH
WATER ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LAB
CINC. OH
OFFIC E OF
REGULATORY SUPPORT
ft SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
OFFICE OF
EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH
OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESSES AND
EFFECTS RESEARCH
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS
STAFF
PLANNING &
EVALUATION
STAFF
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB
CORVALLIS. OR
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB
ATHENS GA
ROBERTS KERR
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB
ADA. OK
OFFICE OF
HEALTH RESEARCH
PROGRAM
OPERATIONS
STAFF
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH RESEARCH
STAFF
OFFICE OF
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA* ASSESSMENT
OFFICE DTP NC
ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA & ASSESSMENT
OFFICE CINC. OH
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: appointment of Frank Princiotta as Senior ORD Official
at Research Triangle Park
FROM: Vaun A. Newill |4<~ 0- (tyu^
Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development (RD-672)
TO: Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
I am today designating Frank T. Princiotta, Director, Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, as the Senior ORD Official for
Research Triangle Park. Frank has served as Laboratory Director for
the past 7 years and will continue in this assignment as well as his
new SORDO duties. He has been with EPA at headquarters and in the
field since 1971. I look forward to working with Frank as we review
and expand our outreach programs and other SORDO duties.
Also, I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere
thanks to Dr. F. Gordon Hueter who served so well in this capacity
for the past 2 years. Dr. Hueter has been with EPA and its prede-
cessors for 27 years, serving as Director of the Health Effects Research
Laboratory since 1977. We will miss Gordon's expertise and wish him
well as he takes up his new ORD assignment with the World Health
Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
-------
vl?
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
1 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. Tne
functions art responsibilities assignee] to the Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development (AA-ORD) are Agencywide and apply to the satisfaction
of research and development needs of the Agency's operating programs ard the
conduct of an integrated research and development program for the Agency. Tne
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development serves as the principal
science advisor to the Administrator, and is responsible for the development,
direction, and conduct of a national research, development and demonstration
program in: (a) Pollution sources, fate, and health and welfare effects;
(b) Pollution prevention and control and waste management and utilization tech-
nology; (0 Environmental sciences; and (d) Monitoring systems. Participates
™ the development of Agency policy, standards, and regulations. Prov des
for dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge, including analytical
methods, monitoring techniques, and modeling methodologies. Serves as coor-
dinator for the Agency's policies and programs concerning carcinogenesis and
related problems. Assures appropriate quality control and standardization
of analytical measuranent and nonitorinrj techniques (for which the AA is as-
siqnS responsibility) utilized by the Agerry. Exercises review and concurrence
responsibilities on an Agencywide basis in all budgeting and planning actions
involving monitoring which require Headquarters approval.
As Principal Science Advisor to the Administrator, the Assistant Administrator
is assisted by an in-house staff of senior and experienced scientific and tech-
nical specialists. These specialists, upon request, provide technical and
scientific reviews and expert consultation and advice on Agencywide technical
program issues. This Office serves as the point of liaison with the EPA
Science Advisory'Board and administratively houses the Science Advisory Board
staff.
The Center for Environmental Information. Cincinnati, Ohio. Tne Center is
responsible for distributing publications about research and development to
interested people. For more information about publications, call Bud Gallagher
at 513-569-7862.
The office of Regulatory Suppport and Scientific Analysis. This Office
serves as a bridge between scientific and regulatory decision-making. °RbbA
ensures that ORD scientific objectives and products are consistent with and
useful for regulatory needs. Involvement in regulatory activities includes
participating in the development of program office regulatory ^"teaies,
organizing and chairing ORD technical/regulatory workshops and representing ORD
on Agency workgroups.
-------
Office of Exploratory Research. The Office of Exploratory Research is
responsible for overall planning, administering, managing, and evaluating EPA's
anticipatory and extramural grant research in response to Agency priorities.
The Director advises the Assistant Administrator on the effectiveness of ORD's
lonq=term scientific review and evaluation. The responsibilities of this office
include: administering ORD's scientific review of extramural requests for
research furdim assistance; developing research proposal soliciations; managing
grant projects; and ensuring project quality and optimmum dissemination of results.
Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring and Quality Assurance.
The Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring and Quality Assurance,
is responsible for: (a) monitoring the cause and effects of acid deposition;
(b) research and development on the causes, effects and corrective steps for
the acid deposition phenomenon; (c) research,, development and demonstration
of new monitoring methods, systems, techniques and equipment for detection,
identification and characterization of pollutants at the source; (d) development
and provision of quality assurance methods, techniques and material including
validation and standardization of analytical methods, sampling techniques, and
quality control methods.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Division. The Environmental Monitoring
Systens Division is responsible for the planning, management, coordination and
review of the Agency's research, development and demonstration programs in
Air, Toxics, Pesticides, Radiation, Water, and Waste Management.
Acid Deposition and Atmospheric Research Division. This office conducts
long-term assessments and short-tern analyses of scientific information to
support Agency policy development on acid deposition including assessing
cost, benefit, and effectiveness of control and mitigation options of acid
rain; and determines the atmospheric processes, transport and transformation
of air pollution as its relates to urban, regional, and global atmospheres.
-------
The Division provides technical expertise and management assistance in the
areas noted above; develops broad Agency policy and program plans, priorities
and laboratory obiectives; coordinates research and development activities
with other components of ORD, the Agency, the Federal, State and local
governments and the private sector; represents the Agency on the Research
Coordination Council of the Federal Interagency Task Force on A:id
Precipitation; reviews laboratory plans, allocates resources arri monitors
the status of ongoing programs; conducts or assists in conducting program
reviews; and develops recommendations for corrective actions when necessary.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park (RTF), North Carolina. The Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, RTF, under the supervision of a Director, is responsible to
the Director, OADEMOA, for the management within Agency and ORD policies
and guidelines and allocated resources, of programs in field monitoring,
analytical support, and other technical support for air pollutants in
ambient air and from stationary and mobile sources; and of a guality assurance
program for specialized air pollution monitoring. Assists in the development
of broad research policy and program guidelines and long-range research plans.
Recommends specific projects and programs, including the resources and
schedules reguired to accomplish them. Upon obtaining the resources,
carries out the work either through its own facilities and field stations or
under contract, cooperative agreement, or interagency agreement with other
organizations. Provides technical support to Agency components, as reguested,
within the resources allocated for this purpose. Assures that the results
of its work are disseminated according to ORD guidelines. Provides the
administrative and financial framework to assure that the activities of the
Laboratory meet Aqency and Federal government requirements.
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, under the
supervision of a Director, .is responsible to the Director, OADEMCA, for the
management, within the Agency and ORD, of policies and guidelines and allocated
resources; of programs in field monitoring analytical methods; other technical
support; and duality assurance of water, wastewater, and solid waste.
-------
Assists in the development of broad research policy and proqram guidelines
and long-range research plans. Recommends specific projects and programs,
including the resources and schedules required to accomplish them. Upon
obtaining the resources, carries out the work either through its own
facilities and field stations or under contract, cooperative agreement, or
interaqency agreement with other organizations. Provides technical support
to Agency components, as requested, within the resources allocated for this
purpose. Assures that the results of its work are disseminated according to
ORD guidelines. Provides the administrative and financial framework to
assure that the activities of the Laboratory meet Agency and Federal
government requirements.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Responsible for the management of programs for multi-medial and remote
sensing monitoring and measurements, special surveys, field testing, emergency
response and other technical support operations, and of a quality assurance
program. The Director is the principal contact for the teseting activities
of the Department of Energy.
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration.
Ihis office is responsible for planning, managing and evaluating a comprehensive
proqram of research, development and demonstration of cost effective methods
and technologies (a) control environmental impacts associated with the
extraction, processing, conversion, and transportation of energy, minerals,
and other resources, and with industrial processing and manufacturing facilities;
(b) control environmental impacts of public sector activities including
publicly-owned waste water storage, treatment and disposal? (d)provide
innovative technologies for response actions under Superfund and technologies
for control of emergency spills of oils and hazardous waste (e) improve
drinkirq water supply (f) characterize, reduce, and mitigate indoor air
pollutants including radon (g) characterize, reduce, and mitigate acid rain
precursors from stationary sources.
Technical Programs Division. The Technical Programs Staff (1)
prepares planning documents for control technology (2) conducts appropriate
program reviews of ongoing research (3) analyzes each existing or emerging
authorization law and major regulation to determine the need for supporting
environmental engineering research and development and coordinates engineering
review and comments for new or revised Agenqy regulations (4) Coordinates
envionmental engineering research with other federal agencies (5) prepares
proqram master plans for ongoing technical proqrama and for overlapping research
areas in ORD (6) conducts short and long-term studies and analyses related
to cross-cutting or intermedia issues (7) serves as the Headquarter's principal
point of contact with industry, associations, States and municipalities,
and the program offices and regional offices.
-------
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina. The Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory,
under the supervision of a Director, catalyzes the development of control
technologies and process modifications needed to establish and meet standards
for air emissions in a timely and cost-effective manner, and supports EPA s
requlatory and enforcement programs. The Laboratory environmentally
assesses manufacture and use of synthetic fuel and other current and emerging
energy sources and technologies; assures the necessary technological groundwork
for assessing art! controlling as necessary, the man-made sources contributing
to the acid deposition problem; Assists in the assessment of the sources of
indoor air pollution to provide guidance to control this problem; Prcnotes the
development and early commercialization of techniques and technologies which
will reduce the cost of attaining air Quality goals and energy environmental
goals.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.—
Provides an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the
policies, program, and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency
with respect to solid and hazardous wastes and Superfund related
activities. The Laboratory defines and characterizes sources of pollution,
catalyzes advances in the state-of-the-art of pollution control, and
provides engineering concepts for cost-effective engineering solutions to
difficult pollution problems.
Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Responsibilities
include the multi-media development and demonstration of cost-effective
methods for the prevention, treatment and management of municipal waste/rater
and sludges and urban runoff; and of industrial processing and manufacturing
and toxic discharges; and the development of technology and management systems
for the treatment, distribution and preservation of public drinking water supplies.
-------
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS RESEARCH.
The Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research is the focal point
within the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for providing liaison with
the rest of the Agency with respect to transport, fate, and effects on organisms
and ecosystems of pollutants that are released into the environment; and the
planning and implementation of the Agency's biotechnology, ecological risk
assessment, and expert systems research programs. The Office, in coordination
with the Agency research committees: identifies specific research, development,
and demonstration needs and priorities; establishes research program policies
and guidelines; develops program plans, including objectives and estimates of
the resources required to accomplish these objectives; justifies these resources
and after receiving them, carries out the programs and activities as approved
in the research plans; allocates objectives and resources to the laboratories
assigned to the Office by the Assistant Administrator and to other agencies as
appropriate; and conducts appropriate reviews to assure the quality, timeliness,
and responsiveness of outputs.
-------
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Responsible for management of a research program on terrestrial and
watershed ecology, and on multi-media ecological effects assessement for
pollutants and other environmentally harmful factors.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia. Reespjonsible for
management of fundamental and applied research required to predict and assess
the human and environmental exposures and risks associated with conventional
and toxic pollutants in water and soil ecosystems.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Aia, Oklahoma.
Responsible for management of research programs (1) to determine the fate,
transport and transformation rates and mechanisms of pollutants in the
subsurface environment (2) to define the processes to be used in characterizing
the subsurface environment as a recetor of pollutants.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island. With
its Field Station in Newport, Oregon, it is the Agency's center for marine,
coastala, and estuarine water quality research. Responsible for research in
estuarine and marine disposal and discharge of complex wastes, dredged
materials, and other wastes; water use designation and guality criteria
for estuarine and marine water and sediment.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Develops
scientific information used to formulate guidelines, and standards, and strategies
for management of hazardous materials in coastal, estuarine, and marine
environments. The laboratory's research and development efforts deal primarily
with toxic compounnds regulated by EPA's Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
-------
OFFICE OF HEALTH RESEARCH. Ihe Office of Health Research is responsible
for the management of planning, implementing, and evaluating a comprehensive
integrated human health research program which documents acute and chronic
dverse effects to man from environmental exposure to pollutants and determines
hose exposures which have a potentially adverse effect on humans. This doc-
umentation is utilized by ORD for criteria development art! scientific assessments
in support of the Agency's regulating and standardsetting activities. To
attain this objective, the program develops test systems and associated methods
and protocols, such as predictive models to determine similarities and differ-
ences among test organisms and man; develops methodology and conducts laboratory
and field research studies; and develops interagency programs which effectively
use pollutants. " *
The Office of Health Research is the Agency's focal point within the Office of
Research and Development for providing liaison relative to human health effects
and related hunan exposure issues (excluding issues related to the planning and
implementation of research on the human health effects of energy pollutants
hat is conducted under the Interagency Energy/Environment Program). It
responds with recognized authority to changing reguirements of the regions,
proaram offices and other offices for priority technical assistance. In close
coordination with Agency research and advisory committees, other agencies and
offices, and interaction with academic and other independent scientific bodies,
the Office develops health science policy for the Agency. Through these rela-
tionships and the scientific capabilities of its laboratories and Headguarters
taffs, the Office provides a focal point for matters pertaining to the effects
of hunan exposure to environmental pollutants.
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
Responsible for the management of research programs to define the exposure-
effect relationships between, and develop the data on, the health effects of
environmental pollutants, acting singly or in combination, using toxicological,
clinical, and epidemic logical studies.
-------
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Responsible for natters
relating to the development of health criteria, health effects assessment
a«J risk estimation.
arrn Assessment Group, Washington D.C. Advises the Agency's operating
programs on the health risks associated with suspected cancer-causing agents.
It provides state-of-the-art methodology guidance and procedures for the
evaluation of carcinogenicity; assures quality and consistency in the Aqency s
scientific risk assessments; provides independent assessment of risk and
recommendations to the appropriate offices concerning the risk associated
with specific suspect carcinogens. Analyses are conducted independently of
economic impact considerations.
Exposure Assessment Group, Washington, D.C. Advises the Agency's operating
programs on the exposure characteristics and factors of agents that are
suspected of causing detrimental health effects. In cooperation with the
Drcqram offices, the Group: provides state-of-the-art methodology, guidance
and procedures for exposure determinations; assures quality and consistency
in the Agency's scientific risk assessments; and provides independent
assessments of exposure and recommendations to the appropriate regulatory
office concerning the exposure potential of specific agents. The work of
the Group does not include consideration of economic impact.
ive Effects Assessment Group. Washington, D.C. Responsible
mutaqenic, teratogenic effects and sterility
schedules for use in Aqency regulatory
requlatory activities.
-------
030
0«
3*-
3
c
3
S'
0)
I*
o
Risk
Communication
-------
EPA RISK COMMUNICATION PROJECTS
NOVEMBER, 1987
The following is a list of risk communication & risk training
projects.
For additional information about a specific project, contact the
person or organization whose name appears in parentheses. For
comments or questions about the projects generally, contact
Derry Allen (382-4012) or Ann Fisher (382-5500).
I. TRAINING
Completed
1. Handbook entitled "Explaining Environmental Risk."
Sponsored by OTS, now in distribution. (OTS Hotline:
382-3790)
2. Risk Communication seminar for the Regional Public
Affairs Offices (May 1987). (Linda Reed, 382-4361,
Derry Allen, 382-4012)
3. RCRA Public Participation Course: Guidance on Public
Involvement in RCRA published January 1986. (Vanessa
Musgrave, 382-4751)
4. OERR presented "Risk Assessment in Superfund" to
Superfund regional staff in ten sessions May - July
1987. The course covered the risk assessment process
for superfund sites outlined in the Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual. Updated and revised course
to be presented in the future. (Sandra Lee, 382-4000).
5. Handbook entitled "Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual", sponsored by OERR (OSWER Directive 9285.4-1,
October 1986) available through the Public Information
Center (382-2080). Manual to be updated to reflect
SARA and new information on assessing public health
risks to toxic substances. (Sandra Lee, 382-4000)
6. Risk Assessment training: the "Dinitrochickenwire"
case. (Pam Stirling, 382-2747)
-------
7. Risk Management training: the "Dinitrochickenwire"
case. (Pam Stirling, 382-2747)
B. RCRA Corrective Action Case) for OSW. (Pan Stirling,
382-2747; Jackie Krieger, 382-4646)
Ongoing
9. Introductory training on risk assessment, risk
management and risk communication; the "Electrobotics"
case, adapted from RCRA corrective action case.
Piloted in June, 1987; 25 courses being given Fall
1987. (Mary Setnicar, 382-2747)
10. Specialized training on risk assessment guidelines,
IRIS, exposure (for Technical staff), ORD lead.
(Peter Preuss, 382-7317)
11. Risk assessment/management/communication components of
OSR course on Regulation Development in EPA. Pilot
tested 10/87; to be offered periodically, beginning
January 1988. (Maggie Thielen, 382-5494)
Proposed
12. Risk Communications training: concept paper presented
to and accepted by Risk Training Committee, June 1987.
Target starting date: Spring 1988. (Derry Allen,
382-4012)
13. Drinking water contaminants: A pilot project to
develop and test training materials about communicating
the risk of drinking water contaminants, using lead as
a case study (Fall 1987). (Al Havinga, 382-5555;
Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
14. Superfund site risk communication: Region IV has
requested assistance in training staff to respond to
risk questions posed at community meetings about the
RI/FS. The training materials would be tested in
Region IV before use in other Regions. (Ann Fisher,
382-5500)
-------
15
Environmental Risk Education Program: Proposal beina
considered to fund a small clearinghouse designed £9
assist professors teaching environmental risk ideas?
Joint project with ORD. (Scott Baker, 382-7449? Dan
Beardsley, 382-2747, Derry Allen, 382-4012)
16. Handbook on individual risk perspective: To develop a
nu? Jio?.handb00k< f°r exPlalnin* how individuals can
nSLr !* v °™ «nvir°™«ntal risks in the context of the
other risks they face in their lives, (draft
Winter, 88; Alan Carlin 382-5499)
II. PROBLEM - SPECIFIC CONSULTING AND ANALYSIS
Completed
1 . Radon :
a. Generation of citizens' guide, training program,
etc. (OAR, OPPE, Public Affairs, Regions) .
(Steve Page, 475-9605)
b. Maine study: analysis of perceptions and remedial
responses of 230 households who received test
results and an information brocdure as part of an
epidemiological study; 1987 article in Risk
Analyses. (Reed Johnson, 382-4396)
2. Evaluation of EDB risk communications (OPPE)
a. Analysis of EPA "message" and media coverage;
report and 1986 article in Risk Analyst. 9
(Derry Allen, 382-4012) -
b. Analysis of market impacts and implicit value of
382-4396)" ^ E°B contanination- (Ree* Johnson,
Study of effectiveness of present pesticide labeling
!?? «5;fnatlve formats' 1986 (OPPE). (Ann Fisher,
3.
382-5500)
-------
4. Evaluation of EPA risk communications concerning
Chernobyl; completed June 1987 (OPPE, OEA, OAR).
(Derry Allen, 382-4012, Gus Edwards, 475-8200)
5. Citizens' guide, "Lead and Your Drinking Water,"
April 1987 (OW, OPPE, OEA, OA). (Jeanne Briskin,
382-5456)
Ongoing
6. Radon: effectiveness of risk communication activities
a. New York study: 2300 homes monitored as part of
NYS Energy Research and Development Authority
study. OPPE (with OEA, ORP, Region II and NYS)
developed information dissemination and evaluation
program to test effectiveness of alternative
information formats and delivery mechanisms to
induce cost-effective voluntary reduction in radon
risks (interim report July 1987). (Ann Fisher,
382-5500; Reed Johnson, 328-4396)
b. Parallel comparison study being undertaken in
Sweden at the Stockholm School of Economics. No
EPA money, but involvement by OPPE staff. (Reed
Johnson, 382-4396)
c. Motivating people to test for radon: Public
apathy is more of a concern than public panic over
the well-publicized dangers from radon in homes.
This study is exploring how to get people to test
their homes for radon. 18 month study initiated
Summer 1987. (Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
d. Region III study: evaluation of alternative
community outreach methods for motivating target
audiences to test for radon. Results expected
Spring, 1988 (Nancy Zahedi, 382-5349; Carol Deck,
475-7399)
j. Community response to radon information: To evaluate
why the reactions were so different in Boyertown, PA,
Vernon Township, NJ, and Clinton, NJ, drawing lessons
about how to design a risk communication strategy that
leads people to test and mitigate appropriately.
(Draft report due January 1988). (Ann Fisher,
382-5500)
-------
8. Lead in drinking water: To evaluate the effectiveness
of ODW's risk communication strategy, which relies
heavily on the pamphlet ("Lead and Your Drinking
Hater") distributed to the public. (Ann Fisher,
382-5500; Jeanne Briskin, 382-5456)
9. Pesticides in drinking water: To determine the factors
that influence the public's perceptions and behavior
regarding pesticides in drinking water, what sources
the public views as credible, what types of messages
make the risk information more meaningful, and what
concerns were not satisified in the public's mind.
Initiated May 1987. (Bill O'Neil, 382-3354)
10. Risk Communications for the National Survey of
Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells. EPA is being
advised and assisted by a panel from industry,
environmental groups and academia (Georgetown
University, chair). ODW, OPP, OPPE, (Bill O'Neil,
382-3354)
11. Guidance for Developing Toxic Profile Summaries: Focus
groups have been used in evaluating a draft tox profile
summary. The results will be used for training and
guidance of contractors who will write the tox profiles
starting in Fall 1987 [a joint EPA (OPA/OSR/OTS)-ATSDR
effort]. (Mel Hollander, 382-2734)
12. Risk Communication at Superfund sites: OPPE studied
risk perceptions around the Oil landfill in California;
now doing further work to understand public perception
of Superfund risks and helping OERR develop a risk
communication chapter for its community relations
handbook. Draft being reviewed. (Alan Carlin,
382-3354}
13. Toms River, NJ, Superfund site: risk communication
demonstration study (Region II, with OERR and OPPE)
(Maria Pavlova, 382-3580)
14. Tributyltin in boat hull paints: To assist OPP and
NOAA in developing and evaluating booklets to be sent
to marinas and boat owners. One version will emphasize
ecological risk, and the other will emphasize human
health risk. NOAA is funding most of this study.
(Judith Koontz, 382-4034)
-------
15. Federal asbestos-in-schools program: OPTS analysis of
the relationship of EPA's program to state programs and
actual local abatement efforts (Ed Klein, 382-3790)
16. Hotline for Regions and Program Offices: To serve as
an up-to-date resource for information on risk
communication research, skill building, implementation,
and evaluation: 382-5606 (in place 4/87)
17. Risk Assessment Review includes articles about Agency
activities in risk assessment, risk management, and
risk communication. (Peter Preuss 382-7315 or
Marian 01sen, FTS 264-5682)
18. Communicating risk to change individual behavior: to
determine whether risk information will lead to changes
in everyday behavior. Research uses context of skin
cancer risk from exposure to sunlight, because health
data are firmer than most of the other risks the Agency
manages. Results should apply to several issues in
OPP, OTS, ODW and OAR. 18 month study initiated Summer
1987. (Alan Carlin 382-5499)
19. Community Right to Know:
a) To conduct research about how to provide interpretive
materials for the local emergency planning committees
to use in explaining their emergency preparedness
plans. (OPPE, OSWER, OPTS, OEA.) 12 month study
initiated Fall 1987. (Terry Dinan, 382-2782)
b) OTS project to test different ways of presenting
information about data collected under Title III of
SARA, especially for the continuous release data of
Section 313. (Maria Pavlova, 382-3580)
20. Wood Stoves: To develop and evaluate the effectiveness
of a risk communication campaign for explaining health
risks from wordburning and how the risks can be reduced
while still using this source of fuel. (Region
VIII and Denver IEMP) Draft summary due Spring 1988.
(Rich Lathrop, FTS 564-1701; Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
-------
21. Case studies on air pollution risk communication: a
review of three cases where state or local air
pollution control agencies communicated the results of
a source-specific risk assessment to the public. The
emphasis will be on what was successful and what was
not, and will be summarized in the National Air Toxics
Information Clearinghouse. Report due 2/88.
(Karen Blanchard, OAQPS, FTS 629-5503)
22. Measuring changes in risk beliefs: University of
Colorado is measuring risk beliefs of public officials
and community leaders both before and after they have
participated in the Denver Integrated Environmental
Management Project's risk communication program.
Initiated Fall 1986. Completion is tied to IEMP
schedule. (Alan Carlin 382-5499)
23. Evaluation of risk communication efforts at two IEMP
sites: Philadelphia and Santa Clara. To be completed
by Spring 1988. (Art Koines, 382-2700)
24. E-mail updates of Agency's risk communication
activities. (Elaine Danyluk, 382-5606)
Proposed
25. Public response to environmental threat: examination
of public opinion in three types of communities (those
currently at risk, those currently at alarm, and those
facing no known environmental threat) to learn about
how the level of knowledge and basic perceptions change
as the community goes through different stages. The
goal is to suggest how the different actors in
environmental conflicts can communicate better with
each other. (Margaret Randol, FTS 264-4535)
26. Pesticides: discussions are under way with OPP staff
to define projects of mutual interest.
(Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
-------
III. METHODS DEVELOPMENT
Completed
1. Catalog and evaluation of various agencies' efforts to
use risk advisories (OPPE: OMSE and OPA, April, 1987).
(Carol Deck, 475-7399)
Ongoing
2. NSF/EPA examination of risk communication research
results that are relevant to practitioners. Draft
report July 1987. (Derry Allen, 382-4012)
3. Case studies in risk communication, with accompanying
analysis, Tufts University Center for Environmental
Management. Draft November 1987; to be presented at
workshops in January 1988. (ORD funding, OPPE assisting
in management). (Daphne Kamely, 475-8917,
Derry Allen, 382-4012)
4. National Academy of Sciences. The Academy is conducting
major project on risk perception and communications.
OPPE helped to get it launched and is following it
closely. Report due in 1988. (Derry Allen,
382-4012)
5. Research and guidance on the use of risk comparisons as
a communication tool, using court cases involving
asbestos in schools as a case study (NSF and OPPE).
(Derry Allen, 382-4012)
6. Environmental risks with long latencies or irreversible
consequences. University of California—San Diego is
assisting EPA in examining decision making under
uncertainty, especially decision models (expected and
nonexpected utility maximization) that individuals use
to discount risks over time (conceptual draft received
Fall 1987). (Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
-------
7. Evaluate whether the expected amount of life lost (and
other ways of expressing risk, such as the number of
statistical lives lost per year) communicates risk more
effectively than small changes in low probabilities.
18 month study initiated Summer 1987. (Ann Fisher,
382-5500)
8. Develop ways to achieve greater consistency between
subjective and objective risks. 12 month study
initiated Summer 1987. (Alan Carlin, 382-3354;
Terry Dinan, 382-3354)
Proposed
9. Risk Communication Institute. OPPE has been advising
a consortium of researchers interested in establishing
an institute to study risk communications.
(Derry Allen, 382-4012)
10. Avoiding risk information overload. OTS and OSWER
are particularly interested in how to alert the public
to risks without overwhelming them so that they reject
all risk communication. This could be explored in the
context of OTS communications about formaldehyde or
para dichlorabenzene, or OTS and OSWER communications
about Title III of SARA. (Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
11. Transferring natural hazards risk communication lessons
for technological hazards. The natural hazards
literature is relatively rich with studies of how risks
have been communicated to affected groups. This
research would explore how this could be applied for
technological environmental risks. (Ann Fisher,
382-5500, Janice Quinn, 475-8600)
-------
IV. OUTSIDE GROUPS AND GENERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION
ongo ing/Completed
1. "Tidewater" conferences for key public opinion leaders
from government, industry, public interest groups,
media, etc, focusing on case studies ("Dinitro-
chickenvire") on risk assessment and risk management.
(Pam Stirling, 382-2747)
2. National Conference on Risk Communication, Washington,
D.C., January 1986; proceedings published, Fall 1987.
(Derry Allen, 382-4012)
3. Seminars for the press on risk communication (with
Georgetown University and other universities). Six
held so far, with more planned. (OPPE and Public
Affairs). (Derry Allen, 382-4012)
4. Integrated Environmental Management Program (OPPE):
various special risk assessment/management/
communication efforts at Philadephia, Baltimore, Santa
Clara, DenveV, Kanawha Valley, Regions I, III, X,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (ongoing).
(Dan Beardsley, 382-2747)
5. Comparative Risk Project: report widely circulated,
publicized and discussed; follow-up conference planned
for April 1988. (Derry Allen, 382-4012)
6. Article comparing results from Comparative Risk Project
with rankings of environmental problems by the public,
examining reasons for and implications of differences;
accepted for publication in Science. Technology and
Human Values. (Derry Allen, 382-4012).
7. Article on New York State radon risk communication
study for Risk Analysis. (Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
10
-------
8. Center for Risk Management (at Resources for the
Future). EPA's agency-wide contribution is providing
approximately one-third of the funding (with the rest
coming from foundations and industry). Functions
include research, analysis, education and outreach on
risk management and risk communication. Initiated
April 1987. (Ann Fisher, 382-5500)
9. Interagency workshops on risk communication, sponsored
by the Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and
Lung Disease (composed of 14 federal agencies and
chaired by EPA). The first workshop was held in
January 1987. The second will focus on evaluating risk
communication and is planned for June 1988.
(Derry Allen, 382-4012, Ann Fisher, 382-5500,
Maria Pavlova, 382-3580)
10. National Conference on Environmental Gridlock,
Princeton, NJ, November 1987. Report being drafted.
(Margaret Randol, FTS 264-4535).
11. National Institute of Chemical Studies: OPPE helped
plan and participated in a risk communication
conference in Charleston, WV, March 1987.
(Derry Allen, 382-4012)
12. Texas Risk Communication Project: Multiple sponsors
include Texas Chemical Council and EPA's Region vi. A
two-day workshop was held October 16-17, 1987,
focusing on a communications package that can be used
for presenting chemical risks to diverse audiences.
(Ellen Greenay or Tim Underwood, FTS 255-6735)
13. EPA speakers and panels on risk communication at
various conferences, including Society for Risk
Analysis (11/86, 11/87), Public Relations Society of
America (11/86), APCA (10/87,6/88), Hazardous
Materials Spills Conference, Environmetrics 87, etc.
(OPPE, ODW, OSWER).
14. EPA Journal: special issue on risk assessment
management / communication (November, 1987).
(Dan Beardsley, 382-2747, Derry Allen 382-4012)
11
-------
MAR 1988
SEVEN CARDINAL RULES OF RISK COMMUNICATION
by Vincent T. Covello and Frederick W. Allen
There are no easy prescriptions for successful risk
communication. However, those who have studied and participated
in recent debates about risk generally agree on seven cardinal
rules. These rules apply equally well to the public and private
sectors. Although many of the rules pay seem obvious, they are
continually and consistently violated in practice.
RULE L ACCEPT AND INVOLVE THE PUBLIC AS A LEGITIMATE PARTNER.
A basic tenet of risk communication in a democracy is that people
and communities have a right to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, their property, and the things they value.
Guidelines; Demonstrate your respect for the public and
sincerity by involving the community early, before important
decisions are made. Involve all parties that have an interest or
a stake in the issue under consideration. If you are a
government employee, remember that you work for the public. If
you do not work for the government, the public still holds you
accountable.
Point to Consider;
o The goal of risk communication in a democracy should
not be to diffuse public concerns or replace action;
rather, it should be to produce an informed public that
is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful,
solution-oriented, and collaborative.
RULE 2. PIAN CAREFULLY AND EVALUATE YOUR EFFORTS.
Risk communication will be successful only if carefully planned.
Guidelines; Begin with clear, explicit risk communication
objectives—such as providing information to the public,
motivating individuals to act, stimulating response to
emergencies, or contributing to the resolution of conflict.
Determine if you have sufficient information to discuss the
risks. Classify and segment the various groups among your
audience. Aim your communications at specific subgroups in your
audience. Recruit spokespeople who are good at presentation and
interaction. Train your staff—including technical staff—in
communication skills; reward outstanding performance. Whenever
possible, pretest your messages. Carefully evaluate your efforts
and learn from your mistakes.
-------
Points to Consider;
o There is no such entity as "the public;" instead, there
are many publics, each with its own interests, needs,
concerns, priorities, and preferences.
o Different risk communication goals, audiences, and
media require different risk communication strategies.
RULE 3. LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS.
If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen
to you. Communication is a two-way activity.
Guidelines; Do not make assumptions about what people know,
think, or want done about risks. Take the time to find out what
people are thinking: use techniques such as interviews, focus
groups, and surveys. Let all parties that have an interest or a
stake in the issue be heard. Identify with your audience and try
to put yourself in their place. Recognize people's emotions.
Let people know that you understand what they said, addressing
their concerns as well as yours. Recognize the "hidden agendas,"
symbolic meanings, and broader economic or political
considerations that often underlie and complicate the task of
risk communication.
Point to Consider;
o People in the community are often more concerned about
such issues as trust, credibility, competence, control,
voluntariness, fairness, caring, and compassion than
about mortality statistics and the details of
quantitative risk assessment.
RULE 4. BE HONEST. FRANK. AND OPEN.
In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are your
most precious assets.
Guidelines; State your credentials; but do not ask or expect to
be trusted by the public. If you do not know an answer or are
uncertain, say so. Get back to people with answers. Admit
mistakes. Disclose risk information as soon as possible
(emphasizing any reservations about reliability). Do not
minimize or exaggerate the level of risk. Speculate only with
great caution. If in doubt, lean toward sharing more
information, not less—or people may think you are hiding
something. Discuss data uncertainties, strengths and weaknesses-
-including the ones identified by other credible sources.
Identify worst-case estimates as such, and cite ranges of risk
estimates when appropriate.
-------
Point to Consider;
o Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once
lost they are almost impossible to regain completely.
RULE 5. COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE WITH OTHER CREDIBLE SOURCES.
Allies can be effective in helping you communicate risk
information.
Guidelines; Closely coordinate all inter-organizational and
intra-organizational communications. Devote effort and resources
to the slow, hard work of building bridges with other
organizations. Use credible intermediaries. Consult with others
to determine if you or someone else are best able to answer
questions about risk. Try to issue communications jointly with
other trustworthy sources (for example, credible university
scientists, physicians, or trusted local officials).
Point to Consider;
o Few things make risk communication more difficult than
conflicts or public disagreements with other credible
sources.
RULE 6. MEET THE NEEDS OF THE MEDIA.
The media are a prime transmitter of information on risks; they
play a critical role in setting agendas and in determining
outcomes.
Guidelines; Be open with and accessible to reporters. Respect
their deadlines. Provide risk information tailored to the needs
of each type of media (for example, graphics and other visual
aids for television). Prepare in advance and provide background
material on complex risk issues. Do not hesitate to follow up
on stories with praise or criticism, as warranted. Try to
establish long-term relationships of trust with specific editors
and reporters.
Point to Consider;
o The media are frequently more interested in politics
than in risk; more interested in simplicity than in
complexity; more interested in danger than in safety.
RULE 7. SPEAK CLEARLY AND WITH COMPASSION.
Technical language and jargon are useful as professional
shorthand. But they are barriers to successful communication
with the public.
-------
Guidelines; Use simple, non-technical language. Be sensitive to
local norms, such as speech and dress. Use vivid, concrete
images that communicate on a personal level. Use examples and
anecdotes take make technical risk data come alive. Avoid
distant, abstract, unfeeling language about deaths, injuries, and
illnesses. Acknowledge and respond (both in words and with
actions) to emotions that people express-anxiety, fear, anger,
outrage, helplessness. Acknowledge and respond to the
distinctions that the public views as important in evaluating
risks, e.g., voluntariness, controllability, familiarity, dread,
origin (natural or man-made), benefits, fairness, and
catastrophic potential. Use risk comparisons to help put risks
in perspective; but avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions
that people consider important. Always try to include a
discussion of actions that are under way or can be taken. Tell
people what you cannot do. Promise only what you can do, and be
sure to do what you promise.
Points to Consider;
o Regardless of how well you communicate risk
information, some people will not be satisfied.
o Never let your efforts to inform people about risks
prevent you from acknowledging—and saying—that any
illness, injury, or death is a tragedy.
o If people are sufficiently motivated, they are quite
capable of understanding complex risk information, even
if they may not agree with you.
Vincent T. Covello is Director of the Center for Risk
Communication at Columbia University and is currently President
of the Society for Risk Analysis. Frederick W. Allen is
Associate Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the
Environmental Protection Agency. Both direct risk communication
projects for their organizations. The views expressed here are
solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views of their organizations. The authors invite your comments.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Proteci-on Agency
Wasnington DC 20460
Why We Must Talk
About Risk:
A Personal View
>'AR ^ 1988
Remarks by
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
be/ore the
National Conference on Risk
Communication
January 30, 1986
It occurred to me a little while ago that I have spent
most of my time in government in jobs where one of
the main things I had lo do was telling people about
the clanger they might be in. That's certainly a major
part of being a public safety director, and of working
in the emergency response field, my former positions.
and. of course, we're trying to make it a central part
of the job I have now
At first I thought this might be the result of poor
career counselling, but on reflection it appears that
just about everything government does involves some
form of risk communication. I xvould like, therefore.
to take this opportunity to give you my personal view
of this complex and troublesome business, to try to
put it in a context broader than just environmental
protection. 1 also want to tell you why I think risk
communication has changed in recent years, why it's
tougher than it used to be. why it will probably get
tougher yet. and why I think we can't afford to relent
in our efforts to learn how to do it better.
The Constitution tells us to provide for the general
welfare, and we have defined that mandate broadly in
recent times. In dozens of ways the government tries
to stand between people and the risks resulting from
natural or man-made phenomena. In the past.
governments have approached this task through the
use of experts. The expert examines the risk, makes a
judgment about how much risk is tolerable, and
pronounces a particular situation "safe" or "not safe."
Note that in these judgments some residual risk
was always allowed: the experts knew this, but it
wasn't the style to talk about it a lot. The government
considered that it had done its duty if it had arranged
for a reputable person to vouch for the safety of a
particular process or thing. Most people were
satisfied to rely on experts in those far-off days. Little
information was available to the general public in any
case, and if something did go wrong, it was
convenient to have an individual to blame.
This general approach was considered adequate
from the very earliest days of Federal involvement in
the safety arena, which began \vith the establishment
of the Steamboat Inspection Service, through the later
development of safety standards for food, drugs,
railways and aircraft. I think most of us would agree
that it no longer is adequate, and I believe there are
three reasons why.
First, the kind of risk we are most concerned about
has changed as a direct result of changes in
technology. The modern risk of concern, such as
those you have been discussing at this conference, is
subtle, hard to quantify, exotic in its origins and
usually involuntary. Compare, for example, the
differences between running EPA and running the
Steamboat Inspection Service If your Steamboat
Inspection program ii working right, the number of
explosions should decline over time. This is also easy
to check. There should, in fact, be a good correlation
between the stringency of your standards and the risk
of completing a steamboat voyage unharmed
Obviously, those simple days are gone forever.
The second reason is that the public has changed.
Our people are both better informed and less tolerant
of risk to life and health. There is ample information
available about risks, much of it accessible to the
non-expert. It may not be correct, but it is available
"We are expected to be more open, more
responsive, more forthcoming than ever before."
This has tended to diminish expert knowledge' in tlu1
public eye. as has the often-reported spectacle of
distinguished experts in violent disagreement
Finally, for a number of familiar reasons, government
is no longer as trusted as it once was. In disputes
about risk, agents of the government may be been as
pursuing institutional or political interests of their
own.
Finally, government itself has changed We are
expected to be more open, more responsive, more
forthcoming than ever before, especially at the
Federal level. Because of that we can't simply provide
for the general welfare as a benevolent despot would.
A British jurist once explained the necessity for open
trials by saying. "Not only must justice be done, it
must be seen to be done." In the same vein, not only
must we protect: we must be seen to protect.
For these reasons, we can no longer simply
establish safety through expert judgments privately
arrived at. The response of government to perceived
risk must take place within the full view of the
public, hence our new emphasis on risk
communication.
As I said earlier, this is happening throughout
government. In one of my former jobs, for example. I
had to make presentations to the state legislature on
behalf of a program for releasing prisoners into the
community. I had to communicate the risk that these
people might commit other crimes. Again, such risks
are difficult to determine; yet elicit strong opposition
and debate. In siting prisons and halfway houses you
have to explain these same risks to a local
community. Siting prisons is quite similar to siting
hazardous waste facilities, by the way. Everybody
wants the capacity, but nobody wants to live next to
the place itself
-------
I've also had responsibilities in highway safety and
emergency preparedness, and it's the same there as
well. Your job is not only to buy the maximum in
public safety with your limited, resources: you also
have to explain what connection there is between risk
reduction and any inconveniences you're imposing
on them.
"...risk communication has become an inevitable
responsibility of nearly all parts of government."
My point is that risk communication has become an
inevitable responsibility of nearly all parts of
government. And having said that. I will have to add
that environmental risk is unusual in several ways.
ways that contribute to the difficulty of risk
communication in this area.
To begin with, at EPA we must work with a very
broad definition of risk. There are the literal risks to
human health, of course, but there are also risks to
particular ecological resources, to various measures of
welfare—visibility, for example—and to the integrity
of the environment as a whole. Different policies may
have different, or even opposite, effects on these
categories, and we have to explain this to the public.
Research indicates that our difficulty in dealing
with a particular risk is a function of how familiar it
is and of how dreaded its final effect. Many
environmental risks score high in both these
categories. The compounds that represent risk are
often exotic, with strange alphabet-soup names. They
are suspected of causing diseases like cancer and
birth defects. We fear cancer in a way .that we don't
fear car crashes, which is one reason why many
Americans are extremely sensitive to risks arising
from environmental contaminants.
Another factor is the inability of science to produce
definitive answers to questions about environmental
risk. If we know our degree of risk, we can get used to
it. even if it is quite high. Indeterminate risks, on the
other hand, can breed infinite fear.
But I think the greatest difficulty lies in our
inability to confront the phenomenon of residual risk.
and deal with it in a constructive way. By "residual
risk" I mean that risk which remains after society has
expended all the resources it can afford for purposes
of control. We may argue about what we can afford.
but as any society's resources are in the end finite,
some residual risk must inevitably exist. This has
become more obvious with our increased ability to
detect ever smaller concentrations of pollutants. It is
also in the nature of things that some places are
riskier to live in than other places and that some
people bear more risk than others. These people may
complain that while society at large gains the benefits
of the technology that produces the pollution, society
does not bear the risks: particular individuals du.
It is hard for a society such as ours, publicly
dedicated to equality, and valuing so highly life and
health, to confront this reality. Our discomfort has
made it politically advantageous to foster the illusion
of infinite resources. The EPA is often called on. for
example, to eliminate all risk at a particular place.
with the implied assumption that "somebody else"
will pay for it.
The situation is complicated by the way that we
partition risks into "voluntary" and "involunt.iry"
categories. We have evidence that smoking is perhaps
the major controllable public health problem m the
country. We don't ban smoking: smoking is a
voluntary risk. So is driving, but drivers kill
thousands of "involuntary" pedestrians. \Ve accept
that too: people who walk on public thoroughfares in
a society dominated by private transportation are
expected to submit to a certain risk.
So it is odd that risks associated with the
production of materials and energy, functions that are
vital to our way of life, are totally rejected as
"involuntary" and intolerable at vanishmgly low
levels.
Such is the emotional arena in which our risk
communication must take place. We have our work
cut out for us. Perhaps communication is. after all.
"...the greatest difficulty ties in our inability to
confront the phenomenon of residual risk, and
deal with it in a constructive way."
too modest a concept. What I think we have to do is
to re-educate ourselves with respect to risk, so that
we can as a society make sensible and public
judgments about safety.
This will take some time and it will expose those
who attempt it to political risks. Residual
environmental risk is plain bad news.. Why spread
this news? I think you must if you intend to serve the
broadest public interest. To do so. you have to accept
and publicize the reality that our society generates
risk in the course of making a living for everyone in
it. But when you defend the broad public interest
there tend to be ranged against you special interests:
the "not-in-my-backyard" interests, the
"why-does-it-have-to-be-me" interests, and, of course.
the interests of those who bear some responsibility for
producing risk in the first place. Now even a cursory
study of American politics suggests that when the
-------
general interest and special interests are in conflict.
you'd be wise to back the special interests, by about
fourteen points.
Some people believe that bucking such interests is
impossible. To be frank. I used to believe that myself.
Now I am convinced that EPA must take the harder
road. Let me turn now to some of the practical steps
we are taking in that direction.
First, we will continue to express control actions in
quantitative risk terms whenever possible. We will
openly discuss the alternatives we considered in
those terms, and openly confront the issue of residual
risks. For example, we recently promulgated a
regulation banning most uses of asbestos. In our
announcement, the risks of all the alternatives we
considered were clearly indicated, together with their
costs. We will also attempt to put environmental risks
in a broader context. I want people to understand that
risks vary widely in their seriousness, and that EPA's
program is concentrated on the worst ones. I want us
"We are not going to go into a community and
'tell' people what we intend to do. We are going
to listen to local concerns and ideas."
to be aggressive in pursuit of risks: when people learn
about risk, I want EPA to break the news in an
authoritative and comprehensive way.
Next, we are attempting to increase the consistency
and clarity of our scientific base. We are in the
process of reviewing the quantitative information
about chemical toxicity developed over the years in
different parts of the Agency, to insure that it is
correct and that the Agency gives a single answer
about each substance we have studied. In the near
future we will make efforts to increase direct public
access to this store of information.
On the national level, we will build risk
communication into regulatory policy whenever
possible. The Superfund Community Relations policy
is a good example of this approach. In brief, we
intend to develop a community relations plan for
every Superfund response action lasting longer than
five days. For remedial sites, these plans must be
prepared before remedial investigation work begins.
The plans will be based on interviews with state and
local officials, civic and-community organizations.
interested residents and media representatives.
The most important thing about this program is that
it is designed to be a two-way system of
communication. We are not going to go into a
community and "tell" people what we intend to do.
We are going to listen to local concerns and ideas. It
is true that many of the issues involved in a site
cleanup are highly technical, but we can no longer
use that as an excuse for discounting what a
community has to say about risk. We must empower
the community to discuss risk in a rational and
technically competent way.
We intend to develop a similar community
relations program in connection with the permitting
of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, under the 1984 RCRA amendments. The
pattern of waste disposal is going to change in
response to those amendments. Wastes that went into
landfills will have to go somewhere else. There will
be renewed attention paid to recycling and
incineration. We intend to involve the public in the
permitting process in the same way as we are
involving it in cleanup planning and execution.
Now it is an odd fact that communities that would
not object to. or even welcome, a manufacturer of
chemicals locating near by, will offer strong
resistance to a recycling plant or an incinerator, if the
fatal words "hazardous waste" are used. It is clear
that we cannot afford public ignorance in areas where
waste disposal facilities are required. The
extraordinary difficulties we now have in siting
hazardous waste facilites of any kind tell us we need
to do a better job.
And not only must we raise the level of
sophistication about risk issues by direct action, we
must do what we can to increase the number of
"Stare and local leaders must become more
familiar with the language and skills of risk
analysis."
people who can communicate effectively about risk.
State and local leaders must become more familiar
with the language and skills of risk analysis. We have
launched a series of risk assessment workshops for
such officials, and for our own regional staffs. At
these meetings we take the participants through a
model risk assessment, to give them a feel for the
kind of information that we can derive from scientific
inquiry, for the role that judgment must play in the
attribution of risk, and for the degree of uncertainty
involved.
We are also working with a number of states on
pilot projects designed to help them assess
environmental risks on a state-wide basis, and then
set priorities for control. Risk communication, is a
central part of these projects. Their ultimate goal is to
increase public cognizance of the fact that priorities
-------
must be set if any real progress is to be made against
environmental risk and to gam public acceptance of
an ordered and rational program to control the most
significant risks first.
The coming year will challenge our ability to
communicate nsk to the utmost. We will be making
extent-of-remedy decisions on at least fifty sites on
the Superfund National Priority List. If we don't learn
how to work with the communities involved, if they
don't come to feel that EPA and the state agency and
the community are on the same side, grappling with
difficult technical and moral problems in the best
way we can, then that program is not going to work.
As we move further along, and begin addressing
different kinds of risks, the need for nsk
communication will grow. We have been
accumulating evidence that in many places the maior
sources of health risk are not industrial plants or even
hazardous waste facilities. They come from things
like radon, a natural radioactive product of certain
types of rock, from the air in your home, from your
wood stove, from the gas station and the dry cleaners
down the street. Controlling these risks has the
potential for seriously affecting individual lives and
causing significant personal financial loss. People are
not going to go along with programs that have such
potential unless they truly understand the risk they
are exposed to. and unless they participate fully in
decisions about controlling it.
As I suggested earlier, this future will make risk
communication more necessary, but no easier. The
risk communicator has few friends. This was brought
home to me in a particularly dramatic way at a public
meeting in my home state some years back. I was
explaining an evacuation plan for a nuclear facility.
During the question period, the toughest questions
came from one elderly lady who kept at me
relentlessly about what the'risks were, and how we
knew, and whether we had considered this or that
detail. That lady was my mother.
But as uncomfortable as it may be, we have no real
choice in the matter. Risk communication of the type
I have outlined appears to be the only approach that
protects the environment while supporting both the
democratic goals and the economic goals of our
technological society. We will never return to the
days when we were content to let people in white
coats make soothing noises. The public must share
directly in decisions that affect it, and we must insure
that it does so with a fuller understanding of the
inevitable trade-offs involved in the social
management of risk.
-------
Issues I
-------
a
01
Acid Rain
-------
£ CDA issue ................... ACID RAIN
/Ul7A Contact .............. Brian McLean
ICCIIP PrOfllS 475-9400
lObUC? rlWIII^ Revised .............. ... March 1988
Background: Acid rain has long been recognized as a complex
environmental problem. It is most closely associated with
damage to aquatic systems, historic monuments, statues, and
other structures. It may also contribute to forest damage,
affect crops, andndirectly affect human health. Acid rain
occurs when sulphur dioxide
-------
Air Toxics
o
X
o'
w
-------
Issue TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS
Issue Profile
Contact Kent Berry
8-629-5505
Revised March 1988
Background: Although it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of
the air toxics problem in the U.S., EPA studies have indicated
that the health risks due to air toxics rank high relative to
other environmental problems EPA deals with. In a limited study
that focused on routine releases (as opposed to accidental
releases) and only on cancer, EPA estimated that air toxics
currently cause between 1300 and 1700 cancer deaths per year.
The EPA found that the problem is widespread, diverse, and
complex, with area sources (automobiles, trucks, wood stoves,
solvent uses, etc.) accounting for 50-75 percent of the
aggregate cancer risk. Furthermore, there are limited areas of
high individual risk for those living close to such sources.
The EPA also estimates that control programs for particulate
matter and ozone [e.g., State Implementation Plans, New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and motor vehicle standards]
indirectly reduced the cancer incidence by over 50 percent
between 1970 and 1980.
Status: In response to the studies and public criticism of the pace
of EPA's regulatory program under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants or
NESHAP), EPA announced in June 1985 a comprehensive air toxic
strategy to address this problem. The strategy provides an
important role for states in regulating air toxics in addition
to an expanded and refocused Federal role. (For the current
status of section 112, see attachment). The Federal role
emphasizes use of all EPA authorities for regulating air
toxics. Examples include new source performance standards for
wood stoves, the organic chemical manufacturing industry, and
municipal waste combustors; mobile source standards for diesel
and methanol vehicles, vehicle refueling, and fuel additives;
regulations for treatment, storage and disposal facilities
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and
regulations for chromium from cooling towers and for certain
chlorinated solvent uses under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA.)
Coming Up: Additional attention will be focused on non-cancer
health effects. State and local enforcement activities are
expected to significantly increase.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs'(A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
Asbestos
(D
W
-------
A ERA ISSUe ASBESTOS
Contact David Kling
382-3949
Revised March 1988
Background: Asbestos is the name for a group of natural minerals
that separates into strong, heat-resistant, durable fibers.
Prior to 1973, asbestos products were widely used in
construction in this country for fireproofing, insulation and
decorative purposes. Friable forms (which easily crumble in
the hand) emit tiny fibers that can remain suspended in the air
for long periods. The fibers penetrate body tissues when
inhaled. Asbestos is known to cause asbestosis, a potentially
fatal disease of the lungs, and various forms of cancer.
Legislation: The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA) of
1984 makes available $600 million in federal loans and grants
from the EPA to assist schools with severe asbestos hazards in
the removal or control of friable asbestos-containing
materials. Schools are required to inspect their buildings for
asbestos and take appropriate abatement action using qualified,
accredited persons for inspection and abatement. The Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act, signed in October 1986, directs
EPA to develop a regulatory framework for undertaking such
corrective measures.
Regulatory Action: On February 25, 1987, EPA issued the final rule
to protect state and local government employees, including
school maintenance workers such as janitors, from the potential
hazards of asbestos abatement work, incorporating standards
issued by OSHA in June 1986. In January 1986, EPA proposed an
immediate ban on asbestos in some products and phasing out all
its other uses over a 10-year period. Products that would be
banned include asbestos-cement pipe and fittings, roofing
felts, flooring felts (and felts-backed sheets flooring),
vinyl-asbestos floor tile, and asbestos clothing.
Status: On March 1, 1988 EPA announced that 22.6 million in loans
and grants was awarded to 103 local education agencies.
Congress asked that EPA expedite the award process to
distribute funds in time for asbestos abatement work to be
completed during the 1988 summer recess.
Coming Up: On October 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA, Public Law
99-519). The law required EPA to develop regulations which
provide a comprehensive framework for addressing asbestos
problems in public and private elementary and secondary
schools. On October 30, 1987, EPA published the Asbestos-
Containing Materials in Schools Rule (40 CFR Part 763 Subpart
E). This New Rule requires all public and private elementary
and secondary schools to inspect for friable and non-friable
asbestos, develop asbestos management plans that address
asbestos hazards in school buildings by October of 1988; and
begin implementation of response actions by July of 1989.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF
JOHN A. MOORE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND
SUPERFUND AND ENVIRONMENT OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE
MARCH 15, 1988
Describes EPA's efforts to implement tne AHERA schools
program, the asbestos-in-buildings report, federal agency
programs to control asbestos and the pros/cons of using an
"acceptable level" standard to control public exposure to
asbestos.
Describes the asbestos-in-buildings report including the
methodology used, the findings and their implications. EPA
estimates that asbestos-containing material is present in
20% of the public and commercial buildings, compared to 35%
of the schools. Because of data limitations, EPA is unable
to make quantitative conclusions about actual exposure of
people in public and commercial buildings. Thus, a major
federal regulatory program would not be prudent at this
time. EPA's recommendations are: 1) enhance the nation's
technical capability; 2) focus attention on thermal system
insulation asbestos; 3) improve integration of activities to
reduce imminent hazards; 4) assess AHERA school rules.
Discusses federal agency asbestos control programs: U.S.
Postal Service has a formal asbestos abatement program; GSA
and Veterans Administration have developed asbestos control
programs with EPA participation.
Summarizes the information from a workshop convened by EPA
regarding the concerns of the financial community (owners
and managers of commercial buildings, mortgage bankers and
investors and asbestos consultants and contractors) with
respect to asbestos in public buildings.
Describes EPA's implementation of the AHERA schools rule
including establishing a training and accreditation system
for inspectors and management planners, awarding cooperative
agreements (over $1 million to 17 states) to support state
training and accreditation programs, developing the Asbestos
-------
Inspection and Management Plan Assistance Program (to
provide grants to states). EPA intends to use public
outreach, inspections and a strong enforcement program to
achieve compliance.
Concludes by stating that it would not be practical for EPA
to adopt a numeric standard for asbestos exposure. Reasons:
asbestos exposure results from episodic events which vary
widely and are difficult to predict; the most accurate
monitoring would be by the TEM direct method which is very
expensive. EPA's traditional approach is the most viable
one at this time: laboratory identification of asbestos-
containing material and visual assessment of its condition
by trained professionals.
Prepared by: Reynold Meni
Attorney-Advisor
Office of Legislative Analysis
Narch 15, 1988
-------
Biotechnology
CD
S
I
3
O_
o
CO
-------
Issue ................. BIOTECHNOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
contact mzabeth
Issue Profile
Revised .................. March 1988
Background: Called the equivalent of the discovery of fire because
of its revolutionary scientific potential, biotechnology is
expected to generate a multibillion dollar market in
pharmaceutical, industrial and specialty chemicals, and in
agriculture and animal husbandry. Specially engineered
microorganisms to degrade pollutants, to mine minerals, to
improve plant productivity and for use in oil recovery, also
are in development. EPA, which is part of a government-wide
coordinating framework to oversee biotechnology, is regulating
biotechnology products under two of its authorities, the
Federal Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The Agency has taken a case-by-case approach to
reviewing the biotechnology products under its jurisdiction.
Research: The Agency is the primary funder of risk assessment
efforts in biotechnology in the United States. EPA is also
initiating research into certain biotechnology applications
with the aim of showing their potential in different endeavors.
For example, the Agency's laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, has
cultivated microorganisms that now consume and detoxify
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and is now seeking to develop
organisms to work on other chemicals, including dioxin and
PCBs. The laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Fla. , is developing
bacterial strains resistant to mercury with the intention of
using them to reduce mercury pollution in contaminated
environments.
Status: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
and the agencies working with it (EPA, USDA, FDA, NIH, NSF,
OSHA) issued policy statements in June 1986 to provide the
framework for federal regulation of biotechnology.
Regulation: EPA has approved permits allowing two experiments with
genetically altered bacteria. The first PMN under TSCA was
with Monsanto in conjunction with Clemson University. The
second was with alfalfa and was with Biotechnica, Inc. It was
approved in 3/9/88. See attached press releases.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
AgenCy Washington DC 20460
-------
Clean Water
Act
Q>
CD
-------
^_^______ Issue State Revolving Fund
\^Cr
-------
SUMMARY Of TESTIMONY OF
CAROL FINCH
DIRECTOR. GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 2, 1988
* The testimony provides an update on the progress made by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office during 1987.
* Two important events concerning EPA's Great Lakes National
program occurred during 1987—enactment of the Water Quality
Act of 1987, and the signing of amendments to the United
States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
* Passage of the Water Quality Act gave the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement recognition for the first time in U.S. law.
* The updated Agreement, signed by the U.S. and Canada reaffirms
our determination to restore and enhance the quality of the
Great Lakes System and strengthens our commitment to solving
the most critical problems on the Lakes.
Th!EstablTshes stronger provisions for addressing the problems
of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes ecosystem;
-Provides for a comprehensive approach to controlling
pollutant sources in the Great Lakes;
-Adds provisions for evaluating the importance of airborne
toxic substances to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
-Calls for greater attention to the relationship between
ground water and surface water and the potential for
contaminated ground water to affect the quality of water in
the Great Lakes.
* The testimony describes the 5-year Study and Demonstration
Program for contaminated sediments which EPA is conducting
pursuant to section 118(c)(3) of the amended Clean Water Act.
* in response on the updated Agreement and sec. 118 of the Clean
Water Act EPA's National program office has recently embarked
on a significant realignment and planning effort. The change
in emphasis from conventional to persistent toxic pollutants
and the increased requirements for coordination necessitate
this new direction.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF
DR. ALV1N R. MORRIS
DIRECTOR, WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REGION 3
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES
r\Tf "TUp
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
MARCH 7, 1988
The testimony discusses the new Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the evoluS of the cleanup program that led to the signing
of that document.
Tn December 1983, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealths
'
i'
ar^
that exists today. The 1983 Agreement also established an
Executive Council to oversee the implementation of coordi-
nated clans to improve and protect the water quality and
Uv?ngPresources If the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system.
c
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental Issue Profile
Contact: George Ames, 382-7818
Issue:
Background:
Water Quality Act of 1987
Highlights:
Coming Op:
This legislation amends and reauthorizes the Clean Water
Act of 1972, which expired September 30, 1982, and was
then funded by continuing resolution. The new
measure is identical to legislation passed last year and
pocket vetoed by the President. President Reagan vetoed
the new bill January 20, maintaining it was too
expensive. Congress overrode the veto and the bill
became law February 4.
The legislation authorizes $9.6 billion through FY 1990
for grants to the states to pay up to 55 percent of
construction costs for wastewater treatment plants.
Another §8.4 billion is to be used to establish state-
operated revolving loan funds to finance construction of
treatment facilities from FY 1989 through 1994, with stai.
matching 20 percent of the Federal contributions.
Deadlines for industries to comply with wastewater
treatment technology standards are extended, with
compliance to be achieved as "expeditiously as possible"
but in no case later than three years after regulations
are in place. The final deadline for compliance is March
31, 1989. States are charged with developing control
strategies within two years to reduce toxic pollutants.
Standards are to be met within three years after
strategies are adopted.
The Act authorizes $400 million over four years in
grants for state management programs aimed at curbing
nonpoint source pollution (e.g., agricultural runoff),
and for ground water programs.
The measure provides $10 million a year for four years
for matching grants to states around Chesapeake Bay, $11
million annually over a five-year period to combat Great
Lakes pollution, and $12 million a year for five years
for a National Estuaries program. New authority is
granted Indian tribes, which will be treated as states
and given a share of construction grant funds.
EPA must establish regulations by February 1989 for
industries and large municipalities .(over 250,000
population) discharging storm water, with permit
applications due the following year, and discharge
permits issued by February 1991. At that time, the
Agency must promulgate regulations for medium-size
municipal storm water systems (serving a population
between 100,000 and 250,000), with applications due by
1992 and permits issued by 1993.
-------
FACT SHEET
KEY PROVISIONS OF THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
Construction Grants Program
The construction grants program is .covered in Title II of the
bill. Section 212 creates a new Title VI in the Clean Water
Act. These sections address the process of phasing out the
construction grants program by providing incentives for the
develonment of alternative funding mechanisms by tne States.
The Act also amends the existing construction grants program.
The new Title VI charges EPA to develop and implement a
program to provide grants to capitalize state revolving loan
funds for financing wastewater treatment projects.
Authorizations per year
Year Grants State Revolving Fund
1936 $2.4
1987 $2.4
1988 $2.4
1989 $1-2 SI- 2
1990 $1-2 51-2
1991 --- ll'l
1992 --- ?!•»
SI 9
1993 --- ll'l
1994 --- ?0'6
State Revolving Loan Program $212
—Authorizes Federal capitalization of State revolving loan
programs, with the State to provide at least 20% matching
funds. The Federal money must first be used for the
enforceable requirements of the Act, including the municipal
compliance deadline. Once the enforceable requirements are met,
funds in excess of the Federal grants may be used for any
project in Section 212 (Definitions), Section 319 (Nonpoint
Sources), and Section 320 (National Estuary Programs). Types
of assistance include loans, refinancing local debt obligations
incurred after 3/7/85, guarantees or insurance for local
obligations, and as a source of revenue or security for
oayment of orincipal and interest on State bonds where proceeds
go to revolting funds. Payments to States to be made quarterly
within stated periods of time.
-------
-2-
Post BAT $308
Requires a progressive program of toxics control. Provides
for States to identify waters where technology-based controls
and existing water quality-based controls are not adequate to
meet water quality standards for the priority pollutants or
adequate to protect users, wildlife, or the fish and shellfish
of a waterbody.
Section 304 is amended to add provisions for individual control
strategies for toxic pollutants. Requirements include: 1) a
State identification within two years of waters that are
unlikely to comply-with water quality standards after application
of effluent limitations (BAT, BCT, secondary, pretreatment);
2) identification of specific point sources discharging toxics
that may be causing the violation of standards in those waters,
and amounts of toxics from each source; 3) and an individual
control strategy that will reduce toxics from those point-
sources within three years after the strategy is established.
•Monpoint Source Pollution Management $316
Requires that each State prepare, within 18 months of
enactment, an assessment report and a management program for
nonpoint source pollution. The assessment report will identify
1) those waters that are unlikely to comply with water quality
standards without additional controls on nonpoirvt sources of
pollution, and 2) the nonpoint sources causing the problem.
The management program, which covers a period of four years,
will include: 1) identification of measures to control the
nonpoint pollution identified in the assessment report;
2) identification of programs to implement those measures;
3) certification that the state laws have adequate authority
to implement the program; 4) identification of sources of
all funding for nonpoint source pollution control; and 5)
a schedule for expeditious implementation of the program.
The Act authorizes $400 million over four years for grants
to the States for implementation of approved Management Programs.
Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges §405
Establishes a phased and tiered approach to the control of
ooint source. Retains the broad scope of the Act; however,
until October 1, 1992, most stormwater dischargers are relieved
of the obligation to get a permit. Industrial storm water
sources are still subject to BAT/BCT, but municipal sources are
held to a new, lesser standard, i.e. "reduce the discharge to
the maximum extent practicable."
Permit applications are required in the next few years,
primarily from industrial and certain municipal stormwater
dischargers. Most commercial and residential stormwater disc.harge.rs
-------
-3-
are exempted fro.n the requirement for SPDES permits until
10/1/92.
- By 2/89 EPA must promulgate regulations for industrial and
large municipal (more than 250,000) stormwater dischargers;
then their permit applications are due within one year by
2/90 and permits are to be issued by 2/91.
- By 2/91, EPA must promulgate regulations for medium-sized
municipal stormwater systems (serving between 100,000 and
250,000) with application due by 2/92 and permits issued
by 2/93.
Sewage Sludge §406
Requires EPA to identify toxic pollutants of concern in
sewage sludge and establish numerical limits for each of
• the identified pollutants and the management practices to
achieve them. These management practices and numerical
criteria will protect human health and the environment from
any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of each pollutant.
Compliance shall be no later than 12 months after publication.
EPA's technical sludge regulations.
Requires 402 permits to POTWs to include sludge management
requirements implementing the toxic pollutant regulations
unless these requirements ar-2 included in some other permit.
—Requires promulgation of procedures to approve State sludge
control programs.
Makes it unlawful for any person to dispose of a sludge^frorn
a POTW or any other treatment work not in compliance with EPA s
technical sludge regulations.
Authorizes $5 million to conduct scientific studies, demonstration
projects and public information projects designed to promote
safe and beneficial management or use of sewage sludge. Allows
for grants to states or other public or nonprofit agencies to .
carry out this effort.
Administrative Penalties § 314
Provides EPA and the Secretary of the Army new authority
for administrative penalties for Clean Water Act violations.
A Class I penaltv may not exceed $10,000 per violation and a
maximum amount of $25,000. A Class II penalty may be assessed
through more formal proceedings and may not exceed $10,000
per day and a maximum of $125,000.
-------
-4-
Judicial Penalties §312 and $313
Provides for increased court assessed civil and criminal
penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act.
0 Civil - Changes the maximum allowable penalty from $10,000
per day to $25,000 per day for each violation. Specifies
factors relevant to establishing appropriate penalty amounts.
• Criminal - Changes maximum penalties for knowing violations
of the Act from $25,000 per day of violation and/or
imprisonment of one year, to $50,000 per day of violation
and/or imprisonment of 3 years. Increases the maximum
sanctions authorized for false statements made under the
Act. Establishes new criminal sanctions for knowingly
endangering persons through violations of the Act.
National Estuaries Program $ 317
Provides statutory recognition for a national estuarine
management program. EPA will: convene management conferences
in nationally significant estuaries with priority -given to
New York/New Jersey Harbor, Delaware Bay and Delaware Inland
Bays, Sarasota Bay, Galveston Bay and six estuaries already
in the program. Each program will develop comprehensive
conservation and management plans which recommend priority
actions to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the estuary as well as to control
point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Provides grants for
development of the conservation and management plans.
Clean Lakes $ 315
Establishes the Clean Lakes Program. Each State is required
to submit a biennial report on the water quality of lakes as
part of its water quality inventory report. This will include:
identifying a lake according to its eutrophic condition,
describing means to control the pollution in these lakes,
describing methods and procedures to restore the lakes, and
assessing the trends of water quality in the State lakes.
Chesapeake Bay Program $ 103
Provides statutory recognition of the Chesapeake Bay
program. EPA will maintain the Chesapeake Bay program office
to coordinate Federal research and report results of activities
affecting the environmental quality of the Bay. Provides
for $10 million per year in 50% cost-sharing grants to states
to implement management portions of the Bay Restoration and
Protection Plan. States must report to Congress within 12
months of receiving grants.
-------
-5-
Indian Tribes $ 506
Requires "?A to publish a regulation specifying that Indian
Tribes shall be treated as States. It also requires that the
regulation establish a mechanism for resolving any unreasonable
consequences that may arise as a result of differing water
quality standards that may be set by States and Indian Tribes
on the same body of water.
One half of 1% of construction grants funds will be set aside
for developing waste treatment management plans and the
construction of sewage treatment works for Indian tribes.
Fundamentally Different Factors Variances $ 306
Establishes specific statutory authority for the Administrator,
with the concurrence of the State, to establish alternative
effluent limitations for 3AT and pretreatment standards for
existing sources for a facility, based on fundamentally different
factors.
Imposes four criteria that must be satisfied before a
fundamentally different factor variance may be granted and
establishes deadlines and a procedure for submission of
applications.
Anti-backsliding § 404
Establishes specific statutory authority precluding
backsliding from existing permit requirements except in a
few narrowly defined situations. The anti-backsliding
authority pertains to standards set under Best Professional
Judgment, for both technology-based and water quality-based
limits.
Addresses revised effluent limits for permittees discharging
into newly identified "hot spot" problem waterbodies. The
effluent guidelines are bottom line requirements and no permit
can be issued that would violate water quality standards.
Delegation of Partial Programs & 403
For States that are yet to apply for NPDES approval,
allows for approval of partial delegation, as long as it
covers either administration of a major category of discharges
or a major component of the NPDES program. This section also
allows for phased program approval.
Partial or phased approval requires the state to submit a plan
for assumption'of the full program within 5 years. Prohibits
return to EPA of anything less than the entire NPDES authority
previously assumed by the state.
-------
-6-
Compliance Dates $ 301
Extends industrial compliance dates for Best Available
Technology and Best Conventional Technology. Compliance is
required as expeditiously as possible, but in no case later
than 3 years from establishing limitations or later than
March 31, 1989.
Many plants with significant new BAT requirements could not
meet the previous deadline of July 1, 1984. Although EPA
had used administrative orders to give these facilities a
reasonable time to comply, they were still legally in violation
of their permits. This revised deadline will allow sufficient
time for compliance with effluent limitations.
Great Lakes $ 104
Provides statutory recognition of the U.S. commitments under
'.the provision of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1973
with Canada.
Annual reporting to Congress.
Accelerates current activity in the area of toxics monitoring
and puts in place toxics abatement.
Citizen Suits $504
-—Requires plaintiffs bringing citizen enforcement suits
under the Clean Water Act to provide conies of any complaint
or proposed consent judgment to EPA and the Department of
Justice.
-------
Dioxin
g
5'
-------
•^ mmm
Issue Profile
Issue DIOXIN
Contact Don Barnes
382-4126
Revised March 1988
Background: "Dioxin" is a generic term for a group of 75 related
compounds, but it generally is used to refer to the most toxic
of these compounds, 2,3,7,8-TCDD. An unwanted byproduct of some
manufacturing processes, dioxin is found in such formulations
as the now banned herbicide 2,4,5-T. Various forms of
combustion, ranging from wood stoves to waste treatment plants
to auto engines, also are suspected sources of dioxin.
Adverse Effects: In humans, exposure to dioxin can cause a
persistent acne-like condition called chloracne. In laboratory
animals, dioxin has been found to cause liver dysfunction,
reproductive failure, and immune system deficiencies. In 1971,
hundreds of horses became sick and 65 died after a number of
Missouri horse arenas were sprayed with dioxin-contaminated oil
as a dust control measure. Later, it was found that
contaminated oil had been used on roads in Times Beach,
Missouri, eventually forcing the evacuation and Federal "buy-
out" of the town. The Centers for Disease Control considers
one part per billion of dioxin in the soil to be a level of
concern in a residential setting. Some sites in Missouri had
dioxin concentrations in the soil as high as 1750 to 1800 ppb.
Regulatory Actions: Many uses of 2,4,5-T were suspended by the
Federal government in 1970, the same year the Department of
Defense halted spraying in Vietnam of Agent Orange, a
dioxin-contaminated defoliant. In 1983, Dow Chemical Company
voluntarily cancelled all its registrations for 2,4,5-T and
silvex. in 1985, EPA began a process which will require
manufacturers to report contamination from a different dioxin
compound (CDDs/CDFs) in specified chemicals. The Agency also
issued rules in 1986 prohibiting land disposal of CDDs/CDFs
wastes, and ordered that three million pounds of this dioxin
compound be kept in storage until it can be incinerated.
Coming Up: Findings from an EPA national study of dioxin (generally
2,3,7,8-TCDD) contamination were released this year. The
Agency analyzed soil, sediment, fish, water, animal and plant
tissue samples from more than 1,000 sites. One preliminary
finding from the three- year study: pulp and paper waste sludge
was found to be contaminated. Generally, however, it was found
that dioxin contamination in the United States was not
widespread.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
Ground Water
Q
3
(D
-------
SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY OF
LEE M. THOMAS
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES,
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
February 23, 19R8
• The testimony provided a brief overview of the characteristics
of the ground-water resource.
0 The federal statutory authorities used to protect ground water
were described, including: the Clean Water Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
Superfund.
0 EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy was explained:
M} the states should continue to have the primary role in
the management of the quality of the ground water resources.
(2) the federal government has an appropriate role in con-
trolling the use of certain toxic chemicals of national
concern? in setting protective standards for major sources
of contamination, in providing technical assistance, and in
rlsea^ch and development in support of management «* clean-up
activities. EPA will use a differential protection policy.
Differential protection means that the variability in use,
value, and vulnerability of the ground-water resource is
taken into account as decisions are made about how to manage
the resource. (3) EPA will distinguish between prevention and
comet iSe let ion In decision making, and will more emphasis
on prevention.
° EPA is seeking to consistently implement its existing statutes
with the Ground-water Protection Strategy around three basic
orinciples- (1) EPA should have clear authority to harmonize
?he implementation of its various programs, and to establish
a consistent health-protective reference point for decision-
makine regarding protection and cleanup for all programs.
?2> The use, value, and vulnerability of ground water should
be clearly factored into EPA decisionmaking. EPA would like
to see T:he differential protection strategy become federa 1
oolicv because it would focus attention on the most important
areas (3) The ability to have flexibility within a structured
decision making process, i.e., the ability to *evla" £°*
the basic reference point for protection and cleanup activ
in carefully defined cases, should be clearly established.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
SEPA Environmental Issue Profile
Contact: Jackie Webster, 382-7077
Issue:
Background:
Strategy:
Research;
Ground Water ,.iAR
About one-fourth of all the fresh water used in this
country comes from the ground. Ground water supplies
drinking water for 117 million people — 50 percent of
the nation's population — providing 35 percent of the
drinking water supply in urban areas and 95 percent in
rural areas. Western states depend on ground water for
irrigation and eastern states for industrial uses.
Once contaminated, cleaning up ground water is
difficult, expensive, and sometimes unsuccessful. Rates
of movement and mixing of ground water are dramatically
different from those for air and surface water, with
ground water flow measured in feet per year compared to
river flow measured in feet per second.
Ground water protection involves dealing with some
1500 hazardous waste land disposal facilities, a large .
number of Superfund sites, thousands of surface
impoundments, hundreds of thousands of injection wells,
over a million underground tanks, 23 million residential
septic systems, and the use of millions of pounds of
pesticides and millions of tons of fertilizers.
EPA's ground water protection strategy, issued in 1984,
recognizes that states should have the principal role in
protecting ground water due to their historical and
legal roles in land use and water allocation. Under
existing authorities (see attachment), EPA has a role in
controlling the use of certain toxic contaminants of
national concern, setting minimum standards for major
sources of contamination, increasing the states'
capacity to protect the resource, and research and
development of cleanup technologies.
During the past three years in implementing the
strategy, EPA has taken a leadership role in protecting
the resource by assisting state ground water protection
activities, dealing with major sources of contamination
such as pesticides and underground storage tanks, and
creating a consistent EPA policy based on the use, value
and vulnerability of the resource. The Agency is
currently developing a three-tiered ground water
classification system as a tool for applying the ground
water policy in decision-making.
The Fiscal 1987 budget for ground water research is $30
million.' Among the research activities proposed is
development of genetically engineered or naturally
enhanced microorganisms to detoxify or destroy
pollutants at the site of contamination.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF
MARIAN MLAY
niRECTOR OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
01 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
February 8, 1988
• The testimony presents a brief description of EPA', view,
on Ground-Water Protection.
• Ground-warer protection is one .fJPV s
^i^bSi.fs^irisys^S1" malncenance>
and "storltion of ground-water quality.
sation and Liability Act <-3UP« "£.''» . t_ clean Water Act
'
are discussed briefly.
- EPA's Ground-Water Protection c^"teg is described.
Strategy ^entifies four objectives for EPA sro
r rotection: (1) to strentnen cne
water protection: ( to sren Rreater emphasis
federal agencies and the states.
unacceptable contamination
- EPA is now conplecine .round-water clasSificationo,uideUnes
in an attempt to ^caoUsh J "Distent misePchaC ground
goals, ^.^f^cted according to ?heir particular uses,
• EPA's ground-water research program is outlined.
oind «« are not needed.
-------
MAR 1988
FEDERAL STATUTES THAT APPLY TO GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
o The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) is
designed to prevent wastes from leaching into ground water from
hazardous waste facilities and from such sources as municipal
land fills, impoundments, and underground tanks.
o The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (Superfund) provides EPA with major authorities
and resources to compel or carry out the clean up of sites which
present an extensive threat to human health or the environment.
o Through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA controls the availability and use of pesticides
which may leach into ground water.
o Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Agency sets
drinking water standards which are used in ground water
protection decisions, controls the injection of fluids into
the ground, and is initiating a program under the safe Drink w
Act Amendments of 1986 to assist states in protecting ground wate
entering the wellhead areas of all public water wells from
contamination.
o Through the Clean Water Act, EPA provides financial and technical
assistance to states in the development of ground water protectio
strategies.
o The Toxic Substances Control Act and the Atomic Energy Act also
are applicable in some instances to the protection of ground
water.
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED IN GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
o The land management agencies of the Department of the Interior,
as well as its scientific agencies such as the U.S. Geological
Survey, which conducts broad-based research to identify aquifers
and the status of ground water pollution in this country.
o The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
o The Department of Defense.
•o The Department of Agriculture.
-------
Lead in
Drinking Water
Q)
r+
CD
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
SEPA Environmental Issue Profile
Contact: Jeanne Briskin, 382-5456
Issue:
Background:
Lead in Drinking Water
MAR 1988
Status:
Lead in Home
Plumbing:
EPA estimates more than 40 million U.S. residents
receive water containing lead levels exceeding 20 ppb,
the drinking water goal proposed by the Agency in
November 1985 (The current limit is 50 ppb; final action
on a more restrictive standard is expected by June
1988.) Lead is harmful if inhaled or ingested. Lead is
associated with mental retardation, heart attacks,
strokes, high blood pressure, and hearing loss.
Over the last few years, federal restrictions on gasolin
and paint have reduced people's exposure to lead a great
deal.
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act enacted in
1986 require the use of virtually lead-free pipe, solder
and flux in the installation-or repair of any public
water system and in plumbing in homes and non-
residential facilities connected to a public water
system. States are to implement and enforce the new
requirements by June 1988. Use of lead in drinking water
systems already is banned i-n 11 states: Delaware,
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and
Wisconsin. However, Federal and state bans cannot elimin.
lead contamination in existing plumbing.
Lead contamination typically occurs after water leaves
the local treatment system or well. Lead solder is the m<
common cause of contamination in residential plumbing
systems today. Older homes (plumbing installed prior to
1930) also may have lead interior pipes, however, and son
localities only recently ended the use of lead piping to
connect homes to water mains.
Testing water samples is the only sure way to detect
lead contamination. The cost of a home sample done by a
reputable lab ranges from $30 to $100. The water
supplier can help reduce exposure to lead by reducing
the corrosivity of the water. At the same time,
homeowners can reduce possible exposure to lead by
"flushing" cold water pipes when no water has been used
for six hours or more, using only cold water for cooking
and drinking (hot water dissolves lead more readily than
cold), and instructing the plumber to use only lead-free
materials in installation or repair work.
More information for homeowners is available in the
EPA publication, "Lead and Your Drinking Water."
-------
FACT SHEET ON LEAD BAN
On June 19, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. A new
Section 1417 of the Act addresses the long-standing public
health concern about lead in drinking water. The provisions
in this section include:
- Prohibition of the use of lead solder or flux exceeding
0.2 percent lead content in new installations and repairs
of public water supply systems and residences and other
buildings connected to public water supply systems. The
lead content of pipes and fittings used in or connected to
those potable water systems may not exceed eight percent. A
warning also is required on any solder containing more than
0.2 percent lead.
Public water supply systems are required to provi'de public
notice to all users who may be affected by lead contamination
of their drinking water. The notice must explain the potential
lead contamination sources, potential adverse health effects,
and reasonably available methods of mitigating lead contamination
The prohibition and the consumer notice requirement are to be
enforced by the individual States; failure of the State to
enforce may result in the withholding of up to five percent of
the State's federal drinking water grant.
Lead has no known useful function in the body. It is a well-
known toxin. Lead causes damage to the nervous system,
the blood-forming processes, the gastro-int'estinal systems
and the kidneys. Recent studies have shown that lead also
causes cognitive damage, can stunt children's growth and
can raise blood pressure in adult males, even at low levels
of exposure. Health effects of lead range from relatively
subtle biochemical changes at low doses to severe retardation
or even death at higher levels. Young children and fetuses
are most at-risk of damage from exposure to lead.
Lead rarely occurs naturally in drinking water sources.
The major source of lead in drinking water is products
of the corrosive action of water on the materials used in
the distribution systems and residential plumbing systems.
How much lead leaches from pipes and soldered joints containing
lead depends mostly upon the corrosiveness of the water,
the time of contact between the water and the plumbing, and
the age (new solder leaches lead easily) and condition of
the plumbing.
(more)
-------
-2-
Alternatives to lead pipes include copper, iron, galvanized
steel? and plastic. Alternatives to lead sol^e^f1J^esol
steel and
S-
total cost of the plumbing system in a new home (including
pipes, labor, solder, etc.), the additional cost is slight
• Protection against contamination from materials containing
I^d previously installed in water supply distribution systems
may by achieved by a number of corrosion control methods.
Addition of corrosion inhibitors, adjustment of the acidity
and tne alkalinity of the water and increasing the hardness of
soft corrosive waters with the addition of lime can mitigate
lead contamination in potable water.
For further information please contact Peter Lassovszky at
(202) 382-3030.
-------
Lead in
Gasoline
en
Q>
5'3
to
-------
Issue LEAD IN GASOLINE
Contact Barry Nussbaum
382-2637
Revised March 1988
Background: EPA's program to cut the amount of lead in gasoline to
protect the public health began in 1973. The "lead phasedown"
that began with the regulations proposed then led to a standard
that will reduce the amount of lead in gasoline by 90 percent.
The current standard of 0.1 grams per leaded gallon went into
effect January l, 1986. It is expected to result in net annual
benefits of over a billion dollars by 1992 by lowering health
costs and reducing outlays for vehicle maintenance.
Health Effects: In deciding on the current standard, the Agency was
guided by a national health and nutrition survey that showed a
close correlation between leaded fuel and lead in the blood of
a nationally representative sample of 10,000 Americans. Survey
data showed an estimated 40 percent drop in blood levels
between 1976 and 1980. This paralleled reductions in leaded
gasoline.
In 1985, the federal government's Centers for Disease
Control reduced lead toxicity levels for children from 30 to 25
micrograms per deciliter. Even more recent scientific data
indicate toxic effects below this blood lead level in infants
and in fetuses of pregnant women exposed to lead. Elevated
blood lead levels can cause adverse health effects ranging from
anemia and behavior disorders to mental retardation and nerve
damage.
Other Effects: Reducing the allowable lead in gasoline also
reduces the propensity for fuel switching, i.e., using leaded
gasoline in vehicles requiring unleaded gas. Fuel switching can
lead to four to eight-fold increases in hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. Further, unleaded gasoline has fewer deposits,
leadingto longer life for parts such as spark plugs and
mufflers.
Coming Up: EPA had considered banning leaded gasoline as early as
January l, 1988, but has deferred that decision pending further
health effects information and concerns about damage to valve
seats in older engines. A joint study released April 23, 1987
by EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that a
large number of gasoline-powered tractors, combines, and trucks
are vulnerable to excessive valve seat wear if operated solely
on unleaded gasoline. Gasoline-powered tractors represent
about 40 percent of all tractors, with the rest powered by
diesel fuel. According to the study, some non-lead additives
have shown potential as a substitute for leaded gas. A report
to Congress and the President on the results of this study, as
well as EPA's recommendations will be completed in Spring, 1988.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
wo
IS
o a
CO (D
Ozone:
Smog
-------
Issue OZONE, CQj, & URBAN SMOG
_ .^ mmm Contact John Thillman
Issue Profile 382
Revised March 1988
Background: Ozone, a major element of urban smog, is formed when
volatile organic compounds from gasoline vapors, solvents, and
other hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides react with sunlight and
high temperatures. High concentrations may have adverse
effects upon healthy people as well as those with pre-existing
respiratory problems. EPA's ambient air quality standard for
ozone is 0.12 ppm. Several urban areas were not in compliance
with the standard by December 31, 1987, as required by the
Clean Air Act. There has been progress in combatting
ozone,however. Ambient levels declined by some 13 percent in
the U.S. from 1979 to 1986. Violations of the ozone standard
decreased about one third from 1979 to 1986. The reductions
were achieved despite an increase of more than 200 billion
miles of vehicle travel between 1981 and 1986.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas
formed when carbon in fuels is not burned completely. More
than two-thirds of all emissions of carbon monoxide come from
motor vehicles and the highest concentrations are generally
found in traffic saturated center city areas. Ambient levels of
the pollutant at urban monitoring sites declined 32 percent
between 1977 and 1986.
Status: On June 29, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas announced proposls
to disapprove state clean air plans for 14 metropolitan areas
that had demonstrated they cannot meet EPA's ozone or carbon
monoxide standards by the end of the year. On November 17, the
Agency published the Ozone and CO policy in the Federal
Register. The policy requires "SIP calls" for all ozone and
carbon monoxide non-attainment areas. It requires such areas
to resubmit new SIPs that describe how and when these areas
will attain standards. Sanctions for failure to properly plan
or failure to implement the SIPs are also described. States
would have two years to submit new SIPs and 3 years to show
attainment of the standards.
Coming Up: The sanctions mean that construction bans would go into
effect upon a final determination by EPA. This would prevent
the construction of any new source or modification of existing
sources with the potential of emitting 100 tons or more of
either volatile organic compounds or carbon monoxide. Congress,
however, in a continuing Congress is requiring EPA not to
enforce sanctions until August 30 1988. In the meantime, EPA
must issue "findings of non-attainment" for those areas that
were not in compliance with the two standards on December 31,
1987. EPA will identify these areas in the Federal Register
sometime in April or May 1988.
United States Office ol
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
-------
tOO
=?K
Ozone:
Stratospheric
So
~ 3
8s
•o
CD
o'
-------
Issue Profile
Issue ATMOSPHERIC OZONE
DEPLETION
Contact Steve seidei
382-2787
Revised March 1988
Background: Scientists first theorized in 1974 that chlorine
released from synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) could deplete the stratospheric ozone layer that serves
as a shield against cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation from
the sun. Since coming into use in 1931, CFCs have been used in
air conditioning, refrigeration, food packaging (e.g., foam egg
cartons, cups), insulation, and as solvents to clean electrical
compounds. Use of CFCs as a propellant in aerosol sprays
accounted for half the U.S. consumption prior to 1978 when EPA
banned all but essential aerosol use to protect the ozone
layer.
Chemically inert, CFCs released into the air drift into the
upper atmosphere where ultraviolet radiation triggers the
release of chlorine components. Each chlorine atom can act as
a catalyst to destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone. CFCs have
atmospheric lifetimes of 75 to 120 years. British scientists
reported in 1985 the occurrence of a growing "hole" in the
ozone layer over Halley Bay, Antarctica, from September to
mid-November. While uncertainty still exists, recent U.S
investigations found levels of chlorine dioxide 20 to 50 times
higher than anticipated in the area, making CFCs the chief
suspects as the cause of the Antarctic phenomenon, whether
this loss of ozone is unique to conditions in the atmosphere
above Antarctica has not yet been determined.
Adverse Effects: Ultraviolet radiation has been linked to higer
incidences of skin cancer, cataracts, and suppression of the
immune system. Other possible effects include reductions in
crop yields, damage to aquatic ecosystems, and an increase in
formation of ground level ozone. CFCs are also a greenhouse
gas (e.g like carbon dioxide) and therefore add to global
warming.
Status: The United Nations' Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer, signed in March 1985 and ratified by the
U.S. Senate in August 1986, provides a framework f' r- com- -ted
international action. Negotiations are now underwa-, to limit
CFC use on a world-wide basis. The U.S. has proposed a freeze
at current emission levels and longer-range reductions of up to
95 percent in global CFC emissions linked to a periodic
reassessment of scientific, technical and economic issues.
Coining Up: EPA proposed a rule to implement the Montreal Protocol
on December 14, 1987. A final rule will be promulgated by
August 1, 1988.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs
Washington DC 20460
December 1987
SEPA CFCsand
M 4 D
Krtrx
!988
United States End uses of
CFCs
Stratospheric Ozone
Sterilant 5.4%
Overview
Stratospheric ozone acts as a
shield against harmful solar
ultraviolet (UV) radiation. A
significant reduction in
ozone in the upper
atmosphere could result in
long-term increases in skin
cancer and cataracts, and
probably damage the human
immune system. Evidence
also supports the conclusion
that reductions in the total
abundance of stratospheric
ozone could reduce crop
yields and alter terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems.
A consensus has emerged
worldwide that chlorine from
synthetic chemicals called
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
and bromine from chemicals
called halons will decrease
ozone in the stratosphere.
CFCs are used as blowing
agents in plastic foam
products (cushioning,
insulation and packaging), as
refrigerants, as solvents, as
sterilants and in aerosol
applications. Halons are used
as fire extinguishing agents.
To protect the ozone layer,
the United States, twenty
three other nations, and the
European Economic
Community on September 16,
1987, in Montreal, Canada,
signed the Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. This is a
landmark international
agreement designed to
control the production and
consumption of certain
chlorofluorocarbon and halon
compounds.
The Theory of
Stratospheric
Ozone
Depletion
Ozone is formed when
oxygen molecules absorb part
of the sun's ultraviolet
radiation and split apart into
two oxygen atoms. These
separated atoms then
combine with other oxygen
molecules to form ozone (03),
which contains a total of
three oxygen atoms. Ozone
itself is a pungent, slightly
bluish gas — a close
chemical cousin to molecular
oxygen (02). About 90 percent
of the earth's ozone is located
in a natural layer far ab
the earth's surface in a
region of the atmosphert,
known as the stratosphere.
This natural layer acts as a
shield against ultraviolet
radiation.
Concern about possible
depletion of the ozone layer
from CFCs was first raised in
1974 with publication of
research which theorized that
chlorine released from CFCs
could migrate to the
stratosphere and destroy
ozone molecules. (Molina
and Rowland, 1974).
Some of the CFCs have an
atmospheric lifetime of more
than 120 years (i.e., they do
not break down in the lower
atmosphere). As a result, they
migrate slowly to the
stratosphere where higher
energy radiation strikes them,
releasing chlorine. Once
freed, the chlorine acts as a
catalyst repeatedly combining
with and breaking apart
ozone molecules.
If ozone depletion oc.r-
moreUV radiation pen^
to the earth's surface.
Moreover, because of the long
atmospheric lifetimes of
CFCs, it would take many
-------
decades for the ozone layer
*« return to past
•:entrations.
.1 the thirteen years since
tne theory was first proposed,
substantial scientific research
has supported the general
concern that increased
concentrations in the
stratosphere of chlorine, as
well as bromine from halons,
pose substantial risks of
depletion resulting in harm
to human health and the
environment.
Health and
Environmental
Effects
Shielding the earth from
much of the damaging part of
the sun's radiation, the ozone
layer is a critical resource
safeguarding life on this
planet. Should the ozone
layer be depleted, more of
the sun's damaging rays
would penetrate to the
°arth's surface. Each one
cent depletion would
.rease exposure to
damaging ultraviolet
radiation by 1.5-to-2 percent.
EPA's assessment of the
risks from ozone depletion
focused on the following
areas:
Increases in skin cancers
Suppression of the human
mmune response system
Increases in cataracts
Damage to crops
Damage to aquatic
organisms
• Increases in ground level
ozone
• Increased global warming
Human
Health Effects
Skin cancer is already a
serious problem in the
United States but would
increase with further
Ozone layer
Ozone Depletion
basis for estimating future
risks associated with ozone
depletion.
The chart below projects
and compares the number of
all three kinds of skin cancer
cases expected to result in
the world without any
controls on CFCs and halons
and after implementation of
the Montreal Protocol.
154.5
.million
depletion of the ozone layer.
Under current atmospheric
conditions, the greater the
distance from the equator,
the greater the effectiveness
of the ozone layer as a shield.
As a result, there is a natural
experiment taking place.
People who live further north
are exposed to less damaging
UV radiation than those
residing closer to the equator.
Not surprisingly, the chances
of getting skin cancer follow
the same gradient — the
closer to the equator, the
greater the risk from
ultraviolet radiation.
Three distinct types of skin
cancer would increase if the
ozone layer is depleted. Basal
and squamuus cell skin
cancers are the two most
common types, now affecting
about 500,000 people
annually in the United
States. If detected early, these
cancers are treatable. Even
so, approximately 1 percent
of cases result in premature
deaths.
Malignant melanoma is far
less common but
substantially more harmful.
About 25,000 cases now
occur annually resulting in
5,000 deaths. While the
relationship between
exposure to UV radiation and
melanoma is complex,
existing studies provide a
Number of Cases *
9.5
million
Number
of Deaths
3.2
million
142.00
i
No Montreal
Controls Protocol
No Montreal
Controls Protocol
How Ozone is Destroyed
iJltraviolet light
•(for persons born before 2075)
Cataracts cloud the lens of
the eye, thus limiting vision.
Although cataracts develop
for a variety of reasons.
scientific evidence supports
the conclusion that increased
exposure to UV radiation
from ozone depletion would
increase the number of
people experiencing this eye
disorder.
Based on epidemiological
studies, if current trends in
the use of ozone depleting
gases continued, the number
of cataract cases would
increase by 18 million (for
the population alive today or
born before 2075). Actions
required by the Montreal
Protocol and EPA's proposed
rule to limit the use of these
chemicals would reduce the
number of additional cases
by 92 percent during this
time period.
Suppression of the immune
system is another possible
threat to human health
resulting from ozone
depletion. Research to date
suggests that exposure to LIV
radiation weakens the ability
of the immune system to
fend off certain diseases (i.e.,
herpes simplex and
leishmaniasis. a parasitic
disease common in the
tropics). However, more
needs to be known about the
exact way the immune
system is affected and the
implications UV radiation
exposure have for a wide
variety of other diseases.
Plant and
Marine Effects
Crops and other terrestrial
ecosystems could also be
adversely affected by
increased exposure to UV
radiation. In greenhouse
studies, approximately
two-thirds of the crops
exposed to elevated levels of
UV radiation proved
sensitive. Field studies of
soybeans have shown that
ozone depletion of up to 25
percent could decrease yield
by over 20 percent, with
substantially greater
reductions in years when
climatic stresses were also a
factor.
Certain marine organisms.
particularly phytoplankton
and the larvae of many
species, may be sensitive to
increased exposure to UV
radiation because they spend
much of their existence near
the surface of the water.
Although it is difficult to
design experiments
replicating aquatic
environments, research to
date suggests that adverse
effects on productivity and
species diversity are related
to increased exposure to UV
radiation.
Chlorine atom
Chlorofluorocarbon«| molecule
Chlorine monoxide
Free oxygen atom
In the upper atmosphere ultraviolet light Breaks of
a chlorine atom from a chlorofluorocarbon molecule
©
Ozones/molecule
1-1
The chlorine attacks an ozone molecule breaking
it a;:>ar; An ordinary oxygen moiecuie and a
o
Oxygen molecule
A free oxygen atom breaks up the chlorine monoxioe
The chlorine is free to repeal the process
-------
Other
Impacts
• Ground Level Ozone —
ozone depletion would
increase the rate of formation
of ground level (tropospheric)
ozone, a major component of
what is commonly called
smog.
• Degradation of Polymers
— ozone depletion would
accelerate the weathering
(i.e., chalking, yellowing, and
cracking) of plastics used in
outdoor applications.
• Climate Change — CFCs
are greenhouse gases (i.e.,
have similar properties to
carbon dioxide) and thus
would contribute to global
warming and rising sea
levels
Global Nature
of the Problem
Unlike many other
environmental issues,
stratospheric ozone
protection is a truly global
problem. CFCs and halons
are used in many nations.
And given their long
atmospheric lifetimes, they
become widely dispersed
over time. As a result, the
release of these chemicals in
one country could adversely
affect the stratosphere above,
and therefore the health and
welfare of, other countries.
Many developed and some
developing countries produce
CFCs and halons. Most
consume the chemicals in a
variety of different products.
The United States, for
example, consumes 29
percent of the world's CFCs.
Other nations are also
significant users.
Approximate Consumption of
CFCs by Country/Region
Therefore, to protect the
ozone layer from the damages
that may be caused by CFCs
and halons, an international
solution is critical.
Overview of
Montreal
Protocol
Recognizing the global nature
of the problem, on September
16, 1987, in Montreal,
Canada, 24 nations and the
European Economic
Community (EEC) signed the
Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. Most of the
major CFC and halon
producing and'consuming
nations signed the agreement.
Other nations, including the
Soviet Union, indicated that,
following further
consultations at home, there
was a possibility of their
becoming signatories.
List of Signatories
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Egypt
European Economic
Community
Federal Republic
of Germany
Finland
France
Ghana
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Portugal
Senegal
Sweden
Switzerland
Togo
United Kingdom
United Slates
Venezuela
The chart below lists the
eight chemicals controlled by
the Montreal Protocol,
Chemicals Covered by the
Montreal Protocol
• Fully-Halogenated
Chlorofluorocarbons "Group I"
CFC-11
CFC-12
CFC-113
CFC-114
CFC-115
• Halons "Group II"
Halon-1211
Halon-1301
Halon-2402
subdivided into two groups
(CFCs and halons). The
Montreal Protocol calls for a
freeze in CFC-11, -12, -113,
-114 and-115 at 1986
consumption levels,
beginning in approximately
July 1989, or 90 days after
entry into force Reductions
of 20 percent from 1986
levels of these same
chemicals would be required
by July 1, 1993, with
reductions of 50 percent
required by July 1, 1998.
Halon-1211,-1301, and-2402
would be frozen at 1986
consumption levels in 1992,
or three years after entry into
force.
Halons and CFCs are
treated separately under the
protocol. Halons are
currently produced in far
smaller quantities than CFCs
and less is known about
halon worldwide production
and use. However, halons are
substantially more potent
ozone depleting chemicals.
Within each group of
substances (CFCs and
halons), each individual
chemical (e.g., Halon-1211) is
assigned an ozone depletion
weight, a measure of its
relative ability to destroy
ozone molecules in the
stratosphere.
These weights are:
Chemical
Compound
CFC-11
CFC-12
CFC-113
CFC-114
CFC-115
Halon-1211
Halon-1301
Depletion
Weight
10
10
08
1 0
06
30
100
Halon-2402 to be determined
Under the terms of the
agreement, production of
each halon can be traded
among the other halons, with
appropriate weighting.
Therefore, 100 kilograms of
Halon-1211 equals, for
example, 30 kilograms of
Halon-1301. Similarly,
depletion weights are
assigned to individual CFCs,
and production trades may
be made between individual
CFCs. CFCs, however, may
not be traded with halons.
Trade
Provisions
The Montreal Protocol
contains provisions that
provide incentives for
countries to join the
agreement, and other
provisions that minimize
potential adverse economic
effects on signatory countries.
Thus for instance, within one
year after entry into force.
each party must ban imports
of bulk controlled substances
from nonparties who are not
subject to the accord's
production restrictions. Also,
there is provision for
participant developing
countries now using little of
the chemicals to increase
consumption for 10 years
before being required to
abide by the restrictions of
the accord. Producing
participants would be
allowed to increase
production by 10 to 15
percent to allow for export to
these qualifying developing
countries.
A ban or restriction on
import of products
containing controlled
substances from nonparties is
scheduled to go into effect
within four years of entry
into force, based on a
product list to be developed
by the parties. Within five
years, consideration will be
given to restricting imports
from nonparties of products
produced with controlled
substances (i.e., computers).
The accord also prohibits the
conclusion by parties of new
agreements which provide
nonparties with financial
assistance to produce
controlled substances.
Periodic
Reassessments
Because of many scientific
uncertainties, reassessments
of protocol provisions will be
regularly scheduled, the first
occurring in 1990 based on
1989 studies which examine
the following areas:
• Atmospheric sciences
• Effects research
• Technical control options
• Coverage and stringency of
protocol
China/India 2%
-------
Other Provisions
The agreement calls for
Bilateral and multilateral
operation among the
parties, as well as
cooperation through
international organizations
on research, exchange of
information, and
development of public
awareness. There will be an
emphasis on technologies for
reducing emissions of
controlled substances as well
as on alternative chemicals
and chemical products.
Expanded technical
assistance is also urged,
particularly in helping the
developing nations comply
with the Montreal Protocol
and bridge the transition to
new chemicals and
technologies. Provision is
made for modifying the
Montreal Protocol if new data
warrants.
The accord establishes
requirements for data
reporting, calling for the
United Nations Environment
Programme to convene a
"eeting of government
>erts to recommend to the
jties measures for
coordinating data on
production, imports and
exports.
Entry
Into Force
The Montreal Protocol will
enter into force on January 1.
1989, provided that it has
been ratified by 11 nations.
representing at least
two-thirds of total world
consumption of CFCs and
halons. If sufficient
notifications have not been
deposited by that date, the
Montreal Protocol will enter
into force 90 days after these
conditions have been
fulfilled.
EPA's Domestic
Regulatory
Approach
i December 1,1987, EPA
/oposed domestic
regulations to implement the
requirements of the Montreal
Protocol in the United States.
These requirements would
only go into effect after the
accord's entry into force —
following ratification by the
United States and the
governing systems of at least
10 other signatory nations
representing two-thirds of the
total world consumption of
controlled substances.
The proposed regulation
follows the requirements of
the Montreal Protocol. Both
the international accord and
the proposed regulation
address CFCs and halons,
and the same staged
reductions are specified. For
CFCs, there would be a 50
percent decrease over the
next decade. For halons,
production and consumption
would be frozen at 1986
levels beginning in
approximately 1992. The
proposal also follows the
Montreal Protocol by
allowing trading among the
different CFCs based on their
ozone depletion potential
and separately among the
different halons.
Production and
Consumption Limits
The proposed domestic
regulation places limits on
the production of the
specified CFCs and halons
and their domestic
consumption. Production is
defined by the Montreal
Protocol as the quantity of
the regulated chemicals
manufactured in the United
States. Consumption is
defined as production plus
imports minus exports.
Both the accord and the
proposed rule would cap
consumption at 1986 levels,
followed by a reduction to 20
percent of those levels by
July 1. 1993, and to 50
percent by July 1. 1998. The
same limits are placed on
production, with the excep-
tion that a 10 to 15 percent
potential production increase
(after mid 1998) is permitted
for increases in exports to
developing countries that
have joined the Montreal
Protocol and to other
countries for the purpose of
industrial production
efficiency. Any U.S.
production under this
potential increase must be
exported and would be
permitted only under the two
circumstances just noted.
The Allocated
Quota System
EPA, after considering a
number of possible
approaches for domestic
implementation of the
accord's restrictions on
production and consumption,
is proposing an "allocated
quota" system. This system
would allocate production
and consumption rights to
firms producing and/or
importing CFCs and halons
based on their production
and consumption levels in
1986.
Production
Rights
Firms producing CFCs and
halons in 1986 would be
allocated a quota — their
share of the allowable level
of production — based on the
individual firm's 1986
production. Thus, if a firm
produced 100 units of CFCs
in 1986. of a total U.S.
production of 1,000 units,
then it would receive its
quota of 10 percent of the
allowable U.S. production for
the particular control period.
The firm could use or sell its
allocated "production rights."
However, the firm could not
produce CFCs or halons over
and above its allocated
quantity, except for export
for the limited purposes of
industrial production
efficiency or providing
controlled substances to
qualified developing
countries.
Consumption
Rights
To satisfy the Montreal
Protocol's restrictions on
both production and
consumption, EPA also
proposes to allocate
"consumption rights" to
firms that either produced or
imported CFCs and halons in
1986. Apportionment would
be based on production
and/or import activity in the
1986 base year. Consumption
rights could also be sold to
other firms and could be
used for either importing or
producing the allowable
levels of CFCs or halons. To
produce CFCs or halons, a
producer must have both
production and consumption
rights to cover his proposed
production level.
Exports
Any firm can export CFCs or
halons. Since exports are
subtracted in calculating total
U.S. consumption limits,
exporters would be allowed
additional consumption
rights equivalent to the
quantity of the controlled
substances that they exported
from the United States. After
January 1,1993, this
additional credit would
apply only to exports for
parties to the Montreal
Protocol.
User Firms
Firms using (in contrast to
producing or importing)
CFCs and halons would
continue to rely on their
channels of supply for the
chemicals, but, given the
required limits on
production, prices are likely
to increase over time. In
response, firms will have the
incentive to explore
opportunities to reduce their
reliance on these
ozone-depleting chemicals by
developing additional
recovery and reuse
technologies and by
investigating new substances.
chemicals, and processes.
Reporting
Requirements
Under the proposed rule
recordkeeping and reporting
are required of producers,
importers and exporters of
the specified CFCs and
halons. Accompanying the
proposed rule was a final
rule requiring firms to submi
specific data on 1986
activities.
Comments
and Final Rule
EPA has asked for comment
on its proposed approach as
well as several other options
for implementing the
Montreal Protocol. Following
analysis of comments, a fina
domestic rule is expected to
be promulgated by August 1
1988.
-------
PCBs
•u
o
00
w
-------
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT
VICTOR KIMM DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, TOURISM, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 2, 1987
i, s?-.
PCB regulations including the 1987 PCB Spill Cleanup Policy.
Federal PCB program has greatly reduced the amount of PCBs 1n service.
EPA's efforts to rectify problems associated with the PCB program:
Consistent review and approval of TSCA disposal permits; guidance or regula-
t?Sns specifyingthe criteria and procedures for terminating PCB disposal
JeSltl- bette? identification of persons who handle PCB wastes.
bility requirements for all new disposal permits.
Addresses H R. 3070. a bill Introduced by Congressman Synar to amend TSCA
X rlSlre persons handling PCBs to comply with the manifest and financial
responsibility requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Describes
Skill's pSvlSons and states that H.R. 3070 will remove the flexi-
bility which EPA believes is necessary for the long-term operation of the
PCB program.
Concludes by stating that the existing legislation and our aggressive
administrative efforts eliminate the need for new legislation to address
the PCB problem.
Prepared by: Reynold Meni
Attorney-Advi sor
Office of Legislative Analysis
December 2, 1987
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental Issue Profile
Contact: Lynn Vlier, 382-3965
Issue:
Background:
Health
Effects:
PCBs
MAR
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are members of the
chlorinated hydrocarbon family which have heavy oil-like
properties. PCBs have been used primarily as an insulati
liquid in electrical transformers and capacitators since
1923 because of their high boiling points and low electr
conductivity. They are long-lasting and fire retardant.
The characteristics that make PCBs commercially
attractive also make them environmentally harmful. Once
released into the environment, they decompose slowly
over a period of several decades. These contaminants aie
absorbed by humans through their lungs, gastrointestinal
tract or skin, and accumulate in the fatty tissues. PCBn
are toxic in low dosages. Laboratory animals have
suffered reproductive failures, gastric disorders, skin
lesions, and cancerous tumors as a result of exposure
to PCBs.
Regulatory
Status:
PCD Task
Force:
In October 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) which specifically directed EPA to
regulate PCBs. By 1979, EPA issued regulations prohibit!
and restricting their continued use. By 1984, EPA's
rulemaking limited their uses to small amounts for resea
and development, to hydraulic and heat transfer fluids
concentrations below 50 parts per million (ppm), in
compressors and condensate of natural gas pipelines at
concentrations below 50 ppm, and in a few other areas. 0
March 23 of this year, EPA set national standards to qui<
the cleanup of PCB spills.
An Agency task force is investigating sites in states
along the Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline where the
company may have buried PCB wastes. In addition,
EPA is beginning field investigations of six other
interstate pipelines that used disposal pits for PCBs.
-------
Pesticides
w
r*
o"
5."
CD
CO
-------
issue PESTICIDE TOLERANCES
(NAS REPORT)
contact
Issue Profile
Revised March 1988
Background: In February 1985, EPA asked the National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council to study EPA's methods for
setting tolerances for pesticide residues in food, and
particularly how the tolerance-setting process is influenced by
the Delaney Clause. EPA sets tolerances for pesticide residues
on raw commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act, which specifies that both benefits and risks
be taken into account, and under Section 409 of the law related
to food additives. Consideration of benefits is not permitted
under Section 409. The Delaney Clause is found in that section
and it prohibits approval of a food additive that has been
found to induce cancer in man or animals.
Findings: The Council's pesticide committee noted that as the
Agency goes through the reregistration process, it must
determine how to apply the "zero-risk" standard of the Delaney
Clause to a significant number of currently registered,
commercially important pesticides. The report found that 90
percent of the theoretical cancer risk came from pesticides
registered for use before 1978. The study focused on 28 out of
53 chemicals that EPA identified as carcinogenic; of these, the
10 compounds thought to account for the most theoretical risk
are: linuron, zineb, captafol, captan, maneb, permethrin,
mancozeb, folpet, chlordimeform and chlorothalonil. The risk
assessments were characterized by the committee as "very worst
case risk assessments." The committee found that about 45
percent of the estimated dietary oncogenic risk is from foods
that are not processed,including many fruits and vegetables,
and all meat, milk, and poultry products.
Recommendations: The council recommended that a consistent risk
standard be applied to both raw and processed foods. Calling
for a "negligible risk" (rather than zero risk) standard, the
council stated that this could eliminate 98 percent of existing
dietary oncogenic risks while allowing continued use and
benefits from certain low risk pesticides. By contrast, the
Delaney Clause's zero-risk standard, since it applies only to
oncogenic residues in processed foods and their parent raw
commodities, would reduce the estimated risk by just 55
percent. (The findings are based on "worst case" estimates, so
they consistently overstate the degree of risk.) EPA's
response to the NAS report is expected to -be prepared by April
1, 1988.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
SUMMARY OF
STATEMENT OF
DOUGLAS D. CAMPT
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 14, 1987
0 Describes EPA's tolerance-setting process under the authority
of the FFDCA. EPA establishes tolerances for pesticides in
food, while FDA and USDA enforce the tolerances.
0 Describes the type of data required to support a tolerance
petition (residue chemistry data and toxicology study results)
and the analytical methods that EPA must approve.
0 Critiques various provisions of the bill, including section 2
which requires FDA to develop monitoring information. This
is of limited use because EPA does not use such data to set
tolerances. Section 3 requires documentation of pesticide
use only for imported commodities. This type of targeted
requirement sets a precedent of concern to EPA.
0 Concludes by stating that since FDA would have to implement
this bill, EPA defers to FDA's judgment on the bill's feasi-
bility and necessity.
Prepared by: Reynold Meni
Attorney-Advi sor
Office of Legislative Analysis
December 14, 1987
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
e/EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1988
Bob Jacobson (206) 442-1203
FIRST CRIMINAL
CASE FOR SELLING
UNREGISTERED
PESTICIDES ENDS
IN GUILTY PLEAS
R-9
Two officers of Argent Chemical Laboratories Inc.
of Redmond, Wash., each face possible prison terms
after pleading guilty last week (Jan. 14) to charges
filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle that Argent
sold unregistered pesticide products and unapproved
drugs in 10 states around the country in violation of
federal laws administered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Admini-
stration.
In a plea agreement with the government, Argent
and its two officers agreed to pay fines totalling
8100,000. The sum of 570,000 is to be paid by the
company, and the remainder by Eliot Laurence Lieberman,
Argent's president and treasurer ($20,000), and by
Beatriz Faith Shanahan, the vice president and secretary
($10,000).
How much prison time will be served by Lieberman
and Shanahan will be decided when the court imposes
sentence on March 25. Lieberman could be sentenced
to a maximum of three years in prison and Shanahan to
a maximum of one year.
Argent, which promoted itself as the nation's
largest manufacturer and distributor of aquatic
pesticides, was charged with two felony counts related
to false statements made to officials of EPA and FDA.
According to the charges, Argent was manufacturing,
formulating and selling various pesticides at the time
the company submitted a 1985 affidavit to EPA claiming
it was not. Also in 1985, the company made false state-
ments to FDA that is was not manufacturing or distribu-
ting a veterinary drug.
(more)
-------
-2-
In addition to the two felony counts, there were 11 misdemeanor charges
against the defendants, all relating to specific sales transactions of
unregistered pesticides or unapproved drugs.
Six illegal pesticide sales were made between May 1983 and July 1986 to
buyers in Winlock, Wash.; Parker, Ariz.; Little Rock, Ark.; Zachary, La.;
Relzoni, Miss.: and Louise, Miss. The sales involved herbicides used by commer-
cial fish farmers, or pesticides used by fish farms or hatcheries to eliminate
predacious or trash fish.
Five illegal sales of unapproved veterinary drugs were made in 1985 and
1986 to state fish hatcheries or other buyers in Big Lake, Alaska; Elgin,
Ore.; Boise, Idaho; Gary, Ind.; and Mercersburg, Pa.
Five of the 11 illegal sales were charged individually to Lieberman, and
two to Shanahan. On three of those counts against Lieberman and on one against
Shanahan, the matter of prison sentencing remains within the discretion of the
court. Each of the counts carries a maximum of one year's imprisonment.
Any prison time for Lieberman or Shanahan would be in addition to the
fines and five years' probation already imposed on each of the defendants by
the plea agreements. Among the conditions of probation is the requirement
that the defendants destroy promptly all unregistered pesticides and unap-
proved drugs in their possession.
In Seattle, Gene S. Anderson, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District
of Washington, said that charges filed against Argent and its two officers
were the product of investigations conducted by EPA and FDA.
The Argent case is the first criminal case in the country against a
company selling drugs for use in the food fish industry. It is also the first
criminal case in the country involving charges against a pesticide manufac-
turing establishment for the sale of unregistered pesticides.
R-9 I ft #
-------
. f^ fmm
Issue Profile
Issue . . . PESTICIDES IN GROUNOWATER
Contact ............... Jerry Kotas
Revisea
Background: The potential threat that pesticides pose to ground
water quality — and thus to drinking water — has recently become
a widely recognized problem. In 1982, EDB, one of the most
potent cancer-causing substances ever found in an animal test
program, was discovered in the ground water in California,
Florida, Georgia and Hawaii, a 1985 study showed that 17
pesticides have been detected in ground water in 23 states as a
result of normal agricultural use, as opposed to improper
disposal, spills, or other accidents involving these
pesticides. Pesticides, used to kill insects and weeds, can
pose serious health threats to humans. Residues from
pesticides can leach from the soil and contaminate ground water
through runoff, rainfall, or infiltration.
To detect and correct pesticide contamination, EPA is
conducting a national survey of drinking water wells. The
survey will analyze well water for the presence of 70-100
pesticides in 1,500 drinking water wells, including 70
pesticides the Agency considers to have the greatest potential
for contaminating ground water. Pesticides that pose potential
hazards could be subject to a range of further regulatory
actions, including labeling direction changes, restrictions in
use, or suspension or cancellation of registrations. The Agency
also has been issuing health advisories to state and local
health officials on levels of pesticides in drinking water
that may pose significant risks.
Status: In 1987, EPA completed a pilot study in three states:
California, Minnesota and Mississippi, in which 48 wells were
sampled. Beginning in late spring of 1988, EPA will be
sampling the rest of the 1500 wells. We expect to have sampled
350 wells by the end of 1988, with all sampling completed by
the end of 1989.
Coming Up: The national report is expected to be completed during
fiscal year 1990. Information from the survey also will be
used by the Agency to implement requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. New maximum contaminant levels and
monitoring requirements can be proposed for pesticides shown to
pose a hazard to public drinking water.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
1 1
NATIONAL PESTICIDE SURVEY
Project Summary 1986/87
The Environmental Protection Agency has launched the National Pesticide
Survey, a nationwide survey of pesticides in drinking water wells. This
project summary explains the reasons for conducting the survey, the goals of
the survey, and how the survey will be designed and conducted.
Why is a Survey Needed?
Pesticides present in drinking water may pose dangers to human health if
ingested. Since 1975, urban water systems have been required to monitor for
six pesticides: endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
2,4,5-T. Recent evidence, however, indicates a larger problem of pesticides
in ground water. At least 17 pesticides have been found in ground water in 23
states as a result of agricultural practices.1 In the last few years,
studies of pesticides in ground water have been undertaken by the States of
California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin,
among others. However, most of these'studies have been limited to a small
number of pesticides and specific geographic areas; no comprehensive
nationwide study has been conducted.
The National Pesticide Survey is a major component of the Agency's overall
effort to understand and characterize the problem of agricultural chemicals in
ground water. The survey will provide a nationwide assessment of pesticide
contamination in drinking water wells, and an understanding of how pesticide
use and hydrogeology relate to contamination.
With adequate survey information on the concentrations of different
pesticides in wells around the country, EPA will be able to better design its
regulatory programs to target pesticides of concern and to develop further
regulatory initiatives. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) gives the Agency authority to regulate the marketing and use of
pesticides. Pesticides that are shown to pose potential hazards by their
ability to leach into ground water could be subject to a range of further
regulatory actions, including changes in label directions, use restrictions,
or suspension or cancellation of a pesticide's registration. The Agency will
also use information from the survey to implement requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). New maximum contaminant levels and monitoring
requirements may be proposed for pesticides shown to pose a hazard in public
drinking water.
1 Cohen, S.Z., C. Eiden, M.N. Lorber, "Monitoring Ground Water for
Pesticides in the U.S.," forthcoming in Evaluating Pesticides in Ground
Water. Washington D.C., 1986. See also: Pesticides in Ground Water:
Background Document. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water Protection, May 1986.
-------
-2-
Goals of the Survey
EPA is designing the National Pesticide Survey to meet two major
objectives- (1) to obtain sufficient information to characterize pesticide
contamination in the drinking water wells of the nation; and (2) to better
understand how pesticide concentrations in drinking water wells are associated
with patterns of pesticide usage and ground-water vulnerability.
The focus of the survey is on the quality of drinking water in wells
rather than in ground water, surface water, or drinking water at the tap. The
survey is not designed to estimate the risk to human health resulting from
pesticides in drinking water. Estimating pesticide exposure from contaminated
drinking water would require a different survey and research design. The
study will however, provide substantial data to develop inferences about
population; potentially at risk from exposure to pesticides in drinking water
and it will yield a wealth of information on the pesticides present in private
and community drinking water wells.
How the Survey Will be Conducted
The survey will be implemented in two steps: a pilot survey of a limited
number of drinking water wells beginning early in 1987 followed by the full
survey about 8-10 months later. EPA expects to conduct the full survey over a
period of two years, from the Fall of 1987 through 1989. ^
The survey design required the development of four major components: (1) »
statistical design To select a set of wells that is «P«scn""™ °f J^
water wells in the nation; (2) analytic methods to measure ^ types and
amounts of possible pesticide contamination; (3) health advisories that
establish the levels at which pesticide concentrations may pose a health
problem; and (4) questionnaires to collect key information on factors
notentiallv associated with pesticide contamination. These Jour components as
well as the survey's logistical procedures will be tested in the pilot study.
Statistical Design. To test public drinking water wells for
contamination, EPA will select about 500 community water *ftM
Federal Reposing Data System to identify systems with wells
design of the domestic wells side of the survey is more complex
became there is no comprehensive tabulation of private (rural
drinking water wells in the United States. The process of identifying and
* Ground-water vulnerability is a composite description of geologic and
hydrogeologic characteristics that indicates ground-water "°n
-
^combined to ££tT£ po^ill For Pollution of ground-water
resources.
-------
•3-
selecting representative domestic wells for sampling is organized into three
stages, as follows:
Stage 1: EPA classifies all U.S. counties using specified measures
of ground-water vulnerability (obtained from the DRASTIC
model) and measures of pesticide usage. From this
classification scheme, EPA selects 90 representative
counties.
Stage 2: At this stage, the counties are separated further into
Census enumeration districts; these districts in turn are
stratified by crop patterns and ground-water vulnerability
to ensure a representative selection. Within these
districts, using Census data and other sources, EPA
identifies and statistically selects household clusters
that use private wells.
Stage 3: In the final step of the selection process, EPA identifies
private wells and characterizes their use and structure on
the basis of interviews with householders. Over 700
domestic wells will be selected for pesticide sampling.
Analytic Methods. The water samples to be taken from the wells will be
analyzed for the presence of about 120 pesticides (70 priority pesticides
and 50 "non-priority" pesticide analytes). EPA has selected the pesticides to
be analyzed on the basis of expected leaching potential, occurrence,
production volume, and other considerations.
EPA has developed five multi-residue methods to detect and quantify the
occurrence of pesticides. Each method will detect several analytes. The
methods should enable EPA, states, and industry to efficiently analyze for
pesticides expected to leach into ground water. In addition, a method is
being developed for Ethylene thiourea (ETU) . Methods already developed for
n!tr!tes volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), and EDB/DBCP will also be used.
Two EPA regional laboratories will act as Quality Assurance and Referee
Laboratories.
EPA is performing laboratory validation of these methods. This effort
will validate detection limits, determine the precision and "curacy of
different methods, and analyze sample preservation requirements. Work on the
Quality Assurance Plan for the survey is nearing completion. EPA staff are
preparing specifications for sampling procedures, sample custody, data
analysis, quality control, and performance audits.
Health Advisories. EPA is developing Health Advisories for
priority pesticides, using information collected on physiochemical P*°P«ties'
uses, ckemical fate, health effects, treatment and existing «^e"a"*le
guidelines. External review drafts of the Health Advisories will be available
in the Spring of 1987.
-------
-4-
LTin™nto"J.«U hydrogeologic characteristics. demographic
characteristics. and economic and crop characteristics.
s.
? Tne pilot iill also provide practical experience in conducting
fullsurvey .Pilot studies are now considered essential in any
large-scale or benchmark effort.
Participants. The Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of
A **£1»*%£Z%£Z ^cooperation
sought in implementing the survey.
cnm.unicati.ns. EPA has developed a
= ^i irs
survey, please contact:
Gerald F. Kotas, Director
National Pesticide Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W. (WH-550)
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Radon
30
Q)
Q.
O
-------
. M rmm
Issue Profile
Issue ........... RADON IN THE HOME
Contact ................ Miles Kahn
Revisea
Background: Radon in the home is recognized as a major health issue
in the U.S. Elevated levels of radon — a colorless, odorless
gas formed by the decay of uranium — increase the risk of lung
cancer. Scientists estimate 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths
a year in the U.S. may be attributed to radon. (The overall
annual toll from lung cancer is 135,000, the American Cancer
Society says. The Surgeon General attributes about 85 percent
of lung cancer deaths to smoking.) A January 1988 National
Academy of Sciences report confirmed Agency risk estimates and
identified radon as a major national public health problem.
EPA advises homeowners to act to reduce radon when average
radon levels exceed 4 picocuries per liter (PCi/1) of air.
Based on limited testing, the Agency estimates as many as 8
million homes in the U.S. (10%) have levels above 4 pCi/l, the
EPA recommended action level. The risk of lung cancer at the
recommended action level is estimated in the range of 1 to 5
chances in a hundred over lifetime exposure (70 years).
Status: The goal of EPA's Radon Action Program is to significantly
reduce the health risks of indoor radon by forming a
partnership with the states. EPA is supporting state programs
through a variety of activities including:
$ Completion of the largest survey of indoor radon undertaken
to date that found elevated radon levels in 21 percent of
the 11,600 homes tested in 10 states. Results of the survey
were released Aug. 4. (See attachment).
ffi Research into methods of mitigration and prevention in new
and existing homes.
e Technical training in measuring and diagnosing radon
problems, and in evaluating survey data.
e Public information materials to aid states in informing
homeowners about radon.
EPA also is conducting a radon measurement proficiency
program to help the public identify firms and laboratories that
have demonstrated their ability to measure indoor radon levels.
The latest quarterly report (2/3/87) listed 153 such
organizations.
Coining Up: EPA is assisting the Indiana Health Service and the
folliwng seven states in radon surveys this winter. The seven
include Massachusetts, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, North
Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
RCRA
3D
O
3
-------
Issue ...... RCRA AMENDMENTS Of 1984
Dr/>fllA Contact ....... Rita Calvan, 382-4523
I ll/lllw Revised ................... March 1988
Background: While EPA's Superfund program is designed to clean up
problems of the past, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) is intended to prevent problems of the future. The
1984 amendments to -tr-e act established 69 new regulatory or
report requirements, many with statutory deadlines. A number
of the deadlines have "triggers" in place, with the regulation
automatically going into effect if EPA fails to meet a
deadline. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response is
charged with meeting 62 of these deadlines: 32 regulations, 19
listings and 11 reports. The regulations cover more than
100,000 small-quantity waste-generators, some 67,000 other
generators, 4,800 treatment, storage and disposal facilities,
and a million and a half storage tanks. The new amendments
substantially increase the costs of the program. While the old
program cost the regulated community $1-3 billion when fully
implemented, the 1982 Amednments will cost an estimated $20
billion per year by the 1990s.
Requirements: Major emphasis is placed on the partnership between
the Federal government and the states, with EPA setting the
guidelines and the states implementing their own hazardous
waste programs, as long as they are consistent with the Federal
program. Deadlines established under the program call for
issuing permits by November 1988, incinerator permits by
November, 1989, and storage and treatment permits by November
1992. The amendments also tighten EPA's authority to force
facility owners to take corrective action when a release of
hazardous material is detected or existing conditions represent
a health hazard. The 1984 law established a strong presumption
against land disposal as a managements strategy.
Coming Up: Some of the upcoming rules that will affect the design,
operation, and location of hazardous waste management
facilities include: location standards for facilities; rules
relating to the containment capability of landfills; ground
water monitoring regulations; rules expanding the options for
closing at land disposal facilities. Waste minimization will be
a key term for our hazardous waste management efforts. We are
committed to developing a non-regulatory program to encourage
waste minimization activities. EPA intends to take a stronger
leadership role in addressing solid waste issues, in fact,
this is an area where we can expect to see some dramatic new
emphasis from the Agency. We intend vigorously to promote
source reduction and recycling and have set a national goal of
reducing or recycling 25% of solid waste generated within a
four-year period. We plan to deal with both the regulatory
and technical aspects of incinerator ash. Revisions to
existing criteria for municipal landfills are in preparation.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
SUMMARY OF
STATEMENT OF
J. WINSTON PORTER
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, TOURISM AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 10, 1988
I. Current Activities
- Established Federal Facilities Compliance Task Force
- Successful Negotiation of interagency agreements at
Rocky Flats, INEL, TCAAP
- Establishing specific annual enforcment targets, commitments
tied to resource allocations
- Strategy for enforcement action at Federal facilities en-
courages use of all available enforcement tools, and outlines
options for achieving cleanup through RCRA corrective action
Requirements in combination with CERCLA 106 and 120 authorities,
II. Agency comments on bills H.R. 3781-3785
H.R. 3781;
~—Would establish separate office, accounting
and budget authority for hazardous waste TSD program,
including corrective action, under RCRA, and cleanup
activities under CERCLA. EPA supports objective of adequate
funding for RCRA-CERCLA compliance, but defers to DOE on
the best approach to accomplish it.
H R 3782•
-' Oppose'establishment of Special Enforcement Counsel to
enforce RCRA at federal facilities; would be independent
instrumentality", not responsible to or directed by pro-
gram or enforcement offices, reduces flexibility to
negotiate consent agreements.
-------
MAR |ogp
SUMMARY OF
STATEMENT OF
J. WINSTON PORTER
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 15, 1987
EPA Is making steady progress on the permitting and closure
of land disposal facilities. To date we have reviewed 72 percent
of thVclosure plans received for closed or closing and disposal
facilities and anticipate completing the remaining closure plan
reviews for land disposal facilities by the end of FY 89.
Since 1985, the number of facilities intending to close some
or all of their hazardous waste units has increased dramatically,
first because of the loss of interim status provision, and later
due to land disposal restrictions, retrofit requirements, and the
1988 permitting deadline for land disposal facilities. Also,
ensuring proper closure activities has proven to be a more complex
and time consuming process than anticipated.
During FY 1987 the Regions reported a steady increase in the
number of closure plans approved each quarter. Based on current
prS ecJons, closure plans should *>e approved for t e vast majority
of closing land disposal facilities by the end of FY 89.
RCRA also provides a specific set of authorities to compel
clean-up on corrective actions before, during or after closure.
In FY87 the RCRA Implementation Plan specifically established
as high priority goals the review of closure plans for interim
Status facilities and the initiation of corrective action activities
at environmentally significant closing facilities. We are also
devl opiTg and implementing an integrated RCRA/CERCLA nanagment
system the Environmental Priorities Initiative, to enable the
Agency and ultimately the States to identify, evaluate, Prioritize
and clean-up first those sites which present the greatest threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
inspection and Management Plan Assistance Program (to
p?o?ide grants to slates). EPA intends to use public
outreach, inspections and a strong enforcement program to
achieve compliance.
concludes by stating that it would not be practical for EPA
to adopt a numeric standard for asbestos exposure Reasons:
asbestos exposure results from episodic
widely and are difficult to predict; the
monitoring would be by the TEN «""ct »e.tho? J11^"^
expensive. EPA's traditional approach is the most viable
one at this time: laboratory identification of asbestos-
containing material and visual assessment of its condition
by trained professionals.
Prepared by: Reynold Meni
Attorney-Advi sor
Office of Legislative Analysis
Narch 15, 1988
-------
CO
rn
3
RCRA:
Land Ban
-------
&EPA
Issue Profile
Issue RCRA LAND BAN
Contact Rita Calvan, 382-4523
Revised March 1988
Background: An estimated 33 billion gallons of untreated hazardous
waste are disposed of annually in landfills, surface
impoundments, land treatment units and waste piles. Most land
disposal of untreated hazardous waste will be phased out by
1990 under RCRA Amendments enacted in 1984. The aim is to
avert long-term public health risks by reducing or eliminating
the toxicity of waste before land disposal of residues. EPA's
implementing regulations are to be issued in priority order,
with high-risk, high-volume wastes heading the list. Effective
dates for controls may be delayed for two years, however, if
treatment capacity is inadequate. Performance based treatment
standards will be established for the majority of waste
streams; specific treatment methods will be established in some
cases.
Status: EPA has made considerable progress in meeting the
regulatory deadlines set in the 1984 RCRA Amendments. We have
issued a final rule that established the regulatory framework
for the land disposal restrictions program. We have also
promulgated effective dates and treatment standards for
solvents and dioxins, as well as for wastes captured by the so-
called "California list."
Coming UP: Some of the upcoming rules that will affect the design,
operation, and location of hazardous waste management
facilities include: location standards for new, expanding, and
existing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities; rules to enhance the containment capability of
landfills and to require leak detection systems; revisions
to regulations pertaining to ground water monitoring;
and a rule to expand the options for closing of landfills,
surface impoundments, and waste piles. In addition, there will
be a major restructuring of the corrective action program for
facilities where releases of hazardous wastes occur, and the
approach to defining wastes as hazardous will be revised and
improved.
United States Office d
Environmental Protection Public Affa"S (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
RCRA:
UST Regs
3J
CD
CO
(0
-------
c/EPA
Issue Profile
Issue ... UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Contact Rita Calvan, 382-4523
Revised March 1988
Background: It has been estimated that there are about 1.4 million
underground tanks in 50 states and 3000 counties, nearly half
of them used to store gasoline at service stations. Of the
tanks in use, an estimated 84 percent are unprotected bare
steel containers, the type most likely to corrode and leak.
Five percent are made of corrosion-protected steel, and 11
percent are fiberglass, which meets corrosion protective
standards.
EPA's underground storage tanks program authorities derive
from Subtitle I of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Amendments of
1984, which reauthorized and revised the 1976 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Status: Major accomplishments related to underground storage tanks
have included the proposal of regulations for tank technical
standards, corrective action and state program approval, as
well as development of policies and procedures to support
implementation of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund. The emphasis has been on creating a program that is
workable and realistic for the 50 states and 3,000 counties
where it will have to be implemented. EPA's primary role in
this area is to build effective state and local programs. We
have taken a novel approach to implementing this program,
viewing EPA as the franchiser and states and locals as
franchisees.
Coming Up: In the future program staff will finalize regulations for
tank design standards, leak detection, corrective action, and
financial responsibility. This will enable states to submit
their programs for EPA approval in FY '89. Forty-one states
received trust fund cooperative agreements in FY '87; most of
the remainder will be awarded during FY '89.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
SUMMARY OF
STATEMENT OF
J. WINSTON PORTER
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 15, 1987
EPA is making steady progress on the permitting and closure
of land disposal facilities. To date we have reviewed 72 percent
of the closure plans received for closed or closing land disposal
facilities and anticipate completing the remaining closure plan
reviews for land disposal facilities by the end of FY 89.
Since 1985, the number of facilities intending to close some
or all of their hazardous waste units has increased dramatically,
first because of the loss of interim status provision, and later
due to land disposal restrictions, retrofit requirements, and the
1988 permitting deadline for land disposal facilities. Also,
ensuring proper closure activities has proven to be a more complex
and time consuming process than anticipated.
During FY 1987 the Regions reported a steady increase in the
number of closure plans approved each quarter. Based on current
projections, closure plans should be approved for the vast majority
of closing land disposal facilities by the end of FY 89.
RCRA also provides a specific set of authorities to compel
clean-up on corrective actions before, during or after closure.
In FY87, the RCRA Implementation Plan specifically established
as high priority goals the review of closure plans for interim
status facilities and the initiation of corrective action activities
at environmentally significant closing facilities. We are also
developing and implementing an integrated RCRA/CERCLA managment
system, the Environmental Priorities Initiative, to enable the
Agency and ultimately the States to identify, evaluate, prioritize
and clean-up first those sites which present the greatest threat
to human health and the environment.
-------
Safe Drinking Water
Act
(Q
-------
OCRA
^ Issue Safe Drinking Water Act
ISSU6 I rOTIIG Contact Dave Fege, 382-5508
Revised March 1988
Background: The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, amended in 1977,
gave EPA authority to set national standards for drinking water
from both surface and ground-water sources, to protect major
aquifers, and to regulate deep-well waste disposal. Amendments
to the Act signed into law June 19, 1986, expanded the
regulatory responsibilities of EPA and the states, mandating
standard-setting for an expanded list of contaminants, adding
provisions to strengthen the protection of ground water and
providing new enforcement tools.
Highlights: The 1986 amendments require: standards for 83
additional contaminants by 1989; testing for specified
contaminants not .covered by standards; a ban on the use of
lead, in' or on pipes; state wellhead protection programs,
monitoring wells injecting below drinking water sources,
'critical aquifer area1 demonstration programs; and prompt
public notification of serious violations.
The amendments also authorize use of administrative orders
by EPA against public water systems in violation if states fail
to act. Civil penalty limits were raised to $25,000 per day.
The amendments also require that a new list of priority
contaminants be published every three years, and EPA must
regulate a minimum of 25 contaminants from each new list within
three years of its publication.
Status: A final rule regulating eight volatile organic chemicals
and requiring monitoring for 51 unregulated chemicals was
promulgated in June, 1987. in January, 1988, EPA announced
final action establishing a new regulatory priority list of 53
drinking water contaminants, of which the Agency is required to
regulate 25 within three years. This list is in addition to an
earlier statutory priority list of 83 specific contaminants
that must be regulated by June 1989. That earlier list
includes 34 standards set by EPA since the regulatory program
began in 1975.
EPA has also removed seven unregulated drinking water
contaminants from the priority list of 83 (molybdenum,
vanadium, dibromomethane, sodium, zinc, silver and aluminum)
and substituted seven others in their place (nitrate,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, ethylbenzene, styrene, aldicarb
sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone). The seven contaminants that
were removed from the list will be considered for future
regulation as part of the first regulatory priority list.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
JUNE 1987
KEY IMPLEMENTATION DATES
1986 AMENDMENTS
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act were signed into law
on June 19, 1986. Key implementation dates under various provisions of
the Amendments include the following:
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Within 1 year standards to be established regulating 9 contaminants
Within 2 years Standards for another 40 contaminants
Within 3 years standards for another 34 contaminants
By 1991
At least 25 additional primary standards (with 25 more
expected every 3 years thereafter)
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
y 1988
By 1990
EPA to specify criteria for filtration of surface water
supplies
EPA to specify criteria for disinfection of surface and
ground-water supplies
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Within 18
months
GROUND WATER
Within 1 year
Within 18
jonths
EPA to issue regulations requiring public water systems
to test for specified contaminants for which standards
have not been set
EPA to establish criteria for demonstration programs to
protect "critical aquifer areas." Report of
accomplishments due to Congress by September 1990.
EPA to provide criteria states are to
use in defining wellhead protection areas. States have
3 years to develop protection plans; two years from
submittal to begin implementation.
Rules to be issued for monitoring wells injecting wastes
below a drinking water source (Class I wells). Report
due to Congress by September 1987 summarizing results of
state surveys required on Class V wells.
-------
INDIAN LANDS
Within 1 year EPA, in conjunction with Indian Health Service, is to
wi * complete survey of drinking water on Indian
reservations.
within 18 EPA to issue final regulations specifying provisions of
^nt£S Act under which Indian tribes will be treated as states,
-------
JUNE 1987
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Standards are in effect for the following contaminants:
Inorganics:
Microbials:
Organics:
Radionuclides;
Volatile
Organic
Chemicals
Arsenic; barium; cadmium;, chromium; fluoride; lead;
mercury; nitrate; selenium; silver
Coliform bacteria; turbidity
Endrin; lindane; methoxychlor; toxaphene; 2,4-D; 2,4,5-
TP silvex; trihalomethanes
Gross alpha particle activity; beta particle and photon
radioactivity; radium-226 and radium-228
Trichloroethylene; benzene; vinyl chloride; carbon
tetrachloride; 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,1-dichloroethylene;
1,1,1-trichloroethane; p-dichlorobenzene;
tetrachloroethylene
Standards have been proposed for the following contaminants:
Inorganics
Microbials
Synthetic
Organic
Chemicals
Asbestos; copper
Giardia lamblia; viruses
Aldicarb; chlordane; carbofuran; PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls); acrylamide; DBCP (dibromochloropropane) ;
1,2-dichloropropane; pentachlorophenol; alachlor; EDB
(ethylene dibromide); toluene; xylene
-------
g CDA Issue Drinking Water Filtration
tesue Profile
Revised March 1988
Background: In the late 1800's, filtration of drinking water greatly
reduced outbreaks of waterborne disease. In the 1900's, disinfection
and filtration virtually eliminated waterborne typhoid fever and
cholera in the U.S. Many states and systems already require or use
filtration and/or disinfection for all surface water sources.
While drinking water in the United States is among the safest in
the world, EPA has proposed new standards for public water systems
which draw their water from surface-water sources. These new standarc
would require all such systems to provide disinfection to protect
against Giardia, coliform bacteria, viruses, heterotrophic bacteria,
turbidity and Legionella. EPA has had microbiological standards in
effect since 1977 for coliform bacteria and turbidity. Implementatior
of the new standards is expected to eliminate thousands of cases of
waterborne illnesses each year.
Highlights: EPA's proposed rules require installation of additional
treatment technology in water systems that need it to assure that the:
drinking water is safe from microbiological contamination. Of the
9,800 drinking-water systems in the U.S. using surface water, 3,000
systems currently do not filter. Over 21 million people are served bj
these unfiltered systems, some of which are currently providing
biologically safe water and will not require changes. Some systems
will need minor modifications, such as disinfection, and some will net
to install filtration systems.
Giardia are protozoa that originate in human and animal waste and
cause giardiasis. Giardiasis has flu-like symptoms, but is usually
more severe. It can cause diarrhea, nausea and dehydration that can
last for months. Nationally, the cost of meeting the filtration
requirements for public water systems without filtration is estimated
at $1.6 billion in capital and $225 million in annual costs.
Status: EPA's new regulations require the states to evaluate
all unfilterjed systems to see if they need filters. The
regulations also require all water systems to be operated by
qualified operators and to report to their state governments
within 48 hours any waterborne disease outbreaks. Water systems
must meet Federal requirements within four years after the final
rule is issued.
A Safe Drinking Water Hotline is available at (800) 426-
4791, or 382-5533 (in Washington, D.C.).
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs> (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
CO CD
CO
i
(0
Superfund:
Facts and Figures
-------
United States Ofltee of Solid Waste and Washington, DC 20460
Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response
&EPA Superfund Advisory
Winter 1988
FY1987 IS BIG YEAR FOR SUPERFUND
Considerable progress was made during FY 1987 toward cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites according to the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Dr. J. Winston
Porter, Assistant Administrator for OSWER, observed that the Superfund program's progress was achieved
by accelerating site cleanup and enforcement activities and by incorporating requirements as directed by the
1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), which amended the original Superfund
law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Three types of response actions are possible under the Superfund program—removal actions, remedial
actions, and enforcement activities.
Removal actions are short-term actions intended to stabilize or clean up an incident or site threatening
human health and welfare or the environment The removal program conducted the largest number of haz-
ardouswasteorchemical spill removals since the Superfund program began in December 1980. InFY 1987.
254 removal actions were initiated and 193 actions were completed using Superfund monies. This brought
the total number of removals initiated since the enactment of CERCLA to 1,051.
Remedial actions include the study, design, and construction of long-term actions aimed at permanently
cleaning up affected areas. Accomplishments for the remedial program during FY 1987, also significant,
included 183 (123 "first starts" and 60 subsequent) remedial investigations/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), 75
(58 initial and 17 subsequent) records of decision (RODs). 75 remedial design (RD) starts, and 41 remedial
action (RA) starts. Over half of the RODs addressed final source control, and the majority of these involved
source treatment—especially thermal destruction (see Figure 1). Work was completed at eight sites, while
five other sites were deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL).
A key management initiative in FY 1987 was a strategy designed to expedite the pre-rcmedial process
by focusing attention on early decisions to ensure that fewer low priority sites reach the resource-intensive
stagesof the pre-remedial process. TTiepre-remedialprocess includes the preliminary assessment (PA\ site
inspection (SI). Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring, and listing on the NPL. During FY 1987. the pre-
remedialprogramcompletedPAsforover4.000siles.SIsforover 1.300sites,and 155 MRS scores. Ninety-
nine sites were listed as final NPL sites, while an additional 64 sites were proposed for listing.
Superfund enforcement authorities enable EPA to encourage responsible parties to undertake cleanup
activities and allow EPA to recover Fund monies spent for cleanup from those responsible parties. Trie
Agency reached 17 settlements in which private parties will conduct the remedial design and cleanup, and
50 settlements for investigative work. The EPA Regions completed 43 cost recovery settlements for a total
value of almost $36 million, and referred 37 sites for cost recovery at a combined dollar value of
approximately $81 million. The value of the design and cleanup settiements is in excess of$110 million.
Dr Porter has set tough goals for the Superfund program in FY 1988. These plans include 105 RI/FS
starts 125 remedies to be selected, 129 RD starts, 67 RA starts, 16 deletions from the NPL, 8 other site
completions. 87 settlements (either RI/FS or remedial design/construction), and about $66 million in cost
recovery.
1
-------
FY 1987 ROD Summary
^llliili ii ,
Selected Remedies*
Treatment TcchnologlM
lnc.r.MHonmwin.1
5lalilizalion/»«alioi<
Snl WMMHiHuinma
<*•»'
Containment
-T5.T-
TurorHY 5«r«l»
Ground Water
»li.rnM» Wal.r sum
No Further Action
• **>r» fun an* «w
Proqnm
EntoramM
Taial
Program
47
2»
16
10
i
t
1
3
22
8
1
18
•
4
Enloroimtnl
18
3
2
2
1
1
1
10
16
2
14
3
Taut
n
44
87
13
7
2
3
2
1
4
32
24
8
3
32
7
^
—
-
Mdf my t» uuoaM MM i M>
Remedy Costs
lo-atf
11
7
2» \
^••••IB
ti-iy
13
«
88-10U «
1
12
io-aoM iio-ao
2
-T- ?
IwaiBBBl
II $SOH.
1
1
••
FIGURE 1
During FY 1987. the Agency approved 75 Records of Decision
(RODs). The ROD documents the action plan for the remedy
chosen for a site and provides background on the decision. An
approved ROD must be in place before design and construction
can begin.
OSWER's progress is documented in a"Solid and Hazardous
Waste Report for Fiscal Year 1987." released on December 18,
which summarizes EPA and Stale efforts regarding Superfund,
managing hazardous wastes, underground storage tanks, and
chemical emergency preparedness and prevention (community
right-to-know).
TEN NEW INNOVATIVE CLEANUP
TECHNOLOGIES SELECTED FOR
DEMONSTRATION
In November 1987, EPA announced the selection of 10 new
technologies slated for demonstration under the Superfund Inno-
vative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The SITE pro-
gram helps OSWER demonstrate, evaluate, and promote the use
of new technologies that significantly decrease the toxicity.
mobility, or volume of hazardous substances at Superfund sites.
This effort provides private (profit and nonprofit) and public
entities an opportunity to test alternative technologies at selected
Superfund sites with on-site evaluation. The developer of the
innovative technology pays for the demonstration, and OSWER
finances the evaluation. Thomas W. Devine of OSWER manages
the SITE program.
According to Dr. Porter, 'The SITE program is a very
important part of the research underway on Superfund cleanup
methodologies. These innovative and emerging technologies are
critical to the work that must be done over the next few year
identifying and putting into place new and effective cle
remedies."
Ten developers and technologies were selected from the
second annual solicitation of the SITE demonstration program.
Selected for processes involving solidification/stabilization of
hazardous wastes were Solidtech, Inc. of Houston. TX; Chcmfix
Technologies, Inc. of Metairie, LA; Waste Chcm Corp. of Para-
mus. NJ; and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory of Richland,
WA. Chosen for biological technologies were Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. of Allentown. PA; Zimpro Environmental Con-
trol Systemsof Rothschild. WI; and MoTec. Inc. of Ml. Juliet, TN.
Retech, Inc. of Ukiah, C A, was selected for thermal technologies;
C.F. Systems, Inc. of Cambridge. MA, for an extraction process;
and Sanitech, Inc. of Twinsburgh. OH, for an ion-exchange
technology.
EPA issued its third annual solicitation for SITE demonstra-
tions in tt»» fpfpmetre Business Daily in mid-October 1987, with
requests for proposals available from the Agency in January 1988.
A new component of the SITE program, the Emerging
Technologies Program, will provide funding to developers for
technologies that are not yet ready for full-scale demonstration.
The program will compnse innovative, emerging technologies for
recycling, separation, detoxification, destruction, stabiliz?
and handling of hazardous chemical wastes. It will provide i
up to $300,000 over two years to an individual developer for
taking a promising technology from bench-scale to the pilot stage.
If the pilot stage is successful, then it could be eligible for
evaluauon under the SITE program. To obtain second-year
funding, significant progress must be made during the first year.
EPA is currently soliciting preproposals for this program.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS TO BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO CITIZENS' GROUPS
The 1986 amendments to CERCL A authorize EPA to make
grants available to single groups in communities affected by a
release or threatened release from a National Priorities List site.
Community members may use these grants, called Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs), to obtain independent assistance in
interpreting technical information on the nature of the hazards and
recommended alternatives for cleanup. Grants are limited to
$50,000 per NPL site. The goal of the program is to encourage
informed public involvement in EPA and State Superfundcleanup
activities.
To receive TAGs, community groups must provide mate ••'
funds of at least 20 percentof the total costs of the grant, whi
be covered with cash or "in-kind" contributions, such as doth..
-------
office supplies or professional services. Eligible groups are those
whose members may be affected by a release or threatened release
-»f hazardous wastes at any site listed or proposed for inclusion
nd at which preliminary site work has begun) on the NPL. Po-
tentially responsible parties, profit-making organizations, aca-
demic institutions, governmental-sponsored citizen advisory
groups, and headquarters offices of National and State organiza-
tions are excluded from participation.
EPA hopes to maximize the use of TAG funds, so consoli-
dated applications representing several community groups will
receive preferred treatment. Although grants are limited to
$50,000 per site, waivers may be given to applicant groups
affected by multiple sites to reduce their administrative burden.
For example, applicants concerned about three sites would be
eligible for $150,000 in TAG monies (3 sites x SSO,000/site).
The Agency plans to publish the Interim Final Rule for
Superfund TAGs in late February 1988. After that time, TAG ap-
plications, complete lists of eligible/ineligible uses of TAG
monies, and a "Citizens' Guidance Manual for the Technical
Assistance Grant Program" can be obtained from EPA.
NEW REMEDIAL CONTRACT PROGRAM
UNDERWAY IN EPA REGIONS
EPA is currently implementing the Alternative Remedial
ontracl Strategy (ARCS), which eventually will replace the ex-
..ting Remedial Planning (REM) program. ARCS will provide
the Agency with technical contractor support for remedial inves-
tigations, feasibility studies, remedial design, and remedial action
activities.
EPA Regional staff will manage the ARCS contracts, al-
though Headquarters staff will assist in the procurement process.
The advantages of ARCS include promoting continuity of per-
formance from RI/FS to construction management, increasing the
level of competition for contract awards, and facilitating contract
management delegations to the Regions.
The first round of ARCS procurement, covering Regions III
and V, is currently being negotiated. EPA expects to make awards
during the Winter and Spring of 1988. The second round of
procurements, which covers Regions I, II, and the combined zone
of Regions VI, VII, and VTJI is currently in the technical evalu-
ation stage, with awards scheduled to begin in late Summer/early
Fall 1988. A third round of ARCS procurements will cover
Region IV and a combined zone of Regions IX and X. with pro-
curement announcements scheduled for Spring 1988 and awards
during Winter 1989.
PORTER EMPHASIZES BETTER SUPERFUND
ROJECT EXECUTION
• As the Superfund program moves into the construction phase
at many hazardous waste sites, Assistant Administrator Porter has
stressed the imponanceof increasing the pace of remedial actions.
In an August 1987 memorandum to the Regional Administrators,
Dr. Porter encouraged using a variety of resources to complete
projects, depending on the nature of the project and (he site.
For example, he suggested that a single project management
entity be used to carry the site through the remedial planning.
design, and construction of remedy. The project manager will
often be an EPA contractor, although the Corps of Engineers or
another entity may assume the role. For larger projects. EPA will
use the expertise and experience found in other Federal agencies
such as the Corps of Engineers. Under the large project scenario,
EPA contractors will conduct the remedial planning, while the
Corps will procure both an engineering firm to design the remedy
and a construction firm to carry out the plan.
Dr. Porter believes that these two mechanisms for project
execution will provide EPA with the flexibility to meet the
varying site conditions and challenges presented by the 9S1 sites
now listed or proposed for inclusion on the NPL, as well as assist
in moving Superfund projects more expeditiously.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM WILL PROPOSE
SELECTION OF REMEDY REQUIREMENTS IN
MID-1988
One of EPA's major efforts over the last year has been the
revision of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, popularly referred to as the NCP. The Agency
considers the selection of remedy process to be a key element of
the NCP and has identified nine criteria for EPA decision-makers
to use in selecting remedies at Superfund sites:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment;
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other Federal and State laws;
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;
• Short-term effectiveness;
• Ease or difficulty in implementing alternatives;
• Types of costs;
• State concerns with/acceptance of alternatives; and
• Assessment of community attitudes and acceptance.
EPA plans to release the proposed selection of remedy
requirements this summer. The revision of the NCP, which
addresses most of the Superfund regulatory program, was man-
dated by the 1986 SARA revisions to CERCLA.
-------
SUPERFUND PROGRAM MATURING, EPA
TELLS CAPITOL HILL
Dr. Potter testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Su-
perfund and Environmental Oversight on December 10,1987 on
EPA's management and implementation of the Superfund pro-
gram. He was accompanied by Henry L. Longest, II, Director of
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Gene A.
Lucero, Director of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement;
C. Morgan Kinghom, Acting Assistant Administrator for Ad-
ministration and Resources Management; and Christopher J.
Daggeu, Regional Administrator for Region II. The hearing was
chaired by Senator Frank Lautenbcrg (D-NJ), and attended by
Senators Robert T. Stafford (R-VT), Larry Pressler (R-SD), and
John W. Warner (R-VA).
Dr. Porter reviewed the progress achieved by EPA and the
States in theSuperfund program during 1987 (seep. 1) and related
how the experience gained from the Agency's efforts has helped
EPA revise and improve the way it administers the program.
Some of EPA's initiatives include improvements in the RI/FS
process and project completions, improvements in project man-
agement and execution, reforms in the alternative remedial con-
tract strategy, greater emphasis on streamlined settlements,
greater use of removal authority, and guidance on selection of
remedies.
One example that EPA highlighted during the hearing was the
Agency's efforts to improve the RI/FS process. EPA sought to
accomplish three objectives for RI/FSs: contain project planning
within a 3-month period, reduce the overall RI/FS process to an
18-month schedule, and reduce overall project costs.
To achieve these objectives, four major improvements will be
initiated:
• Phased RI/FS Execution, which involves using the results
of initial field investigations to better define the needs of
subsequent phases;
• Streamlined Project Planning, which includes consolidat-
ing sampling and analysis plans and quality assurance
project plans, incorporating standard procedures by refer-
ence, and limiting formal review of documents;
• Management of Handoffs (shifting responsibilities for
review activities), which can be minimized by scheduling
concurrent activities, receiving interim approvals for
activities, and phasing tasks; and
• Establishment of a Quality Control and Technical Advi-
sory Committee, which will serve to identify and resolve
major technical and policy issues in the RI/FS and will
assist in ensuring that the scope and costs are commensu-
rate with the level of complexity of the site.
As Dr. Porter testified, "We have made significant progress,
but are constantly seeking ways to expedite the cleanup process
and improve the quality of our response and enforcement actions.
These hearings are a helpful spur to our efforts, and we look
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee to achieve
our mutual goal of countering the threat presented by long years
of inadequate past waste disposal practices."
GOVERNMENT, HILL, INDUSTRY,
ENVIRONMENTALISTS DISCUSS SUPERFUND
SETTLEMENT PROCESS
In October 1987, top EPA officials participated in a Super-
fund Settlements Conference in Warrenton, V A. Other attendees
included representatives from the Department of Justice; State
agencies from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; leading
law firms and corporations; Congressional staff; and environ-
mental organizations. Other senior EPA officials who partici-
pated include Gene A. Lucero, Director of the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and Linda Fisher from the Office of the
Administrator.
The conference provided an excellent opportunity to bring
together governmental and nongovernmental representatives to
discuss the Superfund settlement process in a cooperative setting
where parties could discuss problems and identify possible im-
provements in approaches and procedures.
Dr. Porter delivered the keynote address in which he dis-
cussed the accomplishments of the Superfund settlement process
and several areas on which the Agency will focus to improve th»
operation of the program. He noted EPA's strong commitmer
the settlement process, and encouraged the use of tools proviov.
by SARA, such as mixed funding.
Conference participants generally agreed that although con-
siderable progress has been made toward improving the settle-
ment program, a variety of problems still exist and need to be ad-
dressed. Some of the observations of the various participants
include:
• The pace of settlements has increased during FY 1987;
• A strong settlement program is critical to the success of
the overall Superfund program;
• The use of negotiation deadlines has helped drive the
process;
• TheGovemmentneedstofacilitateorganizationofpoten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs) for negotiations and
better manage the conduct of negotiation deadlines;
• Better procedures are needed to assure participation by
decision-makers at the early stages of the settlement
process;
• Improvement is needed in providing for PRP input ii
the remedy selection process;
-------
The Agency should explore alternatives to ihc regular
Rl/FS process where appropnaic;
ncs for whchtn.de secret, could
tools for promoting settlements. and
ConSUto*.cccn«,vcrsycxis1so«,a,cro.CofSUpU.
lacd pcnallics in ensuring PRP compliance.
s and accomPan>-ing technical guidance on
3J3 rcporting requirements (cmiisions
in»«or, provision) were issued on )onc«. ,987.
^ ^ ^^ „,, EPA-S Emergency Planning and
C
lawfinnofMorgan.Lewis&
and former EPA Deputy Administrator John Quarles.
TITLE III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND
DEADLINES ON TRACK
LUST TRUST FUND EFFORTS ACCELERATED
$ e
conccm about lcaking underground
^ lcd congress to create a LUST cleanup
nrocram under section 205 and a trust fund under section 52 1 of
EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention P-^ ^^ ^ ^ SARA ^^ ^^ SubliUe ! of
(CEPP)programhasbccnacuvcforsomeycars. With the passage • undcrwhichundcrground storage tanks are regulated, and
of SARA in 1986. however, the program received a new ™™on ^^ 52, amcnds „,«, Meir^ Revenue Code to create addi-
of activity. The new Title III provisions enacted under S AKA- environmcnta| uxes to subsidize the cleanup fund
mandating Emergency Planning and Community Righi-io-Know
programs— have led to an accelerated Agency effort to promote ^.^ ^ ^ £pA has movcd ,0 ^^1^ Ac necessary
community awareness of chemical hazards, assist in the develop- ^ ^ ^^^ ^ msl fund dunng FY 1987. Ronald
mcnt of State and local preparedness programs and response j^ ^^^ of EpA,s office of Underground Storage Tanks.
capabihties. and develop a chemical accident prevention pro- ^ ^ ^^^ ^ devdop OS>NTR guiddmes for iniual Coopera-
gram. uve Agreement and a State clearinghouse review, delegate key
, ., i • atk,nf authoritiesioEPARegionalOffices.createamechanBmforallo-
During FY 1986. EPA concentrated on developing a list of * . fundslo ihcRcgions. and develop an OS^R directive for
extremely hazardous substances and accompanying S"'jance- * mtnl&wn of the cost recovcrj- provision.
'-lilding a program infrastructure at the Federal. State, and local V
els; beginning CEPP program implementation; and establish- ^^ ^ ^ ^ way fa rapid slan.up of Ae ^t
lg data bases 10 better understand the causes of chemical randfacilllalcdUieabihry of States to implement the
accidents. EPA's CEPP program is managed by James Makns. * Siaies flnd ^^ terrilories have now signed
Director of the Emergency Preparedness Staff within OSWER. £ * ^ AEreemcnts> and several more are expected in
FY 1988 EPA is encouraged that most States have moved ahead
Following the enactment of SARA in October 1986 and tne • aulhorities to take the lead in addressing
s;s
ducting activities that included the development of a State and
COMI>LETES 24-500 PAS ON SCHEDULE
Qne Qf ^ provisions enacted under SARA requires EPA to
^
^ ^ ^ ^ rf ^^^ 17> 1986. •
The SARA secuon 302^04 rule establishing the list of Agency has complex this effort on schedule.
extremely hazardous substances their Uiresholdplannuig ^ ^
quanuues. and the emergency ^2 QI S^SSS and review all available reports and
planning process.
ln 1987. al, major program object and deadlines were
mel. particularly in the regulatory area:
advance of the first SARA section 31 1 reports that were
due on October 17. 1987;
5 of hazardous
substances that may threaten human health or the environment.
5
-------
EPA then recommends a site inspection (SI) to better understand EPA is currenUy undertaking an effort to identify the precise
the problem. On completion of the SL if the site still poses a disposition and other pertinent information on all of these sites,
potential threat, it is scored using EPA's Hazard Ranking System, and expects to complete this effort in late 1988.
If the site scores high enough.it will qualify for listing on the NPL.
EDITOR'S NOTE
Welcome to the first issue of the Superfund Advisory.
EPA's Superfund activities are diverse, numerous, and complex;
they are important for all of us to be aware of if we are going to
clean up hazardous waste sites in the United Slates effectively.
For this reason, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse has developed the Superfund Advisory.
In the eighth year of the Superfund program, as we look back
at the advances and achievements that we have made, we believe
it is fitting to share this information through the Superfund
Advisory. We welcome your comments.
Action
Sites In CERCUS
Preliminary Assessments (PA)
Site Inspections (SI)
National Priorities Us! (NPL)
Removal Actions
• NPL
• Non-NPL
Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
• In Progress
• Cumulative Starts
Remedial Designs (RD)
• In Progress
• Cumulative Starts
Remedial Actions (RA)
• In Progress
• Cumulative Starts
NPL Site Cleanups
• Site Work Completed
• Deleted from NPL
Settlements
• Number
•Value
SUPERFUND SCORECARD
pescrlptlon
Inventory of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous wastes sites
Initial assessment of potential hazards
On-site investigation of hazards
List of hazardous waste sites eligible for Superfund monies
Short-term actions to address immediate threats
Engineering studies at NPL sites to examine contamination and identify
possible remedies
Detailed design plans and specifications for implementing chosen remedy
Construction or implementation ol chosen remedy
Site cleanup actions complete
Sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are conducting cleanup work
Number
27.797
26.034
6.076
951
264
B18
472
578
106
181
65
168
22
13
444
S750M
For more information on any item in this advisory, contact EPA's RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 202-382-3000 or 1-80CM24-9346. ^
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. EPA WH-562A
Washington, DC 20460
-------
(AC/)
il
Superfund: f!
SARA Highlights
(Q
$
-------
&EPA
^^*-i *• Issue SUPERFUND—PROGRESS
Issue Profile
Contact...Rita Calvan, 382-4523
Revised March 1988
Background: Superfund was created by Congress in 1980 with enactment
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The law gave the federal government
broad authority to respond to emergencies stemming from
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances (removal actions)
and to undertake the long-term cleanup of potentially hazardous
sites. The 1980 legislation established a five-year, $1.6
billion "Superfund," financed primarily by a tax on crude oil
and certain chemicals. The full $1.6 billion was obligated by
EPA. In October 1986, enactment of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) extended the program for five
years, and authorized total spending of $8.5 billion over that
period. Some $4.363 billion have been appropriated.
Status; More than 27,000 sites around the country have been
identified as potentially requiring cleanup. Preliminary
assessments have been completed at some 22,600 of these; about
950 sites have been placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL), which contains those sites with the most severe levels
of contamination; over 1000 emergency removals have been
undertaken; remedial work has been started at many
hundreds of NPL sites, including some 620 remedial
investigation/feasibility studies, remedial designs at 213
sites and 146 remedial actions; 16 sites have been deleted
from the NPL and site work has been completed at an additional
13 sites, with longer term operations and maintenance
activities continuing; about $750 million worth of work has
been secured in settlements with responsible parties for
cleanup at over 400 sites. EPA has issued over 450
administrative orders requiring responsible parties to take
action at sites, and 109 cases have been referred to the
Justice De[artment, with 98 of these having been filed in the
courts. In addition, cost recovery actions at 153 sites total
$260 million, with EPA recovering $68 million of that
amount thus far.
Coming UP; Emphasis will be on speeding up the pace of the program
and completion of work at NPL sites. The 20-year state capacity
assistance requirement in SARA will be implements. Major
rulemaking will include completion of the National Contingency
Plan and the revised Hazard Ranking System.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF
TUDOR T. DAVIES
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE
February 18, 1988
The testimony provides an overview of EPA's implementation
of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA). Title I of the MPRSA established the U.S. law
regulating ocean dumping and also serves to implement the
London Dumping Convention, an international treaty applicable
to ocean dumping and to which the U.S. is a party.
The Agency Carrys out three major activities under Title I
of the MPRSA: permitting; site designation/management; and
regulatory development and enforcement. . These activities
are described in the testimony.
Since enactment of the Ocean Dumping Act in 1972, there has
been a substantial decline in both the number of dumpers
and the amount of industrial waste material being dumped.
At the end of 1987, all sewage sludge dumping at the 12 mile
site ended and was transferred to the 106 mile deepwater
municipal sludge dump site. The dumping of this sewage
sludge is currently governed by court orders in litigation
involving New York City.
The existing ocean dumping permit regulations were issued
in 1977 and have been the focus of several legal challenges.
In City of New York v. EPA (543 F. SUPP. 1084), the court
found that, under the MPRSA, EPA generally cannot prohibit
ocean dumping solely because materials fail the marine
impact criteria, and that EPA must take into consideration
the need for such dumping and the availability and impacts
of land-based alternatives. EPA is in the process of deve-
loping proposed regulations to address the issues raised by
this, and other lawsuits. In working on the proposed regu-
lations, EPA is wrestling with issues involving the balancing
of risks associated with marine disposal versus disposal
risks in other media.
In recent years there has been a tendency to amend the Act
focusing on specific narrow issues. EPA continues to believe
that the MPRSA is a fundamentally sound statute, and that
it already provides an effective mechanism for regulating
ocean dumping.
-------
Title 3
CO
CJ
-------
Issue Profile
Issue COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
Contact ... Elaine Davis or Kathy Brody
OSWER, 475-9323
Revised March 1988
Background: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
of 1986 requires federal, state, and local governments and
industry to plan for emergencies and to make data on hazardous
chemicals available to communities. The legislation—title III
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA)—builds upon EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness
Program initiated in 1985 to help communities establish
contingency plans to deal with releases of toxic chemicals.
Highlights: Title III has four major sections:
Emergencv_Planning. Requires states to set up local
planning committees, which are to develop emergency response
plans by 10/17/88. Compliance with plan provisions would be
required of facilities producing, using, or storing extremely
hazardous substances in quantities over threshold limits.
Ernergencv_Notification. Requires covered facilities to
notify state and local emergency agencies immediately of any
release of an extremely hazardous substance or CERCLA
substance.
Community Right-to-Know_Reporting. Requires covered
owners/operators to give their state emergency planning
commission, local emergency planning committee and local fire
department information on hazardous chemicals and quantities.
Toxic_Chemical_Release_Reportinq. Requires owners/operators
of certain facilities to submit data to EPA on toxic chemicals
they manufacture, process, or use in quantities exceeding:
10,000 pounds in the first year; 500 pounds the second year;
and any quantity in the third year and thereafter.
Coining Up: Title III includes specific dates for the completion of a
number of implementation steps over the next five years. See
the "Key Dates" listing that follows for more information on
actions to come.
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
-------
Kev Dates In Implementation of Title III
11/17/86
11/17/86
1/27/87
3/17/87
4/17/87
4/22/87
5/17/87
5/22/87
6/1/87
7/17/87
8/17/87
9/17/87
10/17/87
o List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and
designated threshold quantities published
in Federal Register as an Interim Final
Rule.
o EPA initiated comprehensive review of
emergency systems.
o Format for Emergency Inventory Forms
proposed in Federal Register.
o National Response Team publishes guidance
for preparation and implementation of
emergency plans.
o State governors were to appoint State
emergency response commissions.
o List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and
designated threshold quantities published
in Federal Register as final rule.
o Facilities subject to Section 302 planning
requirements must notify State emergency
response commission.
o Interim report on emergency system review
sent to Congress.
o EPA to publish the toxic chemical release
(i.e., emissions inventory) form.
o State emergency response commissions to
designate emergency planning districts.
o State emergency response commission to
appoint members of local emergency
planning committees (by key date or 30
days after designation of districts).
o Covered facilities are to designate.
representatives and notify local
planning committee of selection (by key
date or 30 days after local committee is
formed).
o Facilities are to submit Material Safety
Data Sheet or list of hazardous chemicals
to State commissions, local committees,
-------
3/1/88
4/17/88
7/1/88
10/17/88
1/89
6/30/91
10/17/91
Results;
and local fire departments.
o Facilities are to submit initial emergenc
inventory forms to State commission, local
committee and local fire department.
o Final report on emergency systems study
due to Congress.
o Covered facilities to submit initial toxic
chemical forms to EPA and designated State
officials.
o Local emergency planning committees are to
complete preparation of an emergency plan.
o EPA to propose permanent reporting
thresholds for MSDS and emergency;
inventory form submissions.
o Comptroller general report to Congress on
toxic chemical release, information
collection, use and availability.
5 EPA report to Congress on the Mass Balance
Study.
* Completion of seven rulemakings, each of which
reduced reporting burdens from statutory baselines while
protecting public safety and interest.
* Issuance of two guidance documents to assist local
communities in their planning.
* An interim report to Congress on the status of
emergency systems.
* Provision of technical guidance to industry on
performing emissions inventory estimates.
* Working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to award $5 million in training grants to states in FY 1987
and 1988.
* Conduct of an extensive public outreach program to
inform industry and others responsible for implementation, as
well as the public, of chemical emergency preparedness,
prevention, and community right-to-know requirements.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF
JOHN A. MOORE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND
SUPERFUND AND ENVIRONMENT OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE
MARCH 15, 1988
Describes EPA's efforts to implement the AHERA schools
program, the asbestos-in-buildings report, federal agency
programs to control asbestos and the pros/cons of using an
"acceptable level" standard to control public exposure to
asbestos.
Describes the asbestos-in-buildings report including the
methodology used, the findings and their implications. EPA
estimates that asbestos-containing material is present in
20* of the public and commercial buildings, compared to 35 •&
of"the schools. Because of data limitations, EPA is unable
to make quantitative conclusions about actual exposure of
people in public and commercial buildings. Thus, a manor
federal regulatory program would not be prudent at this
time EPA's recommendations are: 1) enhance the nation's
technical capability; 2) focus attention on thermal system
insulation asbestos; 3) improve integration of activities to
reduce imminent hazards; 4) assess AHERA school rules.
Discusses federal agency asbestos control programs: U.S.
Postal Service has a formal asbestos abatement program; GSA
and Veterans Administration have developed asbestos control
programs with EPA participation.
Summarizes the information from a workshop convened by EPA
regarding the concerns of the financial community (owners
and managers of commercial buildings, mortgage bankers and
investors and asbestos consultants and contractors) with
respect to asbestos in public buildings.
Describes EPA's implementation of the AHERA schools rule
including establishing a training and accreditation system
for inspectors and management planners, awarding cooperative
agreements (over $1 million to 17 states) to support state
training and accreditation programs, developing the Asbestos
-------
2
inspection and Management
, — pro9ra» to
achieve compliance.
asbestos exposure results from episoaic accurate
widely and are Difficult to^ predict t ^.^ ^ ^^
monitoring ^.^^^3™ approach is the most viable
EPA's trationa -
.3 ap
expensive EPA's tra^tiona f^ ification of asbestos-
°°
material a°vsua assessment of its condition
by trained professionals.
prepared by: Reynold Meni
Attorney-Advisor
Office of Legislative Analysis
Narch 15, 1988
-------
Wetlands
I
0)
I
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental Issue Profile
Contact: John Meaghar, 382-5043
Issue:
Background:
Wetlands Protection
1988
Status:
Coning Up:
Dnder section 404 of the Clean Water Act, EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers are jointly responsibile for
protecting waters of the United States, including
wetlands, against degradation from disposal of dredged
spoils or fill. Permits to discharge dredged or fill
material are granted by the Corps, or a state approved
by EPA, subject to environmental criteria set forth in
the section 404 (b) (1) guidelines.
Wetlands are ecologically vital water resources.
Many act as screens, filtering out pollution before it
reaches lakes, streams and estuaries. They often aid in
flood control. Wetlands offer vital nesting and rearing
areas for millions of waterfowl and serve as a habitat
for myriad species of mammals. Despite their importance,
wetlands are fast disappearing, having been converted Lo
farmland or for development. At one time, there were
roughly 215 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48
states; today there are about 95 million. The U.S. is
losing an estimated 300,000 acres of freshwater wetlands
every year.
EPA created the Office of Wetlands Protection within the
Office of Water in October 1986 to strengthen its
efforts to protect wetlands. In addition to continued
implementation and enforcement of the wetlands
protection aspects of the Clean Water Act, the new
office is coordinating long-range research efforts,
intensifying efforts to identify the nation's most
valuable and vulnerable wetlands, enhancing coordination
with Federal, state, local and private programs which
affect wetlands, and developing an outreach program to
give the public and individual property owners and
developers a better understanding of the value of
wetland resources.
EPA, through a grant to the Conservation Foundation,
is sponsoring a National Forum on Wetlands, bringing
together people from many walks of life to discuss
national wetlands policy. Governor Keane of New Jersey
is chairing the Forum, which held its first meeting July
16, 1987, and will conclude its efforts next spring.
-------
MAR 1933
FACTS ON WETLANDS JUNE 1987
o At one time there were approximately 215 million acres of wetlands
in the lower 48 states. Today there are about 95 million. More than
11 million acres were lost between 1950 and 1980.
o The D.S. is losing an estimated 300,000 acres of freshwater
wetlands every year.
o Ninety-nine percent of Iowa's marshes and 80 percent of Minnesota's
potholes have been destroyed, primarily due to conversion of
wetlands to farmlands.
o Bottomland hardwood forests in the lower Mississippi River Valley
have decreased by over 80 percent. That loss continues at a rate of
167,000 acres a year.
o 'About 25,000 acres of Louisiana coastal marshes are lost each year,
due to coastal subsidence, sea level rise, channelization, and salt
water intrusion.
o California's Klamath River Basin was the winter nesting ground for
more than 6 million migratory birds in 1899. -Today, the basin can
sustain fewer than a million.
o Ninety percent .of the plants, 50% of the fish, 301 of the birds, an.
15% of the mammals on the Endangered Species List depend on wetlands
as their habitat.
o A major part of the commercial and recreational fish catchin the
United States is comprised of species which use wetlands as a food
source or as habitat during some part of their life cycle.
o
o
o
wetlands absorb peak flow during floods and release the waters
gradually, reducing damage to downstream farms and cities.
o cranberries, wild rices, marsh hay, and hardwood trees are among the
commercial crops harvested in wetlands.
population growth puts heavy pressure on coastal wetlands. Coastal
populations increased 69 percent from 1950 to 1980. It's estimated
that 70 percent of the D.S. population will live and work within 50
miles of coastlines by 1990.
o Florida's coastal population is growing at the rate of 3,000 to
4,000 people a week.
o Ninety percent of California's population lives within an hour's
drive of the coast.
Wetlands have always been among the most fertile and productive
ecosystems on earth. The first great civilizations flourished in th
flood plains and marshes of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile, and the
Indus.
-------
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1986
NOTE TO CORRESPONDENTS
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas today issued the following statement
on endangered wetlands and the formation of a new Office of Wetlands
Protection.
A STATEMENT BY EPA ADMINISTRATOR LEE THOMAS
The protection of America's endangered wetlands resources is one of
my top priorities at EPA.
As a measure of my commitment to a strong and visible program, I am
today announcing the creation of a new EPA Office of Wetlands Protection
reporting directly to Lawrence J. Jensen, the Assistant Administrator for
Water.
The wetlands program has been ably administered by a division in the
Office of Federal Activities, under EPA's Assistant Administrator for
External Affairs. Transferring its responsibilites to the Office of
Water, however, and elevating the program from division to separate
Office stature, will result in enhanced wetlands protection. This enhanced
protection will result from the technical expertise and strong enforcement
capabilities of the marine, estuarine and groundwater protection programs
ongoing in the Office of Water.
I have directed the new office to take on five key objectives for
immediate environmental enhancement: First, it will increase coordination
of the long-range research efforts underway at EPA and other federal
agencies. We must improve our scientific understanding of wetlands
ecosystems. Second, it will expedite the achievement of consensus on the
value and uses of wetlands. A National Forum will be held to bring together
representatives from a broad range of key interests to develop options
for a national policy. I will play a personal role in these deliberations.
Third, this new Office will build on the progress already made in coopera-
tion with other federal agencies to establish consistent policies and
procedures for wetlands protection. EPA will continue to implement its
responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act vigorously.
Fourth, it will redouble efforts to identify, protect and restore wetlands,
R-133 (more)
-------
-2-
stronqly stressing the early identification of particularly valuable an"
vulnerable wetlands. Fifth, it will include an aggressive outreach
program to individual property owners and developers to give them a
better understanding of the value of wetlands resources.
Attached to this statement is a speech giving more details on the
new wetlands office, delivered today by Lawrence J. Jensen, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water, at the Water Pollution Control Federation meeting
in Los Angeles.
If you have any questions, please call Dave Ryan in the EPA
Headquarters Press Office, (202) 382-2981.
R-133
-------
Appendix
•o
CD
a
-------
Publications
•o
cr
o'
o>
i«*
5'
CO
-------
MAR |988
EPA!s
Non-Technical
Publications
August, 1987
Office of External Affairs
Washington, D.C.
-------
EPA's Public-Oriented Publications
Air
Available!
S21US&
Quantity;
Radon:
A Citizen's Guide to Radon (14p. 8/86)
Indoor Radon: What is it? What to do. (Sp. 1/85)
Radon Reduction Methods -Homeowner's Guide
Radon: Pinpointing a Mystery. EPA Journal. (8/86)
Ozone:
Ozone in the Lower Atmosphere -Threat 10 Health &
Welfare (10p., 11/86.OPA-86-005)
Ozone, Smog & You, How to Protect Yourself
(6p.9/96.0PA-86-007)
Ozone: Its effect & Control. (15p., 4-79)
Our Fragile Atmosphere: The Greenhouse Effect and Ozone
Depletion - EPA Journal
Other:
Protecting the Air - EPA Journal
The Invisible Problem (4p., 9/86. OPA-86-008)
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Fact Sheet
Q'a & A's on the Model Incineration System
•Wood Stove Features and Operation Guide
(8p.. 9/83. EPA 600-8-83-1 12)
Planned:
Selected Magazine Articles on Radon
Selected Magazine Articles on Stratospheric Ozone
Selected Magazine Articles on Ground-level Ozone
OAR
OEA
ORD/OEA
OEA
OAR/OEA
OPA
OPA
OEA
ORD/OPA
Source;
OEA
OEA
OEA
Pate:
July "87
July "87
July '87
Water
Available;
Wetlands:
Be Aware of Wetlands (8p., 5-86)
Take Pridein Preserving Wetlands (8p., 1 1/86)
Protecting Our Wetlands. EPA Journal. (1/86)
Lead:
Facts About Lead (lp.)
Lead in Drinking Water Things to Look For (7p., 2-87)
Drinking Water:
Safe Drinking Water Act, 1986 Amendments (brochure)
Wellhead Protection -A Decision-Maker's Guide
Protecting Our Ground Water
You and Your Drinking Water - EPA Journal
Source:
Region 8
Region 3
OW
OW
OW
Quantity;
-------
Water (continued)
Wastewaten
Financing New Wastewater Treatment. EPA Journal (11/86) OEA
Less Costly Wastewater Treatment for Your Town OW
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly? OW
Options for Small Communities
Small Wastewater Systems-Alternative Systems OW
Other.
The Oceans - EPA Journal
The Great Lakes-EPA Journal
Water Quality Criteria Summary (poster, 1/87) OW
Planned; SflUJSfil Cafe:
Selected Magazine Articles on Drinking Water OEA July 87
Selected Magazine Articles on Ground Water OEA July '87
Wetlands Region 3 SepL*87
Acid Rain
Available:
National Lake Survey
EPA's Slate Acid Rain Program, 1985
Joint Report of the Special Envoys (31;. 1/86)
What Causes Acid Rain?
Acid Rain. EPA Journal Supplement (14p. 9/86. OPA-86-009) OEA
Characteristics of Lakes in Western U.S.. Phase I
Executive Summary of Eastern Lakes Survey, Phase I
(6p..9/86)
Planned:
AridRainResearchSummary ORD/OEA Jan. 88
Selected Magazine Articles on Acid Rain OEA July 87
-------
Hazardous/Solid Waste
Available: Source: Quantity:
Superfund:
The New Superfund Law of 1986 (2p.)
Superfund: What it is. How it works (8p., 6785)
The New Superfund Law: Protecting People - EPA Journal (1/87) OEA
Emergency Response::
EPA's Emergency Response Program: How EPA Cleans OERM
up Accidental Spills (21p., 4/84)
Alleghany National Forest Oil Spill Region 3
Hazardous Materials Fust Responders Course Region?
The Day Before (Hazrnat simulation planning guide) Region 7
Personal Protective Gear Use Region?
Recycling:
Let's Recycle! Lesson Plan Grades K to 12. (42p.t 10/80)
Residential Paper Recovery: Community Action Program. OSWER
(21p., 10/80)
Other:
The Challenge of Hazardous Waste - EPA Journal. (4/86)
Controlling Hazardous Waste - EPA Journal
Facts About Lead (8p.. 11/86)
Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force (4p.. 8/86,
OPA46406)
Groundwater Analysis & Review of 58 Sites (42p.. 1/80,
SW-553)
Controlling Hazardous Wastes, EPA Journal
Planned: SflllECfi: Dal£:
Incineration: Best Option for Region 7
Pesticides:
Available:
Don't Bug Me. Flyer For Kids (6p.. 2/87. OPA-87-003)
Farm Workers Pesticide Safety (22p., English & Spanish)
Farmers Responsibilities under Federal Law. (4p., 8/77)
Learning More About Dioxin.
Pesticide Safety Tips (Flyer in English & Spanish)
Regulating Pesticides (8p.)
Suspended, Cancelled & Restricted Pesticides (29p., 1/85)
gflillSfi:
OPA
Quantity:
OPA
Planned:
-------
Toxic-Substances
Available:
Asbestos:
Asbestos Waste Management Guidance: Generation, OSWER
Transport & Disposal (32p.,5/85)
Asbestos Fact Book, A Primer. (1 lp., 6/86) OEA
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Fact Sheet: OPTS
Requirements for Schools (3p.,8/85)
Twenty Lessons from Asbestos (EPA Journal, 4p., 4/84) OEA
Toxic Information Series:
Cadmium
Dioxins
Mercury
Other:
Toxic Substances Control ACL (15p., 7/84. EPA 560/1-83-002) OPTS
PCS Transformers and the Risk of Fire: A Building Guide for Owners
(4/86,OPAy86-001) OPTS
What is EPA Doing About Lead? What You Can Do. (11/86) OAR
Learning About Dioxin
Planned:. SffllESfi:
Automobiles
Available:
Auto Import Fact Sheet (13p.)
Controlling Brake Dust (7/86) OERR
Mechanics - New Law Affects You. (8p.. 4/80) OE
Do You Own a Car? (8p., 4/80) OE
Know About Your Emission Warranty (8p.) OE
Unleaded Gasoline - The Only Way. (8p., 4/84)
1987 Gas Mileage Guide. (15p.. 10/86) EPA/DOE
I/M Fact Sheet (2p..6fl4) OEA
So Your Car Just Failed an Emissions Test. (8p., 10/86)
Planned;
-------
Spanish Language
Available: Source: Quantity;
Libre de Peligros El Agua Que Usted Bebe. (15p., 6/78. drinking water) OEA
Carolina Sin Polmo - Es Lo Mejor. (8p., 3/79, unleaded gasoline) OEA
Habia Una Vez Un Dragon Malvado (Para ninos, coloring book. 1/78)
Mecanicos - Hay Una Nueva Ley Que Les Afecta (for auto mechanics)
No Dejo Al Alcance De Sus Ninos Ningu Producto Veneoso. OEA
(8p., 5/78, keep poisons away from kids)
Sobre Plaguitidas. (2p., pesticide safety)
Tu Mondo. Tu Ambiente (13p.. S/79)your environment)
SeguridaddelosTrabajadoresAgricolasdePesticidos OEA
(21p., 4/80. farmworker safety)
Planned: Source: Date:
Legislation
Available: Source: Quantity:
CERCLAActofl980
Superfund Amendments of 1986
Solid Waste Act as amended 1987
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986
NEPA 1969
The Clean Air Act as Amended through July 1981
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Water Quality Act of 1987
Miscellaneous:
Available; Source: Quantity:
Human Health:
Protecting the Public Health - EPA Journal
Public Health - EPA Journal
Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease
(Report to Congress - 1985) ORD
Heating:
Get the Most From Your Gas Heating Dollar. (13p., 8/79) ORD
Get the Most from your Heating Oil Dollar. (6p., 11/84) ORD
-------
Miscellaneous: (continued)
EPA Goals:
Environmental Challenges Today and Tomorrow, Oct. 1986
Environmental Progress & Challenges An EPA Perspective OMSE
The Next Four Years: Agenda for Environmental Results. (9p.. 1/85)
Why We Must Talk About Risk: Personal. View. (12p., 1/86)
Directories:
Directory of Environmental Groups Re8>°n One
Your Guide to EPA
EPA Telephone Directory
Video:
EPA HQ Videotape Catalog. Oct 1983
Films on the Rack: Environmental Films. (3p., 9/86) OEA
Videotape Library Supplement: Two Volumes (597p.. 1/84) OEA
Youth:
Books for Young People on Environmental Issues. (9p.) OEA
The President's Youth Awards OEA
Other
Employment Opportunities: Environmental Jobs.
Environmental Monitoring Laboratory Fact Sheet (LV.)
Report... on Women at Work
Planned' B9UIW m\n-
Our Environment: Progress and Challenges OPPE/OPA Dec. 1988
-------
Quotes
D
i
w
-------
QUOTES FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR
(Excerpted fro, EPA Administator Lee Thomas' luncheons with the
Washington news media on April 14 and 16, 1987)
On neeting ozone and ca^on .onoxide
of a solution in the wotk» f "c" ?Sok ! th. motor vehicle controls
is dependent on cars, and "hen you 1- °°* at over the next 10 years,
problem dealt with. But for
11 a
ozone, it's going to be a lot tougher...
On controlling evaporative
volatility* down to a
tda
nationally by
• <*
aoU
tendency to evaP°rat^n)ntrast if you put the on-board controls on
"To give you a contrast, ...it *«« f*n ....... fin-ups, you would
auton-obiles to ««t«»l «• ••"""^.US.nSu to t5.' percent. -
reduce hydrocarbons nationally by °ne ana A It lnteracts with seasons.
•volatility does "teract with altitu other wotds in
Obviously, in the summer lfc » •°" °u f c\n ^Phave higher volatility levels
II the country if you want to maintain
think that's part of it, yes
On the difficulties in controlling
Sources of hydrocarbons are *««1* "^ "°f the' hydrocarbon source), it
gasoline volatility being 6 to J P«cent (o « " J on dry cleaners,
is by far the biggest, h^-at « .""'of t^ngs you're talking in a half
regulations on P-int., tho.e kinds of things, yo^r nationally>1,
percentage or less kind of level when you regulations on a lot
even
things like gasoline lawn mowers.
On the extensive control equipment on
pollution control equipment we've put
r . , ~n Mftv r«nn»-rol have QOC
uu,
out
,
controls you're
«uture...The only way you
-------
can ..get more emission reductions for cars and trucks [would be] to
take .^V.nUT.^ and New York and others ate now
-i. » noiit where they're beginning to look hard at transportation
control plannYng, w^ich means hoi many cars do you have go into an area,
how many "ucks.." me Los Angeles, which obviously is one
--^^^^
presets with California ..."es My more ythin,
hs u ££••«£."£ ^-
system problem....We see a lot of advantage
overcome...."
ground water legislation: "...I have come to the conclusion that...it
5^^y.^^vI
during the next year-and-a-half . "
^
..
resource requirements was a good way to go. fu4nk needs
"...indemnification and disposal is •"^oris.ue that I think needs
to be addressed in the statute... .We went through it with , lth.e
pesticides] EDB and 2,4,5-T. We've got major problems with disposal.
WI1U ill Givi^ *w«»»» *•• — — -
differently under FIFRA than...under other
that dealt with."
the Asbestos Hazard Abatement Program, I mean, the last three year
have just been the most fortunate people in town as far " ""*
authorities are concerned....We've got to get some of those P«9ra«s
implemented and well-managed before we hop into [others] ...while at
-------
with."
On negotiations to protect the states, ....-
started...negotiations, I'd say the United s probably the closest
countries, Canada, some third »«" £™ Soviet Union was for
together as far as Proposals for control, we controls. The
controls and has come closer to our poeition countrieSf were not in
And
.tietnereas... a general consensus that
controls should be established on a g obal bui u; ..
»as
£utu"
t
and that is
•Pr...d^»
incorporated. "
r^o^enSaions for additional
f or additional chemicals oe.ng
On iocatin, t«i«
Cavus and the Unlt^H1re,s
race study [and said] ^«« a
sites are and race... .Are you
ion between where toxic waste
all the voices that need to
en siting program
strswn."
cases, in their community.
.
that I have found is largely made at a
0. changing the Clean U, ..t: -I
-------
I
I
I
CD
i/i
Speech Schedules
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SI JRS CALENDAR
AS OF MARCH 15, 1988
DATE
OFFICIAL
LOCATION
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
MARCH 1988
1 Robie G. Russell Seattle, WA
1 Lee A. DeHihns
Atlanta, GA
2 Christopher Daggett San Juan,
Puerto Rico
John C. Wise
San Francisco, CA
2 Robert E. Layton Dallas, TX
3 Robert E. Layton Dallas, TX
3 A. James Barnes Washington, DC
3 Christopher Daggett New York, NY
Lee M. Thomas
Washington, DC
7 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
7 Robie G. Russell Seattle, WA
Air and Toxics Division
Directors' National Mtg.
Federal Facilities'
Multi-Media Environmental .
Seminar
American Water Works/Water
Pollution Control Assoc.
Region 9's Environmental
Regulation Conference
Presidential Management
Intern Conference
Alternate Waste Treatment
and Technologies Forum
ORD Headquarters Awards
Ceremony
Environmental Law Comm.
New York City Bar Assoc.
National Association of
Counties
National Association of
Counties
The Society of American
Military Engineers
Opening
Remarks
Welcoming
Address
Welcoming
Address
Remarks
Hudson River AVID
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
LOCATION
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
MARCH 1988
8 Lee M. Thomas
9
10
10
10
11
Washington, DC
8 Linda J. Fisher Washington, DC
8 Lee A. DeHihns
Atlanta, GA
National Association of
of State Dept. of Agriculture
Mid-Year Conference
1988 Foundry Industry Government
Affairs Conference
Superfund Cost Recovery Conf.
V. James Barnes New Orleans, IA The Chlorine Institute
Welcoming
Address
Luncheon
Speaker
Michael R. Deland
Lee M. Thomas
Lee M. Thomas
Sheldon Meyers
Lee M. Thomas
New Haven, CT
Washington, DC
Cambridge, MA
Ottawa, Canada
Providence, RI
11 Lawrence J. Jensen Providence, Ri-
ll Michael R. Deland Providence, RI
14 Lee M. Thomas
Washington, DC
14 Linda J. Fisher Washington, DC
Yale School of Forestry
EEI Board of Directors
Kennedy School Address
Environment Canada
Narragansett Bay Designation
Ceremony
Narragansett Bay Designation
Ceremony
Narragansett Bay Designation
Ceremony
National Association of
Attorneys General
American Public, Transit
Association
Bilateral Consultations
Clean Air Standards
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
IDCATION
MARCH 1988
14 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
14 Thomas L. Adams New Orleans, IA
15 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
15 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
15 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
15 Lawrence J. Jensen Washington, DC
15 Lawrence J. Jensen Washington, DC
15 Thomas L. Adams Washington, -DC
15 Christopher Daggett Iselin, NT
15-16 Lee M. Thomas
15-16 J. Winston Porter
15-16 Sheldon Meyers
15-16 J. Craig Potter
16 Robie G. Russell
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
San Diego, CA/
Tijuana, Mexico
Washington, DC
Seattle, WA
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Compliance
(Exec. Enterprises)
The Associated General
Contractors of America
American Academy of Awards Banquet
Environmental Engineers
State/EPA Committee Meeting RCRA Subtitle C and D
American Academy of
Environmental Engineers
Interstate Conference on
Water Policy
State/EPA Committee Meeting
State/EPA Committee Meeting
New Jersey Bar Association
State/EPA Committee Meeting
State/EPA Committee Meeting
IBWC and City of San Diego
Officials
Air Pollution Control Assoc.
Solvent Waste Reduction
Alternatives Conference
Award Banquet
luncheon
Address
San Diego/Tijuana Environmental
Issues
Opening
Remarks
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
LOCATION
MARCH 1988
16 Morris Kay
New Orleans, IA
16 Valdas V. Adamkus Detroit, MI
17 Lawrence J. Jensen Seattle, WA
17 Rdb'ie G. Russell Seattle, VIA
17-18 Thomas L. Adams Washington, DC
18 Lawrence J. Jensen Seattle, WA
18 James J. Scherer Pueblo, CO
21 Lee M. Thomas Washington, DC
21 Sheldon Meyers Washington, DC
(T)23 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
24 A. James Barnes Orlando, FL
25 J. Winston Porter Hot Springs, VA
GROUP
American Public Power
Association Meeting
Engineering Society of
Detroit
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
"Science and Technology
Role in Protection of
Environment"
Puget Sound Designation
Ceremony
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
National Environmental
Enforcement Counsel Mbg.
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
Pachyderms of Pueblo
National League of Cities
Foreign Embassy Officials
Based in Washington, DC
National Resource Recovery
Association (Conf. of Mayors)
National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association
Tufts University Recycling
Conference
Great Salt Lake
High Oxygen Fuels
Briefing on Montreal Protocol
(stratospheric ozone)
Recycling and Incinerator Ash
PCBs, Acid Rain, Superfund
TSCA, RCRA
Solid Waste Reduction/
Recycling
NOTES
Guest
Speaker
Keynote
Speaker
Panelist
Guest
Speaker
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF \KERS CALENDAR
DATE
MARCH
25
26
26
28
28
28
28
OFFICIAL
1988
Christopher
Daggett
Lee M. Thomas
Michael R. Deland
lee M. Thomas
Lawrence J.
Jensen
Michael R. Deland
Christopher
Daggett
LOCATION
Pt. Pleasant, NJ
Medford, MA
Medford, MA
Kings Points, NY
Kings Point, NY
Kings Point, NY
Kings Point, NY
GROUP THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
Authorities Association of Cross Media Transfer
New Jersey
New England Environmental
Conference - Tufts Univ.
New England Environmental
Conference - Tufts Univ.
Long Island Sound
Designation Ceremony
Long Island Sound
Designation Ceremony
Long Island Sound
Designation Ceremony
Long Island Sound
Designation Ceremony
NOTES
Keynote
Speaker
28 Lee A. DeHihns
Nashville, TN
29 Michael R. Deland Boston, MA
30 Michael R. Deland Boston, MA
Solid Waste Conference
Secretary/Clerk of the
Year Awards
"Rebuilding Boston" TV
Special, Channel 2/WGBH
(Live)
Luncheon
Speaker
30 Lee M. Thomas
Washington, DC ICMA Luncheon Meeting
Luncheon
Address
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
LOCATION
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
APRIL 1988
(T) 5 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
(T) 6 Lawrence J. Jensen Boston, MA
9-13 John A. Moore Paris, France
11 Christopher Daggett Neptune, NJ
13 J. Craig Potter Washington, DC
13 Lawrence J. Jensen Washington, DC
14 Lee M. Thomas RTF, NC
15 Lee M. Thomas Durham, NC
(T)18 J. Winston Porter San Francisco, CA
18 Christopher Daggett New Brunswick, NJ
18 Sheldon Meyers Paris, France
(T) 19-21 J. Winston Porter las Vegas, NV
(T)19-21 Sheldon Meyers
Paris, France
22 Christopher Daggett New York, NY
25 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
Washington Analysis
(County Securities)
Water Quality Symposium
OECD Biotech. Meeting
Asbury Park Press
Brookings Institute
Brookings Institute
RTF Visit
Duke University
Hazardous Waste Superconf.
Rutgers Univ.—Government
and Business Class
European Communities' Reps.
HMCRI National Conference
and Exhibition
OECD Environment Committee
Meeting
EPA Employees Ceremony
Society for Occupational
and Environmental Health
Ocean Water Quality
The Clean Air Act
Press Conf./
Panelist
RCRA/Superfund
Business/Government
Relations
US-EC Annual Consultations
RCRA
Environmental Awards
Superfund & Public
Health
Keynote
Address
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
APRIL 1988
27 Thomas L. Adams
LOCATION
St. Petersburg,
FL
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
National Association of
Attorney's General Training
NOTES
MAY 1988
1-4 John A. Moore
Wrightsville
Beach, NC
3 Lee M. Thcmas Washington, DC
4 Christopher Daggett Greenwich, CT
4 Lee M. Thomas Washington, DC
9 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
10-11 John A. Moore
(T) 12 Sheldon Meyers
Amherst, MA
New York, NY
18 Christopher Daggett Princeton, NT
(T)19 J. Winston Porter Austin, TX
19 Lee M. Thomas
Washington, DC
Symposium on Human Cancer
Risk Assessment
Global Habitability Seminar
Hazardous Waste Seminar
Public Recognition Day
Hazardous Waste Superconf.
(NAM et. al.)
Tri-State Hazardous
Waste Issues
RCRA/Superfund
Northeast Regional Environmental
Public Health Center Meeting
Global Business Forum
Wetlands Conference
Texas Dept. of Health
and Region VI Visit
American Iron and Steel
Institute Members' Luncheon
International Environmental
Issues
EPA View on New Jersey
Wetlands
Solid Waste
19-20 Thomas L. Adams Washington, DC NEEC Meeting
-------
8
DATE
OFFICIAL
MAY 1988
T)20 Lee M. Thomas
24 Lee M. Thomas
24-26 John A. Moore
25 Thomas L. Adams
T)26 Lee M. Thomas
EPA SENIOR STAFF SPEAKERS CALENDAR
LOCATION
Washington, DC
New York, NY
24-26 Linda J. Fisher New York, NY
New York, NY
Cincinnati, OH
Washington, DC
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
EPA Employees
Rene Dubos Foundation
Rene Dubos Foundation
Only One Earth Forum
Proctor and Gamble Co.
Environmental Seminar
Compliance and Risk
Communication
Izaak Walton League
Chesapeake Bay Conservation
Award Ceremony
Gold Medal Award Ceremony
Recept/Dinner
Address
Workshop
Panelist
JUNE 1988
2 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
6
James J. Scherer Denver, CO
Executive Enterprises Fed.
Facilities Conference
Executive Enterprises, Inc.
9 Lee M. Thomas Washington, DC National Coal Council
20 Lee M. Thomas Dallas, TX APCA Annual Meeting
21 Christopher Daggett Atlanta City, NJ World Affairs Council
Federal Facilities Compliance
Region VTII Environmental
Regulation Briefing
Dinner
Speaker
-------
EPA SENIOR STAFF fariiAKERS CALENDAR
DATE
OFFICIAL
LOCATION
JUNE 1988
22 Lawrence J. Jensen Orlando, FL
23 J. Winston Porter Washington, DC
GROUP
THEME/MAJOR FOCUS OF SPEECH
NOTES
American Water Works Assoc.
Center for Chemical Process
Safety Advisory Board Mtg.
•T) 28-29 Lee M. Thomas Washington, DC EPA/State Committee Meeting
Keynote
Speaker
Informal
Remarks
JULY 1988
29 Lee M. Thomas
Washington, DC Wetlands Forum
AUGUST 1988
NO SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS THUS FAR
SEPTEMBER 1988
8 Lee M. Thomas
Detroit, ME
11-17 Lawrence J. Jensen Keszthely,
Hungary
HEI Meeting
Third International Conf.
on the Conservation and
Management of Lakes
"Balaton '88"
Luncheon
Address
U.S. National Water Issues
-------
Statutes I
-------
TEN MAIN PUBLIC LAWS UNDER JURISDICTION OP EPA
1) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
2) Clean Air Act
3) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund)
4) Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
5) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
6) Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping)
7) Noise Control Act
8) Safe Drinking Water Act
9) Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act)
10) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
.OTHER PUBLIC LAWS WITH SOME EPA ENVOLVEMENT
1) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
2) Asbestos School Abatement Act
3) Atomic Energy Act
4) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
5) Nuclear Waste Policy Act
6) Public Health Service Act
7) Uranium Mill Tailing Act
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STATUTES - EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS
Expiration Date
popular Name
No expiration date
NEPA
, , . 9/30/79
Noise Control Act
9/30/81
Clean Air Act
. ,. 9/30/81
R & D Authorization
Ocean Dumping/MPRSA (Title I) 9/30/32
9/30/83
TSCA
9/30/86
FIFRA
Solid Waste/RCRA (generally) 9/30/88
9/30/90
Clean Water Act
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act 9/30/90
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 9/30/90
0/30/91
Safe Drinking Water Act "
Superfund/CERCLA/SARA (taxing authority) 12/31/91
Note that FY 1987 appropriations were enacted on October 18,
1986 (Public Law 99-591) for EPA programs.
-------
TEN MAIN PUBLIC LAWS UNDER JURISDICTION OP EPA
1) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
2) Clean Air Act
3) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund)
4) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
5) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
6) Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping)
7) Noise Control Act
8) Safe Drinking Water Act
9) Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act)
10) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
.OTHER PUBLIC LAWS WITH SOME EPA ENVOLVEHENT
1) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
2) Asbestos School Abatement Act
3) Atomic Energy Act
4) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
5) Nuclear Waste Policy Act
6) Public Eealth Service Act
7) Uranium Mill Tailing Act
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STATUTES
popular Name
NEPA
Noise Control Act
Clean Air Act
R & D Authorization
Ocean Dumping/MPRSA (Title I)
TSCA
FIFRA
Solid Waste/RCRA (generally)
Clean Water Act
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund/CERCLA/SARA (taxing authority)
— EXPIRING AUTHORIZATIONS
Expiration Date
No expiration date
9/30/79
9/30/81
9/30/81
9/30/32
9/30/83
9/30/86
9/30/88
9/30/90
9/30/90
9/30/90
9/30/91
12/31/91
Note that FY 1987 appropriations were enacted on October 18,
1986 (Public Law 99-591) for EPA programs.
-------
Glossary
-------
United States Office of.
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107) March 1988
Agency Washington DC 20460 OPA-87-017
Glossary of
Environmental Terms
-------
Introduction
This glossary of environmental and related terms replaces "Common Environmental
Terms," published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1974 and revised in 1978. It is
designecfto give the'user an explanation of the more commonly used environmental terms
appearing in EPA publications, news releases and other Agency documents available to the
general public, students, the news media, and Agency employees. The terms and definitions
in this publication were selected to give the user a general sense of what a term or phrase
means in relatively non-technical language, although it was obviously necessary to use some
scientific terminology. .
The terms selected for inclusion came from previously published lists, internal giossanes
produced by various programs, and specific suggestions made by many Agency programs
and offices. The chemicals and pesticides selected for inclusion were those most frequently
referred to in Agency publications or which are the subject of major EPA regulatory or
program activities. .
Definitions or information about substances or program activities not included in this
glossary may be found in EPA libraries or scientific/technical reference documents or may be
obtained from the various program offices.
The definitions do not constitute the Agency's official use of terms and phrases for
regulatory purposes. Nothing in this document should be construed to in any way alter or
supplant any other federal document. Official terminology may be found in the laws and
related regulations as published in such sources as the Congressional Record and the Federal
Users with suggestions for future editions should write to the Publications Division, Office
of Public Affairs, A-107, USEPA Washington DC, 20460.
-------
Abatement: Reducing the degree or intensity of, or eliminating, pollution.
Abandoned Well: A well whose use has been permanently discontinued or
which is in a state of disrepair such that it cannot be used for its intended
purpose.
ABEL: EPA's computer model for analyzing a violator's ability to pay a civil
penalty.
Absorption: The passage of one substance into or through another; e.g., an
operation in which one or more soluble components of a gas mixture are
dissolved in a liquid.
Accelerator: In radiation science, a device that speeds up charged particles
such as electrons or protons.
Accident Site: The location of an unexpected occurrence, failure or loss, either
at a plant or along a transportation route, resulting in a release of hazardous
materials.
Acclimatization: The physiological and behavioral adjustments of an organ-
ism to changes in its environment.
Acetylcholine: A substance in the human body having important
neurotransmitter effects on various internal systems; often used as a broncho-
constrictor.
Acid Deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phenomenon that
occurs when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds and other sub-
stances are transformed by chemical processes in the atmosphere, often far
from the original sources, and then deposited on earth in either a wet or dry
form. The wet forms, popularly called "acid rain," can fall as rain, snow, or
fog. The dry forms are acidic gases or particulates.
Acid Rain: (See: acid deposition)
Action Levels: 1. Regulatory levels recommended by EPA for enforcement by
FDA and USDA when pesticide residues occur in food or feed commodities for
•asons other than the direct application of the pesticide. As opposed to
:olerances" which are established for residues occurring as a direct result of
proper usage, action levels are set for inadvertent residues resulting from
previous legal use or accidental contamination. 2. In the Superfund program,
the existence of a contaminant concentration in the environment high enough
to warrant action or trigger a response under SARA and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. The term can be used similarly in
other regulatory programs. (See: tolerances.)
Activated Carbon: A highly adsorbent form of carbon used to remove odors
and toxic substances from liquid or gaseous emissions. In waste treatment it is
used to remove dissolved organic matter from waste water. It is also used in
motor vehicle evaporative control systems.
Activated Sludge: Sludge that results when primary effluent is mixed with
bacteria-laden sludge and then agitated and aerated to promote biological
treatment. This speeds breakdown of organic matter in raw sewage undergo-
ing secondary waste treatment.
Active Ingredient: In any pesticide product, the component which kills, or
otherwise controls, target pests. Pesticides are regulated primarily on the basis
of active ingredients.
Acute Exposure: A single exposure to a toxic substance which results in severe
biological harm or death. Acute exposures are usually characterized as lasting
no longer than a day.
Acute Toxicity: The ability of a substance to cause poisonous effects resulting
in severe biological harm or death soon after a single exposure or dose. Also,
any severe poisonous effect resulting from a single short-term exposure to a
toxic substance. (See: chronic toxicity, toxicity.)
Adaptation: Changes in an organism's structure or habit that help it adjust to
its surroundings.
Add-on Control Device: An air pollution control device such as carbon adsor-
ber or incinerator which reduces the pollution in an exhaust gas. The control
device usually does not affect the process being controlled and thus is "add-
on" technology as opposed to a scheme to control pollution through making
some alteration to the basic process.
>Adhesion: Molecular attraction which holds the surfaces of two substances in
contact.
Administrative Order: A legal document signed by EPA directing an in-
dividual, business, or other entity to take corrective action or refrain from an
activity. It describes the violations and actions to be taken, and can be enforced
in court. Such orders may be issued, for example, as a result of an administra-
tive complaint whereby the respondent is ordered to pay a penalty for viola-
dons of a statute.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal agreement signed by EPA and an
individual, business, or other entity through which the violator agrees to pay
for correction of violations, take the required corrective or cleanup actions, or
refrain from an activity. It describes the actions to be taken, may be subject to a
comment period, applies to civil actions, and can be enforced in court.
Administrative Procedures Act: A law that spells out procedures and require-
ments related to the promulgation of regulations.
Adsorption: 1. Adhesion of molecules of gas, liquid, or dissolved solids to a
surface. 2. An advanced method of treating wastes in which activated carbon
removes organic matter from wastewater.
Adulterants: Chemical impurities or substances that by law do not belong in a
food, or in a pesticide.
Advanced Waste Water Treatment: Any treatment of sewage that goes
beyond the secondary or biological water treatment stage and includes the
removal of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen and a high percentage
of suspended solids. (See primary, secondary treatment.)
Advisory: A non-regulatory document that communicates risk information to
persons who may have to make risk management decisions.
Aeration: A process which promotes biological degradation of organic water.
The process may be passive (as when waste is exposed to air), or active (as
when a mixing or bubbling device introduces the air).
Aeration Tank: A chamber used to inject air into water.
Aerobic: Life or processes that require, or are not destroyed by, the presence of
oxygen. (See: anaerobic.)
Aerobic Treatment: Process by which microbes decompose complex organic
compounds in the presence of oxygen and use the liberated energy for
reproduction and growth. Types of aerobic processes include extended aera-
tion, trickling filtration, and rotating biological contactors.
Aerosol: A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Afterburner In incinerator technology, a burner located so that the combus-
tion gases are made to pass through its flame in order to remove smoke and
odors. It may be attached to or be separated from the incinerator proper.
Agent Orange: A toxic herbicide and defoliant which was used in the Vietnam
conflict. It contains 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacitic acid (2,4,5-T) and 2-4 di-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) with trace amounts of dioxin.
Agglomeration: The process by which precipitation particles grow larger by
collision or contact with cloud particles or other precipitation particles.
Agglutination: The process of uniting solid particles coated with a thin layer of
adhesive material or of arresting solid particles by impact on a surface coated
with an adhesive.
Agricultural Pollution: The liquid and solid wastes from farming, including:
runoff and leaching of pesticides and fertilizers; erosion and dust from plo-
wing; animal manure and carcasses; crop residues, and debris.
Airborne Particulates: Total suspended particulate matter found in the atmos-
phere as solid particles or liquid droplets. Chemical composition of particu-
lates varies widely, depending on location and time of year. Airborne particu-
lates include: windblown dust, emissions from industrial processes, smoke
from the burning of wood and coal, and the exhaust of motor vehicles.
Airborne Release: Release of any chemical into the air.
Air Changes Per Hour (ACH): The movement of a volume of air in a given
period of time; if a house has one air change per hour, it means that all of the air
in the house will be replaced in a one-hour period.
Air Contaminant: Any particulate matter, gas, or combination thereof, other
than water vapor or natural air. (See: air pollutant.)
Air Curtain: A method of containing oil spills. Air bubbling through a per-
forated pipe causes an upward water flow that slows the spread of oil. It can
also be used to stop fish from entering polluted water.
Air Mass: A widespread body of air that gains certain meteorological or
polluted characteristics—e.g., a heat inversion or smogginess—while set in
one location. The characteristics can change as it moves away.
Air Monitoring: (See: monitoring)
Air Pollutant: Any substance in air which could, if in high enough concentra-
tion, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material. Pollutants may in-
clude almost any natural or artificial composition of matter capable of being
airborne. They may be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or
in combinations of these forms. Generally, they fall into two main groups: (1)
those emitted directly from identifiable sources and (2) those produced in the
air by interaction between two or more primary pollutants, or by reaction with
normal atmospheric constituents, with or without photoactivarion. Exclusive
of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of natural origin, about 100 contaminants
-------
have been identified and fall into the following categories: solids, sulfur
compounds, volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen compounds, oxygen com-
pounds, halogen compounds, radioactive compounds, and odors.
Aif Pollution: The presence of contaminant or pollutant substances in the air
that do not disperse properly and interfere with human health or welfare, or
produce other harmful environmental effects.
Air Pollution Episode: A period of abnormally high concentration of air
pollutants, often due to low winds and temperature inversion, that can cause
illness and death. (See- episode, pollution.)
Air Quality Control Region: An area—designated by the federal
government—in which communities share a common air pollution problem.
Sometimes several states are involved.
Air Quality Criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of exposure above
which adverse health and welfare effects may occur.
Air Quality Standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that
may not be exceeded during a specified time in a defined area.
Alachlon A herbicide, marketed under the trade name Lasso, used mainly to
control weeds in com and soybean fields.
Alar Trade name for dammozide, a pesticide that makes apples redder,
firmer, and less likely to drop off trees before growers are ready to pick them. It
is also used to a lesser extent on peanuts, tart cherries, concord grapes, and
other fruits.
Aldicarb: An insecticide sold under the trade name Temik It is made from
ethyl isocyanate
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit waters in relative proportion
to the amounts of nutrients available They can affect water quality adversely
by lowenng the dissolved oxygen in the water They are food for fish and small
aquatic animals
Algal Blooms: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can affect water quality
adversely and indicate potentially hazardous changes in local water chemis-
try
Alpha Particle: A positively charged particle composed of 2 neutrons and 2
protons released by some atoms undergoing radioactive decay. The particle is
identical to the nucleus of a helium atom
Alternate Method: Any method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant
which is not a reference or equivalent method but which has been demon-
strated in specific cases to EPA's satisfaction to produce results adequate for
compliance
Ambient Air Any unconfmed portion of the atmosphere- open air, surround-
ing air
Ambient Ail Quality Standards: (See Criteria Pollutants and National
Ambient Air Quality Standards)
Anadromous: Fish that spend their adult life in the sea but swim upnver to
fresh-water spawning grounds to reproduce.
Anaerobic: A life or process that occurs in. or is not destroyed by, the absence
of oxygen.
Antagonism: The interaction of two chemicals having an opposing, or
neutralizing effect on each other, or—given some specific biological effect—a
chemical interaction that appears to have an opposing or neutralizing effect
over what might otherwise be expected.
Antarctic "Ozone Hole": Refers to the seasonal deplenon of ozone in a large
area over Antarctica.
Antibodies: Proteins produced in the body by immune system cells in re-
sponse to antigens, and capable of combining with antigens.
Anti-Degradation Clause: Part of federal air quality and water quality require-
ments prohibiting deterioration where pollution levels are above the legal
limit.
Antigen: A substance that causes production ot antibodies when introduced
into animal or human tissue.
Aquifer An underground geological formation, or group of formations, con-
taining usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells and springs.
Arbitration: A process for the resolution ot disputes. Decisions are made by an
impartial arbitrator selected by the parties. These decisions are usually legally
binding. (See: mediation.)
Area of Review: In the UIC program, the area surrounding an miection well
that is reviewed during the permitting process to determine whether the
injection operation will induce flow between aquifers
Area Source: Any small source of non-natural air pollution that is released
over a relatively small area but which cannot be classified as a point source
Such sources may include vehicles and other small tuel combustion engines.
Asbestosis: A disease associated with chronic exposure to and inhalation of
asbestos fibers. The disease makes breathing progressively more difficult a
can lead to death.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air or water and cause cancer »,.
asbestosis when inhaled. EPA has banned or severely restricted its use in
manufacturing and construction
Ash: The mineral content of a product remaining after complete combustion.
A-Scale Sound Level: A measurement of sound approximating the sensitivity
of the human ear, used to note the intensity or annoyance of sounds.
Assimilation: The ability of a body of water to punfy itself of pollutants.
Atmosphere [anl: A standard unit of pressure representing the pressure
exerted by a 29 92-inch column of mercury at sea level at 45' latitude and equal
to 1000 grams per square centimeter, (the) The whole mass of air surrounding
the earth, composed largely of oxygen and nitrogen
Atomize: To divide a liquid into extremely minute particles, either by impact
with a |et of steam or compressed air, or by passage through some mechanical
device
Attainment Area: An area considered to have air quality as good as or better
than the national ambient air quality standards as denned in the Clean Air Act.
An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant ami a non-attainment area
for others.
Attenuation: The process by which a compound is reduced in concentration
overtime, through adsorption, degradation, dilution, and/or transformation
Attractanfc A chemical or agent that lures insects or other pests by stimulating
their sense of smell.
Attrition: Wearing or gnndmg down of a substance by fnction A contributing
factor in air pollution, as with dust
Autottophic An organism that produces food from inorganic substances
B
Background Level: In air pollution control, the concentration of air pollutants
in a definite area during a fixed period of time prior to the starting up or on
stoppage of a source of emission under control In toxic substances mon
ing, the average presence in the environment, originally refemng to natur.
occurring phenomena.
BACT— Best Available Control Technology: A emission limitation based on
the maximum degree of emission reduction which (considering energy, en-
vironmental, and economic impacts and other costs) is achievable through
application of production processes and available methods, systems, and
techniques. In no event does BACT permit emissions in excess of those
allowed under any applicable Clean Air Act provisions Use of the BACT
concept is allowable on a case by case basis tor ma|or new or modified
emissions sources in attainment areas and applies to each regulated pollutant.
Bacteria: (Singular: bacterium) Microscopic living organisms which can aid in
pollution control by consuming or breaking down organic matter in sewage or
by similarly acting on oil spills or other water pollutants. Bactena in soil, water
or air can also cause human, animal and plant health problems.
Baffle Chamber. In incinerator design, a chamber designed to promote the
settling of fly ash and coarse parhculate matter by changing the direction
and/or reducing the velocity of the gases produced by the combustion of the
refuse or sludge.
Baghouse Filler Large fabric bag, usually made of glass fibers, used to
eliminate intermediate and large (greater than 20 microns in diameter) parti-
cles. This device operates in a way similar to the bag of an electric vacuum
cleaner, passing the air and smaller parhculate matter, while entrapping the
larger parnculates.
Baling: Compacting solid waste into blocks to reduce volume and simplify
handling.
Ballistic Separator. A machine that sorts organic from inorganic matter for
composting.
Band Application: In pesticides, the spreading of chemicals over, or next to,
each row of plants in a held.
Banking: A system for recording qualified air emission reductions for later use
in bubble, offset, or netting transactions. (See. emissions trading.)
Bar Screen: In wastewater treatment, a device used to remove large soU
-------
Barrier Coating's): A laver of A materul mat *>•'!• 'o oiwtruct cr preve
ol something through a sunace ths; .3 u w prelected, e g ^rout. c.iulk. .-r
vanous sealing compounds sometimes u«*a with polyurethane membra-vs
to prevent corrosion or oxidation of metjl surface*-, chemical impacts on
-------
Categorical Exclusion: A class of actions which either individually or cumula-
tively would not have a significant effect on the human environment and
therefore would not require preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Categorical Pretreatment Standard: A technology-based effluent limitation for
an industrial facility which discharges into a municipal sewer system. An-
alogous in stringency to Best Availability Technology (BAT) for direct dis-
chargers.
Cathodic Protection: A technique to prevent corrosion of a metal surface by
making that surface the cathode of an electrochemical cell.
Caustic Soda: Sodium hydroxide, a strong alkaline substance used as the
cleaning agent in some detergents
CBOD5: The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in 5 days from the
carbonaceous portion of biological processes breaking down in an effluent.
The test methodology is the same as for BODS, except that nitrogen demand is
suppressed.
Cells: 1 In solid waste disposal, holes where waste is dumped, compacted,
and covered with layers of dirt on a daily basis. 2. The smallest structural part
of living matter capable of functioning as an independent unit.
Centrifugal Collector. A mechanical system using centrifugal force to remove
aerosols from a gas stream or to de-water sludge
Cesium (Cs): A silver-white, soft ductile element of the alkali metal group that
is the most electropositive element known Used especially in photoelectric
cells.
Channelization: Straightening Jnd deepening streams so water will move
faster, a flood-reduction or marsh-drainage tactic that can interfere with waste
assimilation capacity and disturb fish and wildlife habitats
Characteristic: Any one of the four categories used in defining hazardous
waste: igmtability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): A measure of the oxygen required to
oxidize all compounds in water, both organic and inorganic.
Chemical Treatment: Any one of a variety of technologies that use chemicals
or a variety of chemical processes to treat waste.
Chemosterilant: A chemical that controls pests by preventing reproduction.
Chilling Effect: The lowering of the Earth's temperature because of increased
particles in the air blocking the sun's rays. (See. greenhouse effect)
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: These include a class of persistent, broad-
spectrum insecticides, that linger in the environment and accumulate in the
food chain. Among them are DDT. aldnn. dieldnn, heptachlor, chlordane,
lindane, endnn, mirex, hexachlonde. and toxaphene Other examples include
TCE. used as an industrial solvent.
Chlorinated Solvent: An organic solvent containing chlonne atoms, e g.,
methylene chloride and 1.1,1-tnchloromethane which are used in aerosol
spray containers and in traffic paint.
Chlorination: The application of chlonne to drinking water, sewage, or in-
dustrial waste to disinfect or to oxidize undesirable compounds.
Chlorinator: A device that adds chlorine, in gas or liquid form, to water or
sewage to kill infectious bactena.
Chlorine-Contact Chamber That part of a water treatment plant where
effluent is disinfected by chlonne
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): A family of inert, nontoxic. and easily liquified
chemicals used in refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, or as
solvents and aerosol propellants. Because CFCs are not destroyed in the lower
atmosphere they dnft into the upper atmosphere where their chlonne com-
ponents destroy ozone.
Chlorosis: Discoloration of normally green plant parts, that can be caused by
disease, lack of nutrients, or vanou's air pollutants
Chromium: (See: heavy metals.)
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a substance to cause long-term poisonous
human health effects. (See: acute toxicity )
Clarification: Cleanng action that occurs dunng wastewater treatment when
solids settle out. This is often aided by centrifugal action and chemically
induced coagulation in wastewater
Clarif ien A tank in which solids are settled to the bottom and are subsequently
removed as sludge
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance that could alfect humans and/or the environment The
term 'cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or corrective action
Clear Cut: A forest management technique that involves harvesting all the
trees in one area at one time. Under certain soil and slope conditions i»
contnbute sediment to water pollution.
Cloning: In biotechnology, obtaining a group of genetically identical cells..
a single cell. This term has assumed a more general meaning that mcluaes
making copies of a gene.
Closed-Loop Recycling: Reclaiming or reusing wastewater for non-potable
purposes in an enclosed process.
Coagulation: A clumping of particles in wastewater to settle out impunhes It
is often induced by chemicals such as lime, alum, and iron salts.
Coastal Zone: Lands and waters adjacent to the coast that exert an influence on
the uses of the sea and its ecology, or, inversely, whose uses and ecology are
affected by the sea.
Coefficient of Haze (COH): A measurement of visibility interference in the
atmosphere.
Coliform Index: A rating of the punty of water based on a count of fecal
bactena.
Coliform Organism: Microorganisms found in the intestinal tract of humans
and animals. Their presence in water indicates fecal pollution and potentially
dangerous bacterial contamination by disease-causing microorganisms.
Combined Sewers: A sewer system that carries both sewage and storm-water
runoff. Normally, its entire flow goes to a waste treatment plant, but dunng a
heavy storm, the storm water volume may be so great as to cause overflows
When this happens untreated mixtures of storm water and sewage may flow
into receiving waters Storm-water runoff may also carrv toxic chemicals from
mdustnal areas or streets into the sewer system
Combustion: Burning, or rapid oxidation, accompanied by release ot energy
in the form of heat and light A basic cause ot air pollution.
Combustion Product: Substance produced dunng the burning or oxidation of
a material.
Command Post Facility located at a safe distance upwind from an accident
site, where the on-scene coordinator, responders, and technical representa-
tives can make response decisions, deploy manpower and equipment, r
tain liaison with news media, and handle communications
Comment Period: Time provided for the public to review and commenx
proposed EPA action or rulemaking after it is published in the Federal Regis-
ter.
Comminution: Mechanical shredding or pulvenzmg of waste Used in both
solid waste management and wastewater treatment.
Comminuten A machine that shreds or pulvenzes solids to make waste
treatment easier.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to establish two-way communication
with the public to create understanding of EPA programs and related actions,
to assure public input into decision-making processes related to affected
communities, and to make certain that the Agency is aware of and responsive
to public concerns. Specific community relations activities are required in
relation to Superfund remedial actions
Community Water System: A public water system which serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25
year-round residents.
Compaction: Reduction of the bulk of solid waste by rolling and tamping.
Compliance Coating: A coating whose volatile organic compound content
does not exceed that allowed by regulation.
Compliance Schedule: A negotiated agreement between a pollution source
and a government agency that specifies dates and procedures by which a
source will reduce emissions and, thereby, comply with a regulation.
Compost: A mixture of garbage and degradable trash with sod in which certain
bactena in the soil break down the garbage and trash into organic fertilizer.
Composting: The natural biological decomposition of organic material in the
presence of air to form a humus-like matenal. Controlled methods of compost-
ing include mechanical mixing and aerating, ventilating the matenais by
dropping them through a vertical senes of aerated chambers, or placing the
compost in piles out in the open air and mixing it or turning it penodically
-------
Conditional Registration: Under special circumstances, the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide, and Rodenhcide Art (FIFRA) permits registration of
pesticide products that is "conditional" upon the submission of additional
data. These special circumstances include a finding by the CPA Administrator
i new product or use of an existing pesticide will not significantly increase
,sk of unreasonable adverse effects A product containing a new (pre-
..sly unregistered) active ingredient ma> be conditionally registered only if
th'e Administrator finds that such conditional registration is in the public
interest, that a reasonable time for conducting the additional studies has not
elapsed, and the use of the pesticide for the period of conditional registration
will not present an unreasonable risk.
Confined Aquifer An aquifer in which ground water is confined under
pressure which is significantly greater than atmospheric pressure
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved by a judge, that formalizes an
agreement reached between EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
through which PRPs will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund
site; cease or correct actions or processes that are polluting the environment; or
otherwise comply with regulations where the PRF's failure to comply caused
EPA to initiate regulatory enforcement actions. The consent decree describes
the actions PRFs will take and may be subject to a public comment period.
Conservation: Avoiding waste of, and renewing when possible, human and
natural resources The protection, improvement, and use of natural resources
according to principles that will assure their highest economic or social bene-
fits.
Contact Pesticide: A chemical that kills pests when it touches them, rather
than by being eaten (stomach poison) Also, snil that contains the minute
skeletons of certain algae that scratches and dehydrates waxy-coated insects
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or
matter that has an adverse affect on air, water, or soil
Contingency Plan: A document setting out an organized, planned, and coor-
dinated course of action to be followed in case of a fire, explosion, or other
accident that releases toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive mate-
rials which threaten human health or the environment. (See National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan.)
Contract Labs: Laboratories under contract to EPA, which analyze samples
taken from wastes, soil, air, and water or carry out research projects
mails: Long, narrow clouds caused when high-flying jet aircraft disturb
atmosphere.
\_ontour Plowing: Farming methods that break ground following the shape of
the land in a way that discourages erosion.
Control Technique Guidelines (CTG): A senes of EPA documents designed
to assist states in defining reasonable available control technology (RACT) for
major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Conventional Pollutants: Statutonly listed pollutants which arc understood
well by scientists These may be in the torm of organic waste, sediment, arid,
bactena and viruses, nutrients, oil and grease, or heat
Conventional Systems: Systems that have been traditionally used to collect
municipal wastewater in gravity sewers and convey it to a central primary or
secondary treatment plant pnor to discharge to surface waters
Coolant: A liquid or gas used to reduce the heat generated by power produc-
tion in nuclear reactors, electric generators, various industrial and mechanical
processes, and automobile engines
Cooling Tower A structure that helps remove heat from water used as a
coolant, e g , in electric power generating plants
Core: The uranium-containing heart of a nuclear reactor, where energy is
released.
Corrosion: The dissolving and wearing away of metal caused by a chemical
reaction such as between water and the pipes that the water contacts, chem-
icals touching a metal surface, or contact between two metals.
Corrosive: A chemical agent that reacts with the surface of a material causing it
to deteriorate or wear away
Cost-Effective Alternative: An alternative control or corrective method identi-
fied after analysis as being the best available in terms of reliability, per-
manence, and economic considerations Although costs are one important
consideration, when regulatory and compliance methods are being con-
sidered, such analysis does not require EPA to choose the least expensive
alternative. For example, when selecting a method for cleaning up a site on the
oerfund National Priorities List, the Agency balances costs with the long-
i effectiveness of the various methods proposed
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which pntentullv responsible parties who
contributed to contamination at a Superfund site cm be required ti> reimburse
the Trust Fund for money spent during any cleanup action* b\ the federal
government
Cover Vegetation or other material providing protection as ground cover
Cover Material: Soil used to cover compacted solid waste in a unitary landfill
Crawl Space: In some types of houses, which are constructed so that the floor
is laised slightly above the ground, un area beneath the floor which allows
access to utilities and other services This is in contrast to slab-on-grade or
basement construction houses
Criteria: Descriptive factors taken into account by EPA in setting standards for
various pollutants These factors are used to determine limits on allowable
concentration levels, and to limit the number of violations per year. When
issued by EPA, the criteria provide guidance to the states on how to establish
their standards.
Criteria Pollutants: The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA
to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants known to
be hazardous to human health. EPA has identified and set standards to protect
human health and welfare for six pollutants ozone, carbon monoxide, total
suspended parhculates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide The term,
"cntena pollutants" derives from the requirement that EPA must describe the
characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these pollutants It is
on the basis of these cntena that standards are set or revised
Cubic Feet Per Minute (CFM): A measure of the volume of a substance flowing
through air within a fixed period of time With regard to indoor air, refers to
the amount of air, in cubic feet, that is exchanged with mdonr air in a minute's
time, or an air exchange rate
Cultural Eutrophication: Increasing rate at which water bodies "die" by pollu-
tion from human activities
Cumulative Working Level Months (CWLM): The sum of lifetime exposure to
radon working levels expressed in total working level months
Curie: A quantitative measure of radioactivity equal to 3 7 x 1010 disintegra-
tions per second
Cutie-Pie: An instrument used to measure radiation levels
Cyclone Collector. A device that uses centrifugal force to pull large particles
from polluted air.
DDT: The first chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide (chemical name Dichluro-
Diphsdyl-Tnchloromethane). It has a half-life of 15 years and can collect in fatty
tissues of certain animals. EPA banned registration and interstate sale of DDT
for virtually all but emergency uses in the United States in 1972 because of its
persistence in the environment and accumulation in the mod chain
Data Call-In: A part of the Office ol Pesticide Program-, (OPP) process of
developing key required test data, especially on the long-term, chronic el fects
of existing pesticides, in advance of scheduled Registration Standard reviews
Data Call-In is an adjunct of the Registration Standards program intended to
expedite reregistrahon and involves the "calling in" of data from rrun-
ufacturcrs.
Dechlorination: Removal of chlorine from a substance bv chemically replacing
it with hydrogen or hydroxide ions m order to detoxit\ the substances in-
volved.
Decibel
-------
Deification: The anaerobic biological reduction of nitrate nitrogen to n,t-
rogen gas.
^
supplies, wells, and swimming pools.
structure ,s lower that the a,r pressure .
when household appliances that consume or «haus, house a , such a
Sfn^^^^
pressurized conditions.
DermalToxicity:Theab,l,ty of a pesnade or toxic chemical to poison people or
animals by contact with the skin (See: contact pesnade )
DES- A synthetic estrogen, diethylstilbestrol is used as a growth stimulant in
food animals. Residues in meat are thought to be carcinogenic.
Desalinization: Removing salt from ocean or brackish water.
ul matenals from removal actons or acadental releases.
accomplished through use of aroved secure landfalls,
en (DO): The oxygen freely available in water. Dissolved
^AmA other aqJatic life and for the prevention of odors.
Traditionally the level of dissolved oxygen has been accepted as the single
most m^nt liuiicator of a water body's ability to support desirable aquatic
,ife Secondary and advanced waste treatment are generally designed to
protect DO in waste-receiving waters.
T^CIm A,r Act does reqmre states to
control these pollutants, which include and mist, total reduced sulfur (TR5),
and fluorides
DesiKner Bugs: Popular term for microbes developed through biotechnology
that can deerade specific toxic chemicals at their source in toxic waste dumps
or m ground water
Desulfurization: Removal of sulfur from fossil fuels to reduce pollution
DesiBWtedUsesiThosewaterusesidentihedLnstatewaterqualitystandards
whKust bHcrueved and maintained as requ.red under the Clean Water
Act. Uses can include cold water fisheries, public water supply, agriculture,
etc. •
Detergent: Synthetic washing agent that helps to remove dirt and oil. Some
contain compounds which kill useful bacteria and encourage algae growth
when they are in wastewater that reaches receiving waters.
Developer A person, government unit, or company that proposes to build a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Diatonuceous Earth (Diatomite): A chalk-like material (fossilized diatoms)
used to filter out solid waste in waste-water treatment plants, also used as an
active mgredient in some powdered pesticides
Diazinon: An insecticide In 1986, EPA banned its use on open areas such as
sod farms and golf courses because it posed a danger to migratory birds who
gathered on them in large numbers The ban did not apply to its use in
agriculture, or on lawns of homes and commercial establishments.
Dicofol: A pesnade used on atrus fruits.
Differentiation: The process by which single cells grow into particular forms
of specialized tissue, e.g., root, stem, leaf.
Diffused Air A type of aeration that forces oxygen into sewage by pumping
air through perforated pipes inside a holding lank and bubbling it through the
sewage.
Digester In wastewater treatment, a closed tank; in solid waste conversion, a
unit in which bacterial action is induced and accelerated in order to break
down organic matter and establish the proper carbon to nitrogen ratio.
Digestion: The biochemical decomposition of organic matter, resulting in
partial gasification, liquefaction, and mineralization of pollutants.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to prevent a spill from spreading
Dilution Ratio: The relationship between the volume of water in a stream and
the volume of incoming water It affects the ability of the stream to assimilate
waste '
Dinocap: A fungiade used primarily by apple growers to control summer
diseases. EPA, in 1986, proposed restrictions on its use when laboratory tests
found it caused birth defects in rabbits.
Dinoseb: A herbiade that is also used as a fungicide and msec tiadc ! It was
banned by EPA ,n 1986 because .1 posed the nsk of birth defects and stenl.ty
Dioxin: Anv of a family of compounds known chemically as dibenzo-p-
dioxms. Concern about them anses from their potential toxiaty and contami-
nants in commercial products. Tests on laboratory animals indicate that it is
one of the more toxic man-made chemicals known.
Direct Discharger A mumapal or mdustnal faahty which introduces pollu-
uon through a defined conveyance or system, a point source
• « >«»• *-
Censes toa pure liquid and the pollutants remain ,n a concentrated resi-
due.
DNA: Deoxynbonucleic acid, the molecule in which the genetic information
for most living cells is encoded. Viruses, too, can contain RNA.
DNA HybrjdjMtion: Use of a segment of DNA, called a DNA probe, to
.denhfy its complementary DNA, used to detect specific .genes This process
takes advantage of the ability of a single strand of DNA to combine with a
complimentary strand^
Dose: In rad10|ogy, the quantity of energy or radiation absorbed.
Dosimeter. An mstrument that measures exposure to radiation.
Dredging: Removal of mud from the bottom of water bodies using a scoor
^^"^ disturbs the ecosystem and causes silting that can kill aq
hfe Dred of contaminated muds can expose aquatic life to heavy m.
and Qthe° toxics Qredgmg activities may be subject to regulation unaer
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Dump. A Slte USK| to dispose of solid wastes without environmental controls
Dugfc particles hght enough to be suspended m air
An container used to collect large particles from the air for
measurement and analysis
D strophie Lake,; shallow bodies of water that contain much humus and/or
o'^mMeti that contain many plants but few fish and are highly aadic.
w
organic matter.
Ecological Impact The effect that a man-made or natural activity has on living
organisms and their non-living (abiotic) environment.
Ecology: The relationship of living things to one another and their environ-
ment, or the study of such relationships
Economic Poisons: Chemicals used to control pests and to defoliate cash crops
such as cotton.
Ecosphere: The "bio-bubble" that contains life on earth, in surface waters, and
in the air. (See: biosphere.)
Ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological community and its non-
living environmental surroundings.
Effluent Wastewater-treated or untreated-that flows out of a treatment
plant, sewer, or mdustnal outfall. Generally refers to wastes, discharged into
surface waters
Effluent Limitation: Restncnons established by a State or EPA on quantiue-
s.rates, and concentrations in wastewater discharges.
Electrodialysis: A process that uses electrical current applied to permeable
membranes to remove minerals from water Often used to desalinize salty or
brackish water.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP): An air pollution control device that rem
particles from a gas stream (smoke) after combustion occurs. The ESP im?
i electrical charge to the particles, causing them to adhere to metal plau-
Rapping on the plates causes the particles to fall into a
Eligible Costs: The construction costs for waste-water treatment worksjipon
i EPA grants are I '
-------
Fmentencv (Chemical)- A situation created by an accidental release or spill of . EPA: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agenq, established in 1970 by
Sou?ch?m,«"whKh poses a threat tolhe safety of workers, residents. Presidential Executive Order, bringing together parts of vanou, povernmen.
the environment, or property. agencies involved with the control of pollut.on
Emergency Episode: (See. a,r pollution episode ) Epidemic: Widespread outbreak of a disease, or a large number o, cases of a
iMsss^ttsr-1'"-11- %z^™:I±^S~ --,-
talisrsi.'i.-*-,•--—j* ^rsi^^^r^-^.r^,r0,:±z
s^ss^5S£±s;^isr'^. tttt£J4d,Ewt--1>.*.-*.«—•
Emission Factor. The relationship between the amount of pollution produced £ dc (pollution). An air po||ution incident in a given area caused bv a
and the amount of raw material processed For example, an emission factor for Jncentrahon of atrnosphenc pollution reacting with meteorological con-
a blast furnace making iron would be the number of pounds of particulates per ^^ ^ may result m a S|gnincant ,ncrease in illnesses or deaths A Ithough
ton of raw materials. most commonly used in relation to air pollution, the term may also be used in
Emission Inventory: A listing, by source, of the amount ot air pollutants connectlon with other kinds of environmental events such as a massive uater
discharged into the atmosphere of a community. It is used to establish emis- pollution situation.
Sion standards. Equivalent Method: Any method of sampling and analyzing tor air pollution
sassssssss^s'^"''-1"* ±s^±±r2^^ss=rvss;-J5
eatassrir^attKisrs ^TSl-.--,..——-s-s-;
others so lonTas total results are equal to or better than previous limits consecutive elements within a radioactive series is neither mcreasinj, nor
Facilities where this is done are treated as if they exist in a bubble in which total decreasing.
emissions are averaged out Complexes that reduce emissions substantially Erosion. •lhe wear,ng away of land surface by wind or water Erosion occurs
may "bank" their "credits" or sell them to other industries naturally from weather or runoff but can be intensified by land-rleannj,
, nrartirpi related to farming residential or industrial development, road build-
Endangered Species: Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms %"£^3£re ,.ewape !>|udpt.,.. Jumped and allowed to
violations, criminal trials and penalties are sought dry out
Enforcement Decision Document (EDO): A document that provides an ex- • . MB.ThetoiiojwltorfnMnihe»oilbolhbywapuralinnandbv
planationtothepublicofEPA'sselectionof'^""Pj^rfD^ST transpiration from the plants grow,nB ,n the so,.
S^rrr^tSSssl-s: srarsissK1'----''-"--*
SKSS==r^«SSK&.. ss^r.-KSK^srsi-.tr--fe
===sr.-4=r--—7-^ »-sa=2xr£B=s=.-Kse,-j5;
Environmental Assessment: A written environment, analysis which»|pre- n«• g
S^=5SSSw5s=«
hces, and controls. environment.
Environmental Impact Statement: A document requiredol'f^"a'^enaesby ^^"^^^^ Substances: Anv of 406 chemicals identified bv EPA on
ZZSSSSSZ y^SS^S^£SS!S^ !?£•- ««, and M under SARA T.t.e ,11 The l.st ,s sub.ect to
delaibes the positive and negative effects of the undertaking and lists alterna- revis,on.
tave actions.
Environmental Response Team: EPA experts located in Edison, N J, and
TnSToH. who can provide around-the-clock technical assistance to
fcTregional offices and states dunng all types of emergencies involving
lazardous waste sites and spills of hazardous substances.
-------
•
Fabric Filter A cloth device that catches dust particles from industrial emis-
sions
Feasibility Study: 1 Analysis of the practicability of nitrogen and phosphorus that prouJo nutrients
for plants. Commercially sold tertih/i-rs may contain other chemicals or may
be in the torm ot processed sewage sludge
Filling: Depositing dirt and mud or other materials into aquatic are.* to create
mure dry land, usuallv for agricultural or Commercial development purposes.
Such activities often damage the ecology of the area.
Filtration: A treatment procrss, under the control ot qualified operators, for
removing solid (paniculate) matter from water by passing the water through
porous media such as sand or a nun-made filt-jr. The process is olten used to
remove particU-s that contain pathogenic organisms
Finding of No Significant Impact: A document prepared bv a federal agency
that Dr*-sc«nts the reasons impact why .- proposed action would not have a
siKnihant impact on theenv.ronment and thus would not require preparation
ot an Environmental Impact Statement. An FNSI is based on the results ot an
environmental assessment
First Draw: The water that immediately comes out when a tap is first opened.
This water is likely to have the highest level ot lead contamination from
plumbing materials.
Floe A clump ol solids formed in sewage by biological or chemical action.
Flocculation: The process by which clumps of solids in water or sewage are
made to increase in size by biological or chemical action so that tnev can be
separated from the water
Floor Sweep: A vapor collection designed to capture vapors which are heavier
than air and which collect along the floor
Flowmeten A gauge that shows the speed of wastewater moving through a
treatment plant. Also used to measure the speed of liquids moving through
various industrial processes.
Flue Cas: The air coming out of a chimney after combustion in the burner it is
venting It can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur
oxides, particles and many chemical pollutants.
Hue Gas Desulf unzation: A technology which uses a sorbent, usually lime or
limestone, to remove sulfur dioxide from the gases produced by burning fossil
fuels. Flue gas desulfcrizanon is current the state-of-the art technology in use
by ma|or SO2 emitter, e g., power plants
Fluorides: Gaseous, solid, or dissolved compounds containing fluorine that
result from industrial processes Excessive jmounts in food can lead to tluor
Huorocarbon (FCs): Any of a number of organic compounds analogous to
hydrocarbons in which one or more hvdrogen atoms are replaceo by fluorine.
Once used in the United States as a propellant in aerosols, they are now
primarily used in coolants and some mdustnal processes FCs containing
chlorine are called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Thev are believed to be mod-
.tying the ozone laver in the stratosphere, thereby allowing more harmful
solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface
Fluorosis: An abnormal Condition caused bv excessive intake of fluorine,
characterized chiefly bv mottling of the teeth
Flume: A natural or man-made channel that diverts water.
Flush: 1. To open a cold-water tap to clear out all the water which ma,.
been sitting for a long time in the pipes. In new homes, to flush a sys'em
means to send large volumes of water gushing through the unused pipes to
remove loose particles of solder and flux. 2 To force large amounts of water
through liquid to clean out piping or tubing, storage or process tanks.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residual particles from the combustion process,
earned by flue gas.
Fogging: Applvmg a pesticide by rapidly heating the liquid chemical so that it
forrns very fine droplets that resemble smoke or fog It may be used to destroy
mosquitoes, black flies, and similar pests.
Food Chain: A sequence of organisms, each of which uses the next, lowei
member of the sequence as a tood source.
Formaldehyde: A colorless, pungent, irritating gas. CH20, used chiefly as a
disinfectant and preservative and in synthesizing other compounds and re-
sins.
Formulation: The substance or mixture of substances which is compnsed of all
active and inert ingredients in a pesticide
Fresh Water Water that generally contains less than 1,000 milhgrams-per-liter
of dissolved solids,
Fuel Economy Standard: The Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard
(CAFE) which went into effect in 1978 It was meant to enhance the national
fuel conservation effort by slowing fuel consumption through a mi.es-per-
gallon requirement for motor vehicles.
Fugitive Emissions: Emissions not caught bv a capture svstem
Fume: linv particles trapped in vapor in a gas stream
Fumigant: A pesticide that is vaporized to kill pests Used in buildings and
greenhouses
Functional Equivalent: Term used to describe EPA's decision-makini; process
and its relationship to the environmental review conducted under the Nation-
al Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) A review is considered funcf "
equivalent when it addresses the substantive components of a NEPA i
Fungi: (Singular, Fungus) Molds, mildews, veasts, mushrooms, anc . ..••
balls, a group organisms that lack chlorophyll (i.e., are not photosvnthetic)
and which are usually non-mobile, filamentous, and multicellular. Some grow
in the ground, others attach themselves to decaying trees and other plants.
getting iheir nutrition from decomposing organic matter Some cause disease,
others stabilize sewage and break down solid wastes in composting.
Fungicide: Pesticides which are used to control, prevent, or destroy rungi.
G
Game Fish: Species like trout, salmon, or bass, caught tor sport Many of them
show more sensitivity to environmental change than "rough" fish.
Gamma Radiation: Gamma rays are true rays of energy in contrast to alpha
and beta radiation. The properties are similar to x-rays and other
electromagnetic waves They are the most penetrating waves of radiant nu-
clear energy but can be blocked bv dense matenals such as lead.
Gasification: Conversion of solid matenal such as coal into a gas for use as a
fuel.
Geiger Counter An electrical device that detects the presence ot certain types
of radioactivity
Gene: A length of DNA that directs the synthesis of a protein.
Gene Library: A collection of DNA fragments trom cells or organisms So far,
no simple way for sorting the contents of gene libraries has been devised
However, DNA pieces can be moved into bacterial cells where sorting accord-
ing to gene function becomes feasible
General Permit: A permit applicable to a class or category of dischargers.
Generator. A facility or mobile source that emits pollutants into the air or
releases hazardous wastes into water or soil
Genetic Engineering: A process ot inserting new genetic information into
existing cells in order to modify any organism tor the purpose of changinjone
of its characteristics
Germicide: Any compound that kills disease-causing rnicroorgamsri
Grain Loading: The rate at which particles are emitted from a pollution!
Measurement is made by the number of grams per cubic foot ot eas emitted.
Granular Activated Carbon Treatment: A filtering system often used in small
water systems ana individual homes to remove orgarucs. GAC can be highly
effective in removing elevated levels ot radon trom water
-------
Gray Water The term given to domestic wastewater composed of washwater
from sinks, kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and tubs, and laundry tubs.
*~ -nhouse Effect: The warming of the Earth's atmosphere caused by a
ip of carbon dioxide or other trace gases, it is believed by many scientists
.us build-up allows light from the sun's rays to heat the Earth but
prevents a counterbalancing loss of heat
Grinder Pump: A mechanical device which shreds solids and raises the fluid to
a higher elevation through pressure sewers
Gross Alpha Particle Activity: Total activity due to emission of alpha particles.
Used as the screening measurement for radioactivity generally due to
naturally-occurring radionuchdes Activity is commonly measured in picocur-
ies.
Gross Beta Particle Activity: Total activity due to emission of beta particles
Used as the screening measurement for radioactivity from man-made
radionuchdes since the decay products of fission are beta particle and gamma
ray emitters Activity is commonly measured in picocunes
Ground Coven Plants grown to keep soil from eroding
Ground Water The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface,
usually in aquifers, which is often used for supplying wells and springs
Because ground water is a major source of drinking water there is growing
concern over areas where leaching agricultural or industrial pollutants or
substances from leaking underground storage tanks are contaminating
ground water
H
Habitat: The place where a population (eg, human, animal, plant, micro-
organism) lives and its surroundings, both living and non-living
Half-Lite: 1. The time required for a pollutant to lose half its affect on the
environment For example, the half-life of DDT in the environment is 15 years,
of radium, 1,580 years 2. The time required (or half of the atoms of a radioac-
tive element to undergo decay 3. The time required for the elimination of one
half a total dose from the body
Halogen: Any of a group of 5 chemically-related nonmetallic elements that
includes bromine, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, and astatine
TI: Bromine-containing compounds with long atmospheric lifetimes
• breakdown in the stratosphere cause depletion of ozone Halons are
in hre-fighting
Hammennill: A high-speed machine that hammers and cutters to crush, grind
chip, or shred solid wastes
Hard Water Alkaline water containing dissolved salts that interfere with some
industrial processes and prevent soap from lathering.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants which are not covered by ambient
air quality standards but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act. may reason-
ably be expected to cause or contribute to irreversible illness or death. Such
pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, mercury, benzene, coke oven emis-
sions, radionuchdes, and vinyl chloride.
Hazardous Ranking System: The principle screening tool used by EPA to
evaluate risks to public health and the environment associated with aban-
doned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The MRS calculates a score
based on the potential of hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or ground water and on other factors such as
nearby population This score is the primary factor in deeding if the site
should be on the National Priorities List and, if so. what ranking it should have
compared to other sites on the list
Hazardous Substance: 1 Any material that poses a threat to human health
and/or the environment Typical hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive,
igrutable, explosive, or chemically reactive 2 Any substance designated by
EPA to be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is spilled in the
waters of the United States or if otherwise emitted to the environment
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society that can pose a substantial or poten-
tial hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed.
Possesses at least one of four characteristics (ignitabihty, corrosivity, reactiv-
ity, or toxicity), or appears on special EPA lists
Hazards Analysis: The procedures involved in (1) identifying potential
sources of release of hazardous matenals from fixed facilities or transportation
accidents; (2) determining the vulnerability of a geographical area to a release
--* hazardous matenals, and (3) comparing hazards to determine which pr-
tt greater or lesser risks to a community
tards Identification: Porviding information on which facilities have ex-
tremely hazardous substances, what those chemicals are, and how much there
is at each facility The Process also provides information on how the chemicals
are stored and whether they are used at high temperatures
Heat Island Effect: A "dome" of elevated temperatures over an urban area
caused by structural and pavement heat fluxes, and pollutant emissions from
the area below the dome
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights, e g . mercury,
chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead They can damage living things at low
concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food chain.
Heptachlon An insecticide that was banned on some food products in 1975
and all of them 1978. It was allowed for use in seed treatment until in 1983
More recently it was found in milk and other dairy products in Arkansas and
Missoun, as a result of illegally feeding treated seed to dairy cattle
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to control or destroy plants, weeds,
or grasses
Herbivore: An animal that feeds on plants
Heterotrophic Organisms: Consumers such as humans and animals, and
decomposers—chiefly bacteria and fungi—that are dependent on organic
matter for food
High-Density Polyethylene: A matenal that produces toxic fumes when
burned. Used to make plastic bottles and other products
High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW): Waste generated in the fuel of a nu-
clear reactor, found at nuclear reactors or nuclear fuel reprocessing plants It is
a serious threat to anyone who comes near the wastes without shielding (See
Low-Level Radioactive Waste)
Holding Pond: A pond or reservoir, usually made of earth, built to store
polluted runoff.
Hood Capture Efficiency: The emissions from a process which are captured bv
hood and directed into the control device, expressed as a percent of all
emissions
Host: 1. In genetics, the organism, typicallv a bacterium, into which a gene
from another organism is transplanted 2 In medicine, an animal infected by
or parasitized by another organism
Humus: Decomposed organic matenal
Hybrid: A cell or organism resulting from a cross between t wo unlike plant ur
animal cells or organisms
Hybridoma: A hybrid cell that produces monoclonal antibodies in large quan-
tities.
Hydrocarbons (HO: Chemical compounds that consist enlirclv of carbon and
hydrogen
Hydrogen Sulfide (HS): Gas emitted during organic decomposition Also a
byproduct of oil refining and burning It smells like rotten eggs and, in heavy
concentration, can cause illness
Hydrogeology: The geology of ground water, with particular emphasis, on the
chemistry and movement of water
Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties.distribution, and circula-
tion of water.
I
Ignitable: Capable of burning or causing a fire
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate,
or other bamer
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH): The maximum level to
which a healthy individual can be exposed to a chemical for 30 minutes and
escape without suffering irreversible health effects or impairing symptons
Used as a "level of concern." (See level of concern )
In Vitro: 1 "In glass", a test-tube culture 2 Any laboratorv test using living
cells taken from an organism
In Vivo: In the living body of a plant or animal In vivo tests are those
laboratory experiments earned out on whole animals or human volunteers
Incineration: 1. Burning of certain types of solid, liquid or gaseous matenals
2. A treatment technology involving destruction of waste by controlled burn-
ing at high temperatures, e g , burning sludge to remove the water and reduce
the remaining residues to a safe, non-bumable ash which can be disposed of
safely on land, in some waters or in underground locations
Incineration at Sea: Disposal of waste by burning at sea on specially-designed
incinerator ships
Incinerator A furnace for burning wastes under controlled conditions
Indicator In biology, an organism, species, or community whose characteris-
tics show the presence of specific environmental conditions
10
-------
Indirect Discharge: Introduction of pollutants from a non-domestic source
into a publicly owned waste treatment system Indirect dischargers can be
commercial or industrial facilities whose wastes go into the local sewers.
Indoor Air: The breathing air inside a habitable structure or conveyance
Indoor Air Pollution: Chemical, physical, or biological contaminants in indoor
air.
Indoor Climate: Temperature, humidity, lighting and noise levels in a habit-
able structure or conveyance. Indoor climate can affect indoor air pollution.
Inert Ingredient: Pesticide components such as solvents, earners, and sur-
factants that are not active against target pests. Not all inert ingredients are
innocuous.
Ineitial Separator A device that uses centrifugal force to separate waste
particles
Infiltration: 1 The penetration of water through the ground surface into
sub-surface soil or the penetration of water from the soil into sewer or other
pipes through defective joints, connections, or manhole walls. 2 A land
application technique where large volumes of waste water are applied to land,
allowed to penetrate the surface and percolate through the underlying soil
(See: percolation)
Inflow: Entry of extraneous ram water into a sewer system from sources other
than infiltration, such as basement drams, manholes, storm drains, and street
washing.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir, basin, or
treatment plant.
Information File: In the Superfund program, a file that contains accurate,
up-to-date documents on a Superfund site The file is usually located in a
public building such as a school, library, or city hall that is convenient for local
residents.
Injection Well: A well into which fluids are injected for purposes such as
waste disposal, improving the recovery of crude oil, or solution mining
Injection Zone: A geological formation, group of formations, or part of a
formation receiving fluids through a well.
Inoculum: 1 Bacterium placed in compost to start biological action. 2. A
medium containing organisms which is introduced into cultures or living
organisms,
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances of mineral ongm, not of basically
carbon structure
Insecticide: A pesticide compound specifically used to kill or control the
growth of insects
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): I Activities to assure proper emissions-
related operation nt mubile sources of air pollutants, particularly automobile
emissions controls 2 Also applies to to wastewater treatment plants and
other anti-pollution facilities and processes
Instream Use: Water use taking place within a stream channel, e g , hydro-
electric power generation, navigation, water-quality improvement, fish pro-
pagation, recreation
Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A mixture of pesticide and non-pesticide
methods to control pests
Interceptor Sewers: Large sewer lines that, in a combined system, control the
flow of the sewage to the treatment plant, hi a storm, they allow some of the
sewage to flow directly into a receiving stream, thus preventing an overload by
a sudden surge of water into the sewers They are also used in separate
systems to collect the flows trom main and trunk sewers and carry them to
treatment points
Interim (Permit) Status: Period during which treatment, storage and disposal
facilities coming under RCRA in 1980 are temporarily permitted to operate
while awaiting denial or issuance of a permanent permit. Permits issued under
these circumstances are usually called "Part A" or "Part B" permits
Interstate Carrier Water Supply: A source of water for drinking and sanitary
use on planes, buses, trams, and ships operating in more than one state These
sources are federally regulated.
Interstate Waters: Waters that flow across or form part of state or international
boundaries, e.g , the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, or coastal waters
Interstitial Monitoring: The continuous surveillance of the space between the
walls ot an underground storage tank
Inventory: TSCA inventory of chemicals produced pursuant to Section 8 (b) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Inversion: An atmospheric condition caused by a layer of warm air preventing
the rise of cooling air trapped beneath it This prevents the rise of pollutants
that might otherwise be dispersed and can cause an air pollution episode.
Ion: An electrically charged atom or group ot atoms which can be drawn from
waste water during the electrodialysis process
Ion Exchange Treatment: A common water softening method often found on a
large scale at water purification plants that remove some organics and radium
by adding calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide to increase the ph to a ICM
where the metals will precipitate out.
lonization Chamber A device that measures the intensity of ionizing radia-
tion
Ionizing Radiation: Radiation that can remove electrons from atoms, i.e.,
alpha, beta, and gamma radiation
Irradiated Food: Food that has been subject to brief radioactivity, usually by
gamma rays, to kill insects, bacteria, and mold, and preserve it without
refrigeration or freezing
Irradiation: Exposure to radiation of wavelengths shorter than those of visible
light (gamma, x-ray, or ultraviolet), for medical purposes, the destruction of
bacteria in milk or other foodstuffs, or for inducing polymerization of monom-
ers or vulcanization of rubber
Irrigation: Technique for applying water or wastewater to land areas to supply
the water and nutrient needs of plants
Isotope: A variation of an element that has the same atomic number but a
different weight because of its neutrons Various isotopes of the same element
may have different radioactive behaviors
K
Kinetic Rate Coefficient: A number that describes the rate at which a water
constituent such as a biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved oxygen in-
creases or decreases.
Lagoon: (1) A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxvgen work
to purify wastewater; also used to storage of waste waters or spent nuclear fuel
rods. (2) Shallow body of water, otten separated from the sea by coral reets or
sandbars.
Land Application: Discharge of wastewater onto the ground for treatment or
reuse. (See: irrigation.)
Land Farming (of waste): A disposal process in which hazardous was,
deposited on or in the soil is naturally degraded by microbes
Landfills: 1 Sanitary landfills are land disposal sites for non-hazardous solid
wastes at which the waste is spread in layers, compacted to the smallest
practical volume, and cover matenal applied at the end of each operating day
2. Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for hazardous waste Thev are
selected and designed to minimize the chance of release of hazardous sub-
stances into the environment
Lateral Sewers: Pipes that run under city streets and receive the sewage from
homes and businesses.
LCSO/Lethal Concentration: Median level concentration, a standard measure
of toxicity It tells how much of a substance is needed to kill half of a group of
experimental organisms at a specific time of observation (See LD50 )
Leachate: A liquid that results from water collecting contaminants as it trickles
through wastes, agncultural pesticides or fertilizers Leaching may occur in
farming areas, feedlots, and landfills, and may result in hazardous substances
entering surface water, ground water, or soil
Leachate Collection System: A system that gathers leachate and pumps it to
the surface for treatment
Leaching: The process by which soluble constituents are dissolved and earned
down through the soil by a percolating fluid (See leachate.)
Lead (PE): A heavy metal that is hazardous to health if breathed or swallowed
Its use in gasoline, paints, and plumbing compounds has been sharply res-
tricted or eliminated by federal laws and regulations. (See: heavy metals )
Leaded Gasoline: Gasoline to which lead has been added to raise the octane
level.
LD 501 Lethal Dose: The dose of a toxicant that will kill 50 percent of the test
organisms within a designated period ot time The lower the LD 30, the more
toxic the compound.
LD 0: The highest concentration of a toxic substance at which none of the test
organisms die.
LD LO: The lowest concentration and dosage of a toxic substance which kill*)
test organisms.
11
-------
el of Concern (LOO: The concentration in air of an extremely hazardous
fvtostance above which there may be serious immediate health effects to
anyone exposed to it for short periods of time
Lift: In a sanitary landfill, a compacted layer ot solid waste and the top layer of
cover material.
Lifting Station: (See pumping station )
Limestone Scrubbing: Process in which sulfur gases moving towards a
smokestack are passed through a limestone and water solution to remove
sulfur before it reaches the atmosphere
Limiting Factor A condition, whose absence, or excessive concentration, is
incompatible with the needs or tolerance of a species or population and which
may have a negative influence on their ability to grow or even survive
Limnology: The study of the physical, chemical, meteorological, and biologi-
cal aspects of fresh water
Liner: 1 A relatively impermeable barrier designed to prevent leachate from
leaking from a landfill Liner materials include plastic and dense clay 2 An
insert or sleeve for sewer pipes to prevent leakage or infiltration
Lipid Solubility: The maximum concentration ot a chemical that will dissolve
in fatty substances, lipid soluble substances are insoluble in water If a sub-
stance is lipid soluble it will very selectively disperse through the environment
via living tissue
Liquefaction: Changing a solid into a liquid
List: Shorthand term for EPA list of violating facilities or list of firms debarred
from obtaining government contracts because thev violated certain sections of
the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts The list is maintained by The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Listed Waste: Wastes listed as hazardous under RCRA but which have not
been subjected to the Toxic Characteristics Listing Process because the d.in-
gers they present are considered self-evident
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC): A committee appointed by
e state emergency response commission, as required by SARA Title III to
rmulate a comprehensive emergency plan for its jurisdiction
Lower Explosive Limit (LED: The concentration of a compound in air below
which a flame will not propagate if the mixture is ignited
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate: Under the Clean Air Act. this is the rate of
emissions which reflects (a) the most stringent emission limitation which is
contained in the implementation plan of any state for such source unless the
owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates such limitations are
not achievable, or (b) the most stringent emissions limitation achieved in
practice, which ever is more stringent Application of this term does not
permit a proposed new or modified source to emit pollutants in excess of
existing new source standards
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW): Wastes less hazardous than most of
those generated by a nuclear reactor. Usually generated by hospitals, reseaich
laboratories, and certain industries The Department of Energy, Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission, and EPA share responsibilities for managing them (See-
high-level radioactive wastes.)
M
Marine Sanitation Device: Any equipment installed on board a vessel to
receive, retain, treat, or discharge sewage and any process to treat such
sewage
Major Modification: This term is used to define modifications with respect to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review under the
Clean Air Act and refers to modifications to major stationary sources of
emissions and provides significant pollutant increase levels below which a
modification is not considered major
Major Stationary Sources: Term used to determine to applicability of Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration and new source regulations In a nonattam-
ment area, any stationary pollutant source that has a potential to emit more
than 100 tons per year is considered a major stationary source In PSD areas the
cutoff level may be either 100 or 250 tons, depending upon the tvpe of source
Manufacturers Formulation: A list ot substances or component pans as de-
^cnbed by the maker of a coating, pesncide or other product containing
chemicals or other substances.
Marsh: A tvpe of wetland that does not accumulate appreciable peat deposits
and is dominated by herbaceous vegetation Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal (See wetlands )
Matabohte: Any substance produced in or bv biological processes and denved
from a pesticide
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS): A compilation of mtormation required
under the OSHA Communication Standard on the identity of hazardous
chemicals, health, and physical hazards, exposure limits, and precautions
Section 31 1 of SARA requires facilities to submit MSDSs under certain circum-
stances.
Maximum Contaminant Level: The maximum permissible level 01 a contami-
nant in water delivered to any user of a public water system MCLs are
enforceable standards
Mechanical Aeration: Use of mechanical energy to inject air into water to
cause a waste stream to absorb oxygen
Mechanical Turbulence: Random irregularities ot fluid motion in air caused
by buildings or mechanical, non-thermal, processes
Media: Specific environments— air, water, soil— which are the subject of
regulatory concern and activities
Mercury: A heavy metal that can accumulate in the emvomment and is hiphlv
toxic if breathed or swallowed (See heavv metals )
Methane: A colorless, nonpoisonous. flammable gas created bv anaerobic
decomposition of organic compounds
Method 18: An E?\ test method which uses gas chromatopraphK. u-chnuiues
to measure the concentration of individual volatile organic compoundsm a p*s
stream
Method 24: An EPA reference method to determine density, water content
and total volatile content (water and VOC) of coatings
Method 25: An EPA reference method to determine the VOC concentration in
a gas stream
Million-gallons Per Day (MGD): A measure of water flow
Microbes: Microscopic organisms such as a\f,itv. animal-, viru-cs biiotrrw
fungus, and protozoa, some of which cause diseases (See microorp.inism !
Microbial Pesticide: A microorganism that is used to control .1 pe-l ihei .iro
of low toxicity to man
Microorganism: Living organisms so small that mdivuluallv the
only be seen through a microscope
Mist: Liquid particles measuring 500 to 40 microns, th.it aro UirmiM K con-
densation of vapor By comparison, "fog" particles are smaller than -HI micro-
ns.
Mitigation: Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment
Mixed Liquor: A mixture of activated sludge and water containing organic
matter undergoing activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank
Mobile Source: A moving producer of air pollution, mainlv torms ot transpor-
tation such as cars, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes
Modeling: An investigative technique using a mathematical or physical repre-
sentation of a system or theory that accounts for all or some its known
properties Models are often used to test the effect of changes ol system
components on the overall performance of the system
Model Plant: A description of a typical but theoretical plant used tor develop-
ing economic, environmental impact and energy impact analyses as support
for regulations or regulatory guidelines It is an imaginary plant, with features
of existing or future plants used to estimate the cost ot incorporating air
pollution control technology as the first step in exploring the economic impact
of a potential NSPS
Monitoring: Penodic or continuous surveillance or testing to determine the
level of compliance with statutory requirements and/or pollutant levels in
vanous media or in humans, animals, and other living things
Monitoring Wells: Wells drilled at a hazardous waste management facility or
Superfund site to collect ground-water samples tor the purpose of physical.
chemical, or biological analysis to determine the amounts, rvpes. and distribu-
tion of contaminants in the ground water beneath the site
Monoclonal Antibodies: (Also called MABs and MCAs) Molecules of living
oreamsms that selectively find and attach to other molecules to whi< h their
structure conforms exactly Phis could also appl\ to equivalent activitv by
chemical molecules
Muck Soils: Earth made from decaying, plant materials
Mulch: A laver of material (wood chips, straw, leaves, etc ) placed around
plants to hold moisture, prevent weed growth, protect the plants, and enrich
the soil
Multiple Use: Use of land for more than one purpose i e .grains; or li\estock.
wildlife production, recreation, watershed, and timber production Could aNo
apply to use of bodies of water for recreational purposes, fishing, and voter
supply
12
-------
Mutagen: Any substance that can cause a change in genetic material
Mutate: To bnnj; about .1 change in the genetic constitution of a cell by altering
its DNA. In turn, "mutagenesis" is any process by which cells are mutated.
N
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards
established by EPA that apply to outside air throughout the country (bee.
criteria pollutants, state implementation plans, emissions trading )
National Emissions Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS):
Emissions standards set by EPA for an air pollutant not covered by NAAQS
that may cause an increase in deaths or in senous, irreversible, or incapacitat-
ing illness Primary standards are designed to protect human health, secon-
dary standards to protect public welfare
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NOHSCP/NCP):
The federal regulation that guides determination of the sites to be corrected
under the Superfund program and the program to prevent or control spills
into surface waters or other portions of the environment.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A provision of
the Clean Water Act which prohibits discharge of pollutants into waters of the
United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA. a state, or (where
delegated) a tnbal government on an Indian reservation
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most senous uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the
Trust Fund for remedial action. The list is based pnmanly on the score a site
receives from the Hazard Ranking S>stem. EPA is required to update the NPL
at least once a year.
National Response Center The federal operations center that receives noti-
fications ot all releases of oil and hazardous substances into the environment
The Center, open 24 hours a day, is operated by the U S Gwst Guard, which
evaluates all reports and notifies the appropriate agency
National Response Team (NRT): Representatives of U federal agencies that,
as a team, coordinate federal responses to nationally significant incidents of
pollution and provide advice and technical assistance to the responding agen-
cy(ies) before and during a response action.
Natural Gas: A natural fuel containing pnmanly methane and ethane that
occurs in certain geologic formations.
Natural Selection: The process of survival of the fittest, by which organisms
that adapt to their environment survive and those that do not disappear
Navigable Waters: Traditionally, waters sufficiently deep and wide for
navigation by all, or specified sizes of vessels, such waters in the United States
come under tederal jurisdiction and are included in certain provisions of the
Cludn Water Act
Necrosis: Death of plant or animal cells In plants, necrosis can discolor areas
on the plant or kill it entirely
Nematocide: A chemical agent which is destructive to nematodes (round
worms or threadworms.)
Neutralization: Decreasing the acidity or alkalinity of a substance by adding to
it alkaline or acidic materials respectively
New Source: Any stationary source which is built or modified after publication
of final or proposed regulations that prescribe a standard ot performance
which is intended to apply to that type of emission source
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Uniform national EPA air emis-
sion and water effluent standards which limit the amount of pollution allowed
from new sources or trom existing sources that have been modified
Nitrate: A compound containing nitrogen which can exist in the atmosphere
or as a dissolved gas in water and which can have harmful effects on humans
and animals. Nitrates in water can cause severe illness in intants and cows.
Nitric Oxide (NO): A gas formed by combustion under high temperature and
high pressure in an internal combustion engine. It changes into nitrogen
dioxide in the ambient air and contributes to photochemical smog
Nitrification: The process whereby ammonia in wastewater is oxidized to
nitnte and then to nitrate by bacterial or chemical reactions
Nitrilotriacelic Acid »NTA): A compound being used to replace phosphates in
detergents:
Nitrite: 1. An intermediate in the process of nitrification. 2. Nitrous oxide salts
used in food preservation
Nitrogen Dioxide
-------
Miie Chemicals/Compounds: Animal or plant-produced substances con-
g mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen
Mit Matter Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and
originating from domestic or mdustnal sources.
Organism: Any living thing.
Otganophosphates: Pesticide chemicals that contain phosphorus, used to
control insects They are short-lived, but some can be toxic when first applied
Oiganotins: Chemical compounds used in anti-foulant paints to protect the
hulls of boats and ships, buoys, and dock pilings from marine organisms such
as barnacles.
Osmosis: The tendency of a fluid to pass through a permeable membrane such
as the wall of a living cell into a less concentrated solution so as to equalize the
concentrations on both sides of the membrane
Outfall: The place where an effluent is discharged into receiving waters
Overburden: The rock and soil cleared away before mining.
Overfire Air. Air forced into the top of an incinerator or boiler to fan the
flames.
Overland Flow: A land application technique that cleanses waste water by
allowing it to flow over a sloped surface As the water flows over the surface.
the contaminants are removed and the water is collected at the bottom of the
slope for reuse
Overturn: The period of mixing (turnover), by top to bottom circulation, of
previously stratified water masses This phenomenon may occur in spring
and/or fall, or after storms It results in a uniformity of chemical and physical
properties of the water at all depths
Oxidant: A substance containing oxygen that reacts chemically in air to pro-
duce a new substance The primary ingredient of photochemical smog
Oxidation: 1 The addition of oxygen which breaks down organic waste or
chemicals such as cyanides, phenols, and organic sulfur compounds in sew-
age by bacterial and chemical means. 2. Oxygen combining with other ele-
ments 3 The process in chemistry whereby electrons are removed from a
'ecule
larion Pond: A man-made lake or body of water in which waste is con-
..ned by bacteria. It is used most frequently with other waste-treatment
processes. An oxidation pond is basically the same as a sewage lagoon.
Oxygenated Solvent: An organic solvent containing oxygen as part of the
molecular structure. Alcohols and ketones are oxygenated compounds often
used as paint solvents
Ozonaton A device that adds ozone to water
Ozone (O3): Found in two layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and the
troposphere In the stratosphere (the atmospheric layer beginning 7 to 10
miles above the earth's surface) ozone is a form of oxygen found naturally
which provides a protective layer shielding the earth from ultraviolet radia-
tion's harmful health effects on humans and the environment.In the tropos-
phere (the layer extending up 7 to 10 miles from the earth's surface), ozone is a
chemical oxidant and major component of photochemical smog. Ozone can
seriously affect the human respiratory system and is one of the most prevalent
and widespread of all the criteria pollutants for which the Clean Air Act
required EPA to set standards. Ozone in the troposphere is produced through
complex chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, which are among the primary
pollutants emitted by combustion sources, hydrocarbons, released into the
atmosphere through the combustion, handling and processing of petroleum
products, and sunlight
Ozone Depletion: Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which shields
the earth from ultraviolet radiation harmful to biological life This destruction
of ozone is caused by the breakdown of certain chlorine and/or-bromme
containing compound's (chlorofluorocarbons or halons) which break down
when they reach the stratosphere and catalytically destroy ozone molecules
P
Packed Tower A pollution control device that forces dirty air through a tower
packed with crushed rock or wood chips while liquid is sprayed over the
packing material The pollutants in the air stream either dissolve or chemically
react with the liquid
bndemic: Widespread throughout an area, nation or the world
IPart A Permit, Part B Permit: (See Intenm Permit Status.)
Paraquat: A standard herbicide used to kill various types of crops, including
marijuana.
Particulates: Fme liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or
smog, found in air or emissions
Particulate Loading: The mass of parhculates per unit volume of air or water
Pathogenic Capable of causing disease
Pathogens: Microorganisms that can cause disease in other organisms or in
humans, animals and plants. They may be bacteria, viruses, or parasites and
are found in sewage, in runoff from animal farms or rural areas populated with
domestic and/or wild animals, and in water used for swimming Fish and
shellfish contaminated by pathogens, or the contaminated water itself, can
cause senous illnesses
PCBs: A group of toxic, persistent chemicals (polychlonnated biphenyls) used
in transformers and capacitators for insulating purposes and in gas pipeline
systems as a lubricant. Further sale of new use was banned by law in 1979
Percolation: The movement of water downward and radially through the
sub-surface soil layers, usually continuing downward to the ground water
Permeability: The rate at which liquids pass through soil orother matenals in a
specified direction.
Permit: An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by
EPA or an approved state agency to implement the requirements of an en-
vironmental regulation; e g., a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant
or to operate a facility that may generate harmful emissions
Persistence: Refers to the length of time a compound, once introduced into the
environment, stays there A compound may persist for less than a second or
indefinitely
Persistent Pesticides: Pesticides that do not break down chemically or break
down very slowly and that remain in the environment alter a growing season
Pest: An insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed or other form of terrestrial or
aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacterial or microorganism that is in-
jurious to health or the environment
Pesticide: Substance or mixture of substance* intended tor preventing;, de-
stroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest Also, any substance or mixture of
substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccanl
Pesticides can accumulate in the food chain and/or contaminate the environ-
ment if misused
Pesticide Tolerance: The amount of pesticide residue allowed by law to remain
in or on a harvested crop By using various safety factors. EPA sets these levels
well below the point where the chemicals might be harmful to consumers
pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a liquid or solid material
Phenols: Organic compounds that are by products of petroleum refining,
tanning, and textile, dye, and resin manufactunng Low concentrations cause
taste and odor problems in water, higher concentrations can kill aquatic life
and humans
Pheromone: Hormonal chemical produced by female of a species to attract a
mate.
Phosphates: Certain chemical compounds containing phosphorus
Phosphorus: An essential chemical food element that can contribute to the
eutrophicabon of lakes and other water bodies Increased phosphorus levels
result from discharge of phosphorus-containing matenals into surface waters
Photochemical Oxidants: Air pollutants formed by the action of sunlight on
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons
Photochemical Smog: Air pollution caused by chemical reactions of various
pollutants emitted from different sources
Photosynthesis: The manufacture by plants of carbohydrates and oxygen from
carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll, using sunlight as an
energy source
Physical and Chemical Treatment: Processes generally used in large-scale
waste-water treatment facilities Physical processes may involve air-stnppmg
or filtration Chemical treatment includes coagulation, chlonnahon, or ozone
addition. The term can also refer to treatment processes, treatment of toxic
matenals in surface waters and ground waters, oil spills, and some methodsof
dealing with hazardous matenals on or in the ground.
Phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community compnsed of tiny
plants, e.g., algae, diatoms
Phytotoxic: Something that harms plants
Picocurie: Measurement of radioactivity. A picocune is one million millionth,
or a Millionth, of a cune, and represents about 2.2 radioactive particle disinte-
grations per minute
Picocuries Per Liter pCi/L): A unit of measure used tor expressing levels of
radon gab. (See picocune.)
14
-------
Pig: A container, usually lead, used in ship or store radioactive materials
Pile: 1. The fuel element in a nuclear reactot. 2 A heap of waste.
Plankton: Tiny plants and animals that live in water
Plasmid: A circular piece of DNA that exists apart from the chromosome and
replicates independently of it Bacterial plasmids earn' information that ren-
ders the bactcna resistant to antibiotics. Plasmids are often used in genetic
engineering to carry desired genes into organisms.
Plastics: Non-metallic compounds that result from a chemical reaction, and
are molded or formed into rigid or pliable construction materials or fabrics
Plugging: I. The act or process of stopping the flow of water, oil. or gas into or
out of a formation through a borehole or well penetrating that formation 2.
Stopping a leak or sealing off a pipe or hose.
Plume 1. A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given
point of origin. Can be visible or thermal in water, or visible in the air as, for
example, a plume of smoke. 2 The area of measurable and potentially harmful
radiation leaking from a damaged reactor. 3. The distance from a toxic release
considered dangerous for those exposed to the leaking fumes.
Plutonium: A radioactive metallic element similar chemically to uranium.
Point Source: A stationery location or fixed facility from which pollutants are
discharged or emitted. Also, any single identifiable source of pollution, e g , a
pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack.
Pollen: 1. A fine dust produced by plants. 2.The fertilizing element of flower-
ing plants. 3. A natural or background air pollutant.
Pollutant: Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that
adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
Pollutant Standard Index (PSD: Measure of adverse health effects of air
pollution levels in ma|or cities.
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter or energy whose nature, location
or quantity produces undesired environmental effects. Under the Clean Water
Act, fur example, the term is defined as the man-made or man-induced
alteration of the physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water
Polyelectrolytes: Synthetic chemicals that help solids to clump during sewage
treatment.
Polymer Basic molecular ingredients in plastic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A tough, environmentally indestructible plastic
that releases hydrochloric and when burned.
Population: A group of interbreeding organisms of the same kind occupying a
particular space. Genencally, the number of humans or other living creatures
in a designated area.
Post-Closure: The time period following the shutdown of a waste manage-
ment or manufacturing facility For monitoring purposes, this is often consid-
ered to be 30 years.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drinking and cooking
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any individual or company—including
owners, operators, transporters or generators—potentially responsible for, or
contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site Whenever
possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites they have contaminated.
PPM/ PPB: Parts per million/ parts per billion, a way of expressing tiny
concentrations of pollutants in air, water, soil, hi-man tissue, rood, or other
products
Precipitate: A solid that separates from a solution because of some chemical or
physical change.
Precipitation: Removal of solid:, from liquid waste so that the hazardous solid
portion can be disposed of safely, removal of particles from airborne emis-
sions.
PrecipiUtors: Air pollution control devices that collect particles from an emis-
sion.
Precursor In-photochemical terminology, a compound such as a volatile
organic compound (VOC) that "precedes" an oxidant. Precursors react in
sunlight to form ozone or other photochemical oxidants
Preliminary Assessment: The process ot collecting and reviewing available
information about a known or suspected waste site or release
Pressure Sewers: A system of pipes in which water, wastewater, or other
liquid is transported to a higher elevation by use of pumping lorce
Pretreatment: Processes used to reduce, eliminate, or alter the nature of
wastewater pollutants from non-domestic sources before they are discharged
into publicly owned treatment works.
Prevention: Measures taker, to minimize the release of wastes to the environ-
ment
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): EPA program in which state
and/of federal permits are required that are intended to restrict emissions for
new or modified sources in places where air cfuahty is already better than
required to meet primary and secondary ambient air quality standard'
Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Applies to public 4vater systen
specifies a contaminant level, which, in the |udgement of the EPA Admirteya-
tor, will have no adverse effect on human health
Primary Waste Treatment: First steps in wastewater treatment, screens and
sedimentation tanks are used to remove most materials that floats or will
settle. Primary treatment results in the removal of about 30 percent of
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand from domestic sewage
Process Weight- Total weight of all materials, including fuel, used in a
manufacturing process. It is used to calculate the allowable paniculate emis-
sion rate from the process.
Proteins: Complex nitrogenous organic compounds of high molecular weight
that contain ammo acids as their basic unit and are essential for growth and
repair of animal tissue Many proteins are enzymes.
Protoplast: A membrane-bound cell from which the outer cell wall has been
partially or completely removed. The term often is applied to plant cells
Public Water System: A system that provides piped water for human con-
sumption to at least 15 service connections or regularly serves 25 individuals
Publicly Owned Treatment Works: A waste-treatment works owned by a
state, unit of local government, or Indian tnbe, usually designed to treat
domestic wastewaters.
Pumping Station: Mechanical devices installed in sewer or water systems or
other liquid-carrying pipelines that move the liquids to a higher level
Putrescible: Able to rot quickly enough to cause odors and attract flies
Pyrolysis: Decomposition of a chemical by extreme heat
Quality Assurance/Quality Control: A system of procedures, checks, audits,
and corrective actions to ensure that all EPA research design and performance.
environmental monitoring and sampling, and other technical and reporting
activities are of the highest achievable quality
Quench Tank: A water-filled tank used to cool incinerator residues
materials during industrial processes
RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose): A unit of absorbed dose of radiation One
RAD of absorbed dose is equal to 01 joules per kilogram
Radiation: Any form of energy propagated as rays, waves, or streams of
energetic particles. The term is frequently used in relation to the emission of
rays from the nucleus of an atom
Radiation Standards: Regulations that set maximum exposure limits for
protection ot the public from radioactive materials
Radioactive Substances: Substances that emit radiation
Radiobiology: The study radiation effects on living things
Radio Frequency Radiation: (See Non-ionizing Radiation )
Radinnuclide: Radioactive element characterized accoiding to its atomic mass
and atomic number which can be man-made or naturally occurring Radioiso-
topes can have a long life as soil or water pollutants, and are believed to have
potentially mutagenic effects on the human body
Radius of Vulnerable Zone: The maximum distance from the point ot release
of a hazardous substance in which the airborne concentration could reach the
level of concern under specified weather conditions
Radon: A colorless naturally occurring, radioactive, inert gaseous element
formed by radioactive decay of radium atoms in soil or rocks
Radon Decay Products: A term used to refer collectively to the immediate
products of the radon decay chain These include t'o-218, Pb-214, Bi-214, and
Po-214, which have an average combined half-life of about 30 minutes
Rasp: A machine that grinds waste into A manageable material and helps
prevent odor
Raw Sewage: Untreated wastewater
-------
feasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): The lowest emissions
It that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
tnology that is both reasonably available, as well as technologically and
economically feasible RACT is usually applied to existing to existing sources
in nonattaiiiment areas and most cases is less stringent than new source
performance standards
Receiving Waters: A nver, lake, ocean, stream or other watercourse into
which wastewater or treated effluent is discharged
Recharge: The process by which water is added to a zone of saturation, usually
by percolation from the'soil surtace, e.g , the recharge of an aquifer
Recharge Area: A land area in which water reaches to the zone of saturation
from surface infiltration, e g., an area where rainwater soaks through the earth
to reach an aquifer.
Recombinant Bacteria: A type of microorganism whose genetic makeup has
been altered by deliberate introduction of new genetic elements The offspnng
of these altered bacteria also contain these new genetic elements
Recombinant DNA (rDNA): The new DMA that is formed by combining
pieces of DNA from different organisms or cells
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL): The maximum level
of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse
affect on human health would occur, and which includes an adequate margin
of safety Recommended levels are nonenforceable health goals (See- max-
imum contaminant level)
Reconstructed Source: An existing facility in which components are replaced
to such an extent that the fixed capital cost of the new components exceed 50
percent of the capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility New source performance standards may be applied to
sources which are'reconstructed after the proposal of the standard if it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the standard
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
altemative(s) will be used at National Priorities List sites where, under CERC-
LA, Trust Funds pay for the cleanup
•^rcle/Reuse: The process of minimizing the generation of waste by recover-
'usable products that might otherwise become waste Examples are the
cycling of aluminum cans, wastepaper, and bottles.
Red Border An EPA document that is undergoing final review before being
submitted for final management decision
Red Tide: A proliferation of a manne plankton that is toxic and often fatal to
fish This natural phenomenon may be stimulated by the addition of nutrients
A tide can be called red, green or brown, depending on the coloration of the
plankton
Reentry Interval: The period of time immediately following the application of
a pesticide during which unprotected workers should not enter a field
Refuse: (See- solid waste )
Refuse Reclamation: Conversion of solid waste into useful products, e g .
composting organic wastes to make soil conditioners or separating aluminum
and other metals for melting and recycling
Regeneration: Manipulation of individual cells or masses of cells to cause
them to develop into whole plants
Regional Response Team (RRT): Representatives of federal, local, and state
agencies who may assist in coordination of activities at the request of the
On-Scene Coordinator before and dunng a Superfund response action.
Registrant: Any manufacturer or formulator who obtains registration for a
pesticide active ingredient or product.
Registration: Formal listing with EPA of a new pesticide before it can be sold
or distributed in intra- or inter-state commerce The product must be reg-
istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenhcide Act EPA is
responsible for registration (pre-market licensing) of pesticides on the basis ot
data demonstrating that they will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on
human health or the environment when used according to approved label
directions
Registration Standards: Published reviews of all the data available on pesti-
cide active ingredients
fcEM (Roentgen Equivalent Man): The unit of dose equivalent from ionizing
idiation to the human body, used to measure the amount of radiation to
hich a person or a part of a human has been exposed
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construction or implementation phase of a
Supertund site cleanup that follow;, remedial design
Remedial Design: A phase i't remedial action that follows the remedial
investigation'teasibilitv stuih and includes development of engineering
drawings and specification- for a site cleanup
16
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth studv designed to gather the data neces-
sary to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site,
establish criteria for cleaning up the site, identify preliminary alternatives for
remedial actions, and support the technical and cost analyses of the alterna-
tives The remedial investigation is usually done with the feasibility study
Together they are usually referred to as the "RI/FS"
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The EPA or state official responsible for
overseeing remedial action at a site.
Remedial Response: A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a
release or threat of a release of hazardous substances that is serious but not an
immediate threat to public health
Removal Action: Short-term immediate actions taken to address releases of
hazardous substances that require expedited response (See cleanup )
Reportable Quantity (RQ): The quantity of a hazardous substance that
triggers reports under CERCLA. If a substance is released in amounts exceed-
ing its RQ, the release must be reported to the National Response Center, the
SERC, and community emergency coordinators for areas likely to be affected
Reregistration: The reevaluation and relicensmg of existing pesticides origi-
nally registered prior to current scientific and regulator standards EPA
reregisters pesticides through its Registration Standards Program
Reservoir Any natural or artificial holding area used to store, regulate, or
control water
Residual: Amount of a pollutant remaining in the environment after a natural
or technological process has taken place, e g , the sludge remaining after
initial wastewater treatment, or particulates remaining in air after the air
passes through a scrubbing or process
Resistance: For plants and animals, the ability to withstand poor environmen-
tal conditions and/or attacks by chemicals or disease The ability mav be inborn
or developed
Resource: A person, thing, or action needed for living or to improve thi-
quality of life
Response Action: A CERCLA-authonzed action involving either a short-term
removal action or a long-term removal response that may include but is not
limited to removing hazardous materials from' a site to an EPA-approved
hazardous waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruction, contain-
ing the waste safely on-site. destroying or treating the waste on-site. and
identifying and removing the source of ground-water contamination and
halting further migration of contaminants (See cleanup )
Resource Recovery: The process of obtaining matter or energy from materials
formerly discarded
Restoration: Measures taken to return a Mte to pre-violation conditions
Restricted Use: When a pesticide is registered, some or all of its uses mav be
classified (under FIFRA regulations) for restricted use it the pesticide requires
special handling because of its toxicity Restncted-use pesticides may be
applied only by trained, certified applicators or those under their direct
supervision.
Restriction Enzymes: Enzymes that recognize certain specific regions of a long
DNA molecule and then cut the DNA into smaller pieces
Reverse Osmosis: A water treatment process used in small water systems by
adding pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane Reverse
osmosis removes most drinking water contaminants Also used in wastewater
treatment Large-scale reverse osmosis plants are now being developed
Ribonucleic Acid (RNA): A molecule that cames the genetic message from
DNA to a cell's protein-producing mechanisms, similar to, but chemically
different from, DNA
Ringlemann Chart: A series of shaded illustrations used to measure the
opacity of air pollution emissions The chart ranges from light grey through
black and is used to set and enforce emissions standards
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to nvers and streams that have a high
density, diversity, and productivity of plant and animal species relative to
nearby uplands
Riparian Rights: Entitlement of a land owner to the water on or bordering his
property, including the right to prevent diversion or misuse of upstream
waters 'Generally, a matter of state law
Risk Assessment: The qualitative and quantitative evaluation performed in an
effort to define the nsk posed to human health and/or the environment bv the
presence or potential presence and/or use of specific pollutants
Risk Communication: The exchange of information about health or environ-
mental nsks between nsk assessors, nsk managers, the general public, news
media, interest groups, etc
-------
Risk Management: 1 h«- prr,c<-«; "I evaluating altern.itix c regulatoi v and non-
n?lj-jld«ory resoon-.es to r.bk ..no leie^.n;; amon? lhw The selection process
necessarily requires ihe consideration ol legal, ei'opomu and social tacrori
River Basin- The land area drained by a n\er and its inbulnr.es
Rodenhcide: A iher.in.al or agent used to destroy rats or other rodent pests or
to prevent them from d.imagmg food, crops, etr
Rough Fish: Those fish. nut pnzed tor eating, such as gar and suckers. Most
are more tolerant of changing environmental conditions than game species
Rubbish: Solid waste, excluding tood waste and ashes, from homes, in-
stitutions, and work-places.
Run-Off: That par* of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off
the land into streams or other surface-water. It can carry pollutants from the air
and land into the receiving waters.
Salinity: The degree of salt in water
Salts: Minerals that water picks up as it passes through the air, over and under
the ground, and as it is used by households and industry
Salt Water Intrusion: The invasion of fresh surface or ground water by salt
water. If the salt water comes from the ocean it may be called sea water
intrusion.
Salvage: The utilization of waste materials
Sanitation: Control of physical factors in the human environment that could
harm development, health, or survival.
Sand Filters: Devices that remove some suspended solids from sewage Air
and bacteria decompose additional wastes filtering through the sand so that
cleaner water drains from the bed.
Sanitary Landfill: (See- landfill, sanitary.)
Sanitary Sewers: Underground pipes that carry off only domestic or industrial
waste, not storm water
Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment,
operation and maintenance of a public water system to evaluate the adequacy
ot those elements for producing and distributing safe drinking water
Saturated Zone: A subsurface area in which all pores and cracks are filled with
water under pressure equal to or greater than that of the atmosphere
Scrap: Materials discarded from manufactunng operations that may be suit-
able for reprocessing.
Screening: Use of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended solids
from sewage
Scrubber An air pollution device that uses a spray of water or renctant or a dry
process to trap pollutants in emissions
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Unenforceable regulations which
apply to public water systems and which specity the maximum contamination
levels which, in the judgement of EPA, are required to protect the public
welfare These regulations apply to any contaminants that may adversely
affect the odor or appearance of such water and consequently mav cause
people served by the system to discontinue its use
Secondary Treatment: The second step in most publicly owned waste treat-
ment systems in which bacteria consume the organic parts of the waste It is
accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and oxygen in trickling
filters or in the activated sludge process This treatment removes floating and
settleable solids ,md about «0 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances
And suspended solids Disinfection is the final stage of secondary treatment
(See primary tertiary treatment.)
Secure Chemical: (See landhlls )
Secure Maximum Contaminant Level: Maximum permissible level of a ion-
tammant in water which is delivered to the tree flowing outlet ot the ultimate
user ot a water supply, the consumer, or ot contamination resulting trom
lorroMon of piping and plumbing caused by water quahrv
Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals washed from l.ind into water usually attrr
rain They pile up in reservo.rs. rivers
-------
jog: Air pollution associated with oxidants (See photochemical smog )
poke: Particles suspended in air after incomplete combustion of materials
Soft Detergents: Cleaning agents that break down in nature
Soft Water Any water that is not "hard." i e . does not contain a significant
amount of dissolved minerals such as salts containing calcium or magnesium
Soil Adsorption Field: A sub-surtace area containing a trench or bed with
dean stones and a system of distribution piping through which treated sewage
may seep into the surrounding soil for further treatment and disposal
Soil Conditioner An organic material like humus or compost that helps soil
absorb water, build a bacterial community, and distribute nutrients and
minerals
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds that occur in the small spaces
between particles of the earth and soil Such gases can move through or leave
the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure
Solder A metallic compound used to seal the joints between pipes Until
recently, most solder ocontamed 50 percent lead
Sole Source Aquifer An aquifer that supplies 50 percent or more of the
drinking water of an area
Solid Waste: Non-liquid , non-soluble materials ranging from municipal gar-
bage to industrial wastes that contain complex, and sometimes hazardous,
substances Solid wastes also include sewage sludge, agricultural refuse,
demolition wastes, and mining residues Technically, solid waste also refers to
liquids and gases in containers
Solid Waste Disposal: The final placement of refuse that is not salvaged or
recycled
Solid Waste Management: Supervised handling of waste materials from their
source through recovery processes to disposal
Solidification and Stabilization: Removal of wastewater from a waste or
changing it chemically to make the waste less permeable and susceptible to
transport by water
•jlvent: Substance (usually liquid) capable of dissolving or dispersing one or
ore other substances
ooot: Carbon dust formed by incomplete combustion.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or attracting substances A process used in
many pollution control systems
Special Review: Formerly known as Rebuttable Presumption Against Regis-
tration (RPAR), this is the regulator/ process through which existing pesti-
cides suspected of posing unreasonable nsks to human health, non-target
organisms, or the environment are referred for review by EPA The review
requires an intensive nsk/benefit analysis with opportunity for public com-
ment. If the nsk of any use of a pesticide is found to outweigh social and
economic benefits, regulatory actions—ranging from label revisions and use-
restriction to cancellation or suspended registration—can be initiated
Species: A reproduchvely isolated aggregate of interbreeding populations of
organisms.
Spill Prevention Control and Counlermeasures Plan (SPCC): Plan covering
the release of hazardous substances as defined in the Clean Water Act.
Sprawl: Unplanned development of open land.
Spoil: Dirt or rock that has been removed from its original location, destroying
the composition of the soil in the process, as with stnp-mining or dredging.
Stabilization: Conversion of the active organic matter in sludge into inert,
harmless material
Stabilization Ponds: (See: lagoon.)
Stable Air. A mass of air that is not moving normally, so that it holds rather
than disperses pollutants
Stack: A chimney or smokestack, a vertical pipe that discharges used air
Stack Effect: Used air, as in a chimney, that moves upward because it is
warmer than the surrounding atmosphere
Stack Gas: (See flue gas )
Stagnation: Lack of motion in a mass of air or water, which tends to hold
pollutants.
Standards: Prescriptive norms which govern action and actual limits on the
amount of pollutants or emissions produced EPA, under most of its responsi-
bilities, establishes minimum standards States are allowed to be stricter
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC): Commission apointedI by
each state governor according to the requirements of SARA Title III The
SERCs designate emergency planning diMncts. appoint local emergency
planning committees, and supervise and coordinate their activities
State Implementation Plans (SIP): EPA-approved state plans for the establish-
ment, regulation, and enforcement of air pollution standards
Stationary Source: A fixed, non-moving producer of pollution, mainly power
plants and other facilities using industrial combustion processes
Sterilization: 1 In pest control, the use of radiation and chemicals to damage
body cells needed for reproduction 2. The destruction of all living organisms
in water or on the surface of various materials In contrast, disinfection is the
destruction of mast living organisms in water or on surfaces
Storage: Temporary holding of waste pending treatment or dispcsal Storage
methods include containers, tanks, waste piles, and surface impoundments
Storm Sewer A system of pipes (separate from sanitary sewers) that earn-
only water runoff from building and land surfaces
Stratification: Separating into layers
Stratosphere: The portion of the atmosphere that is 10-to-25 miles above the
earth's surface
Strip-Cropping: Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of stnpsor bands
whirh serve as barriers to wind and water erosion
Strip-Mining: A process that uses machines to scrape soil or rock away from
mineral deposits |ust under the earth's surface
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): A heavy, pungent, colorless, gaseous air pollutant
formed primarily by the combustion of fossil plants
Sump: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal
Sump Pump: A mechanism for removing water or wastewatcr from a sump or
wet well.
Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA
and SARA that funds and carries out the EPA solid waste emergencv and
long-term removal remedial activities These activities include establishing the
National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determin-
ing their priority level on the list, and conducting and/or supervising the
ultimately determined cleanup and other remedial actions
Surface Impoundment: Treatment, storage, or disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes in ponds
Surface Water All water naturally open to the atmosphere (nvers. lakes,
reservoirs, streams, impoundments, seas, estuanes, etc ) and all springs,
wells, or other collectors which are directly influenced by surface water
Surfactant: A surface-active agent used in detergents to cause lathering
Surveillance System: A series of monitoring devices designed to determine
environmental quality
Suspended Solids: Small particles of solid pollutants that float on the surface
of, or are suspended in sewage or other liquids They resist removal by
conventional means. (See. Total Suspended Solids )
Suspension: The act of suspending the use of a pesticide when EPA deems it
necessary to do so in order to prevent an imminent hazard resulting from
continued use of the pesticide. An emergency suspension takes effect im-
mediately; under an ordinary suspension a registrant can request a hearing
before the suspension goes into effect Such a hearing process might take six
months.
Suspension Culture: Individual cells or small clumps of cells growing in a
liquid nutrient medium.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated by woody vegetation and does
not accumulate appreciable peat deposits. Swamps may be fresh or salt water
and tidal or non-tidal. (See. Wetlands.)
Synergism: The cooperative interaction of two or more chemicals or other
phenomena producing a greater total effect than the sum of their individual
effects.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs): Man-made organic chemicals Some
SOCs are volatile, others tend to stay dissolved in water rather than evaporate
out of it.
Systemic Pesticide: A chemical that is taken up from the ground or absorbed
through the surface and earned through the system of the organism being
protected, making the organism toxic to pests
T
Tailings: Residue of raw materials or waste separated out during the process-
ing of crops or mineral ores
TBT Paints (Trybutilin): (See. organotins )
Technology-Based Standards: Effluent limitations applicable to direct and
indirect sources which are developed on a category-by-categor\ basis using
statutory factors, not including water-quality effects
18
-------
Teratogen: Substance that causes malformation or serious deviation from
normal development of embryos and fetuses
Terracing: Diking, built along the contour of sloping agricultural land, that
holds runotf and sediment to reduce erosion
Tertiary Treatment: Advanced cleaning of wastewater that goes beyond the
secondary or biological stage It removes nutrients such as phosphorus and
nitrogen and most BOD and suspended solids
Thermal Pollution: Discharge of heated water from industrial processes that
can jftect the life processes ot aquatic organisms
Threshold Limit Value (TLVJ: Represents the air concentrations of chemical
substances to which it is believed that workers may be daily exposed without
adverse effect
Threshold Planning Quantity: A quantity designated for each chemical on the
list of extremely hazardous substances that triggers notification by facilities to
the state emergency response (.ommission that such facilities are sub|ect to
emergency planning under SARA Title HI.
Tidal Marsh: Low, flat marshlands traversed by channels and tidal hollows
and subject to tidal inundation: normally, the only vegetation present are
salt-tolerant bushes and grasses (See- wetlands )
Tolerances: The permissible residue levels for pesticides in raw agricultural
produce and processed foods. Whenever a pesticide is registered tor use on a
food or a feed crop, a tolerance (or exemption from the tolerance requirement)
must be established EPA establishes the tolerance levels, which are enforced
by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture.
Topography: The physical features of a surface area including relative eleva-
tions and the position of natural and man-made features
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A measure of the suspended solids in
wastewater, effluent, or water bodies, determined by using tests for "total
suspended non-filterable solids " (See: suspended solids.)
Toxic: Harmful to living organisms.
Toxic Pollutants: Materials contaminating the environment that cause death,
disease, birth defects in organisms that ingest or absorb them The quantities
and length of exposure necessary to cause these effects, can vary widely.
Toxic Chemical Release Form: Information form required to be submitted by
facilities that manufacture, process, or use (in quantities above a specific
amount) chemicals listed under SARA Title III.
Toxic Cloud: Airborne mass uf gases, vapors, fumes, or aerosols containing
toxic materials
Toxic Substance: A chemical or mixture that may present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment.
Toxicant: A poisonous agent that kills or injures animal or plant life.
Toxicity: The degree of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life
(See: acute, chronic toxicity.)
Toxicology: The science and study of poisons control.
Transformation: The process ot placing new genes into * host cell, thereby
inducing the host cell to exhibit functions encoded by the DNA.
Transpiration: The process by which water vapor is lost to the atmosphere
from living plants The term can also be applied to the quantity of water thus
dissipated.
Trash-to-Energy Plan: A plan for putting waste back to work by burning trash
to produce energy.
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal Facility: Site where a hazardous substance
is treated, stored, or disposed. TSD facilities are regulated by EPA and states
under RCRA.
Trichloroethylene TCE): A stable, low-boiling colorless liquid, toxic by inhala-
tion. TCE is used as a solvent, metal degreasmg agent, and in other industrial
applications.
Trickling Filter A coarse, biological treatment system in which wastewater is
trickled over a bed of stones or other material covered with bacterial growth
The bactena break down the
Trihalomethane (THM): One of a tamily of organic compounds, named as
derivatives of methane THM's are generally the by-product from chlonnation
of drinking water that contains organic material.
Troposphere: The lower atmosphere, the portion ot the atmosphere between
seven and ten miles from the Earth's surface where clouds are tormed.
Trust Fund (CERCLA): A fund set up under the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to help pay for
cleanup uf hazardous wasla sites and tor legal action to force those responsible
for the sites to clean them up
Tundra: A type of ecosystem dominated by lichens, mosses, grasses, and
woody plants Tundra is found at high latitudes (arctic tundra) and higj
altitudes (alpine tundra) Arctic tundra is underlain by permafrost and
usually very wet (See wetlands )
Turbidimeten A device that measures the amount of suspended solids in a
liquid.
Turbidity: 1. Haziness in air caused by the presence of particles and pollut-
ants. 2. A similar cloudy condition in water due to suspended silt or organic
matter.
u
Ultra Clean Coal (UCC): Coal that has been washed, ground into fine parti-
cles, then chemically treated to remove sulfur, ash, silicone, and other sub-
stances, usually bnquetted and coated with a sealant made from coal.
Ultraviolet Rays: Radiation from the sun that can be useful or potentially
harmful UV rays from one part of the spectrum enhance plant life and are
useful in some medical and dental procedures, U V rays from other parts of the
spectrum to which humans are exposed (e g . while getting a sun tan) can
cause skin cancer or other tissue damage The o/one layer in the atmosphere
provides a protective shield that limits the amount of ultraviolet rays that reach
the Earth's surface
Underground Injection Control (UIC): The program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act that regulates the use of wells to pump fluids into the ground
Underground Sources of Drinking Water As defined in the UIC program,
this terms refers to aquifers that are currently being used as a source of
drinking water, and those that are capable of supplying a public water system
They have a total dissolved solids content of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less.
and are not "exempted aquifers." (See exempted aquifer )
Underground Storage Tank: A tank located all or partially under ground that
is designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or chemical solu-
tions.
Unsaturated Zone: The area above the water table where the soil pores are not
fully saturated, although some water may be present.
Uranium: A radioactive heavy metal element used in nuclear reactors and tl
production of nuclear weapons. Term refers usually to U-238, the most abui.
dant radium isotope, although a small percentage of naturally-occurring ura-
nium is U-235.
Urban Runoff: Stormwater from city streets and adjacent domestic or com-
mercial properties that may carry pollutants of vanous kinds into the sewer
systems and/or receiving waters
V
Vaccine: Dead or partial or modified antigen used to induce immunity to
certain infectious diseases.
Vapor The gaseous phase of substances that are liquid or solid at atmospheric
temperature and pressure, e.g , steam.
Vapor Capture System: Any combination of hoods and ventilation system that
captures or contains organic vapors in order that they may be directed to an
abatement or recovery device
Vapor Dispersion: The movement of vapor clouds in air due to wind, gravity
spreading, and mixing
Vapor Plumes: Flue gases that are visible because they contain water droplets
Vaporization: The change of a substance from a liquid to a gas.
Variance: Government permission tor a delay or exception in the application
of a given law, ordinance, or regulation
Vector 1. An organism, often an insect or rodent, that carries disease. 2. An
object that is used to transport genes into a host cell (vectors can be plasmids,
viruses, or other bacteria). A gene is placed in the vector; the vector then
"infects" (he bacterium
Ventilation/Suction: Fhe act ot admitting fresh air into a space in order to
replace stale or contaminated air; achieved by blowing air into the space
Similarly, suction represents the admission of fresh air into an interior space
by lowering the pressure outside of the space, thereby drawing the con-
taminated air outward.
Vinyl Chloride: A chemical compound, used in producing some plastics, thj
is believed to be carcogemc.
Virus: The smallest form of microorganisms capable of causing disease
Volatile: Description of any substance that evaporates readily
19
-------
ilatile Organic Compound (VOC): Any organic compound which partici-
xs in atmospheric photochemical reactions except for those designated by
the EPA Administrator as having negligible photochemical reactivity
Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals: Chemicals, that tend to volatilize or
evaporate from water
Vulnerability Analysis: Assessment of elements in the community that are
susceptible to damage should a release of hazardous materials occur
Vulnerable Zone: An area over which the airborne concentration ol a chem-
ical involved in an accidental release could reach the level of concern
w
Waste: 1. Unwanted materials left over from a manufacturing process 2
Refuse from places of human or animal habitation
Waste Load Allocation: The maximum load of pollutants each discharger ot
waste is allowed to release into a particular waterway Discharge limits are
usually required for each specific water quality criterion being, or expected to
be, violated.
Waste Treatment Stream: The continuous mov ement of waste from generator
to treater and disposer
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility containing a series of tanks, screens, filters
and other processes by which pollutants are removed from water
Wastewaten The spent or used water from individual homes, a commumtv, a
farm, or an industry that contains dissolved or suspended matter
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance: Actions taken after construction to
assure that facilities constructed to treat wastewater will be properlv operated,
maintained, and managed to achieve efficiency levels and prescribed effluent
levels m an optimum manner
Water Pollution: The presence in water of enough harmful or objectionable
material to damage the water's quality
Water Quality Criteria: Specific levels o' water quality which, if reached, are
•petted to render a body of water suitable for its designated use The criteria
• based on specific levels of pollutants that would make the water harmful if
^ed for drinking, swimming, farming, fish production, or industrial proc-
esses.
Water Quality Standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient stan-
dards for water bodies The standards cover the use of the water body and the
water quality criteria which must be met to protect the designated use or uses
Watershed: The land area that drams into a stream
Water Supplier A person who owns or operates a public water sx stem
Water Supply System: The collection, treatment, storage, and distribution ot
potable water from source to consumer
Water Solubility: The maximum concentration of a chemical compound
which can result when it is dissolved in water It a substance is water soluble it
can very readily disperse through the environment
Water Table: The level ol ground water
Well: A bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or a dug hole whine depth is greater
than the largest surface dimension and whose purpose is to roach under-
ground water supplies or oil. or to store or burv fluids below ground
Well Injection: The subsurface emplacement of fluid-, in a well
Well Monitoring: The measurement, bv on-site instruments or labnraton
methods, of the qualitv of water in a well
Well Plug: A watertight and gaslight seal installed in a bore hole or well to
prevent movement of fluids
Wetlands: An area that is regularly saturated bv surface or ground water and
subsequently is characterized by a prevalence ot vegetation that is .id.ipleJ lor
life in saturated soil conditions Examples include swamps, hogs. lens.
marshes, and estuanes
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the protection ot wild amm.ils. within
which hunting and fishing are either prohibited or stnctl\ controlled
Wood-Burning Stove Pollution: Air pollution caused bv emissions ot panicu-
late matter, carbon monoxide, total suspended particiilates. and polvcvcln.
organic matter from wood-burning stoves
Working Level (WL): A unit of measure for documenting exposure to radon
decay products One working level is equal to approximately 21)1) picocunes
per liter
Working Level Month (WLM): A unit of measure ustd to determine cumula-
tive exposure to radon.
X,Y,Z
Xenobiotic: Term for non-naturally occurring man-made substances found in
the environment (i e., synthetic material solvents, plastics )
Zooplankton: Tiny aquatic animals eaten by fish
20
------- |