United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 10
December 1985
I
B
la:
•I
-------
Sunnyvale, Calif., resident Elaine Davidson, shares her comments at a
"toxics town meeting" attended by EPA and other government officials.
EPA and the Community
In carrying out its
responsibilities, KPA affects
nearly every person in
America. This issue of the
EPA Journal explores the
question of how public
understanding and
community involvement c;m
be achieved in environmental
decision-making.
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas begins the issue with
a perspective-setting article
pointing out that citizen
awareness and participation
are the foundation of success
in environmental
accomplishment. The history
of KPA's efforts over the
years to build effective public
participation is reviewed in
another article. The results of
the agency's program to
encourage public input in
Superfund decisions are also
described.
An outside observer views
the agency's public
participation efforts in
another article. An industry
perspective regarding the
community's right to know
about environmental hazards
in manufacturing is
presented. The outcome of
EPA public participation
efforts in {wo communities is
described in articles from
agency regional offices.
In other articles, some
creative responses from
children are featured in a
light-hearted look at the
meaning of the initials E-P-A.
A report on an environmental
problem receiving increasing
attention—indoor air
pollution—is included, and
the recently announced plan
to restore the Chesapeake Bay
is explained. Developments
in converting the hazardous
pesticide EDB into useful
chemicals are reported.
Two regular features in the
Journal—Update and
Appointments—are included. Q
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 10
December 1985
x>EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Manson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Paul A. Schuette, Acting Director. Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Susan Tejada, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability ol
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator ol KI'A
has determined that the publica-
tion of (his periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect EPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., H.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. No per-
mission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
The Challenge of
Community Involvement
by Lee M. Thomas 2
EPA and the Public:
A Long Relationship
by Jack Lewis 3
Community Involvement in
Superfund: The Results
by Daphne Gemmill
and Edwin Berk 7
The View from
Outside EPA
by Dana Duxbury 10
Di-Methyl-Doorknob
and the Right to Know
by Harold f. Corbett 12
Anticipating Fears
from a Dioxin Study
by Nanci L. Sinclair 14
Community Says No
to Incinerator
by Hagan Thompson lii
What Does "EPA" Mean?
Some Little Surprises
by Susan Tejada 1<>
A Growing Concern
with Indoor Air
by Ronald A. Taylor 1»
A Plan to Restore
Chesapeake Bay
by Patricia Bonner 20
Getting Some Good
Out of EDB
by Margherita Pryor 22
Update 23
Appointments at EPA 24
Front cover; A vieu- oflhc loivn ol' Design Credits:
Kiftery, Maine. Photo by (ion Robert Flanagan;
Coibmth, Folio, Inc. Hon l-'umth.
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for the EPA Journal is
$20.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is $25.00 a
year. The price of a single copy of
the EPA Journal is S2.00 in this
country and $2.50 if sent to a for-
eign country, ['rices include mail
costs. Subscriptions to the EPA
Journal as well as to other Federal
Government magazines are hand-
led only by the U.S. Government
Printing Office. Anyone wishing to
subscribe to the EPA Journal
should fill in the form at right and
enclose a check or money order
payable to the Superintendent of
Documents. The requests should
be mailed to: Superintendent of
Documents. GPO. Washington.
D.C. 20402.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Name - First. Last
PLEASE PRINT
Company Name or Additional Address Line
Street Address
City
State
Zip Code
I I Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
The Challenge of
Community Involvement
by Lee M. Thomas
Everybody knows that citizen
awareness and participation are the
bulwark of democracy. Nowhere is this
more certain than in the realm of
environmental management. EPA is on
the firing line in hundreds, if not
thousands, of communities all across
the nation. It is probable that we attract
more intense interest -in the form of
letters, phone calls, and attendance at
local hearings—than any other agency of
the federal government. It's no! hard to
see why.
EPA is a relatively small agency
compared with most in government, but
our impact is profound. The decisions
we make will affect the quality of life in
this country for generations, maybe
centuries, to come. It is essential,
therefore, that we stay in close touch
with the people, keep them informed,
and listen carefully to what they have to
say.
As the head of EPA's hazardous waste
management program for two years
before becoming Administrator, I saw
first-hand how vital it is to ensure
candid two-way communication
between the people and their
government, This is, of course, true for
KPA's air. water, and toxics control
programs as well. But abandoned.
uncontrolled hazardous waste clumps
are uncommonly capable of provoking
public alarm.
Most people weren't aware that these
dumps posed any special problem until
the infamous Love Canal episode
exploded into the headlines in 1978.
But that event was soon followed by the
Valley of the Drums and numerous
others. Congress responded by passing
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, which provided a federal
trust, commonly known as the
Superfund, to identify and clean up all
dump sites presenting a significant
threat to human beings or their
environment.
But where life, health, and economic
survival may be at stake, good
legislative intentions are not enough.
The public demanded to know which
sites would get priority treatment and
bow the cleanup process would work.
(Thomas is /Administrator of EPA.)
We set up a special community
relations program to answer these
questions and to guarantee citizens a
meaningful role. It has helped persuade
people to work with government to
resolve the complex issues surrounding
the cleanup of abandoned dumps.
Citizens who live in the vicinity of
unsightly and dangerous chemical
repositories often want instant remedies.
That expectation is unrealistic.
However, when people understand how
complex the cleanup process is, they are
usually willing to give us their
It is probable that we attract
more intense interest than any
other agency of the federal
government.
cooperation in designing solutions
consistent with good planning, available
technology, and our necessarily limited
resources. They need to know the truth
in order to understand the hazards they
face and what government can and
cannot do to help them.
The first step is to gather information
about each community where an
abandoned hazardous waste dump is
located or where a hazardous spill has
occurred. We then inform the public
about the nature of the hazard, without
seeking either to exaggerate or minimize
it. Next, we hold meetings to explain
what our cleanup strategy will be and
how long it will take. We encourage
people to come forward and comment
on our proposed solution, present new
facts, or raise questions we may have
overlooked. We revise the cleanup plan
as necessary to meet substantive
objections.
We are moving in the same direction
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which authorizes us to
regulate currently operating or planned
hazardous waste disposal facilities. Each
of our 10 regional offices is developing
a program that will encourage citizens
to play an active part in reviewing and
issuing facility permits. Public
participation is essential to successful
siting and community acceptance of
hazardous waste operations. Without it.
we will never overcome the NIMBY
syndrome: "Not In My Back Yard."
This open, cooperative attitude is
definitely paying off. In numerous cases,
Superfund response actions have been
significantly and constructively
modified as a result of public input.
In southwestern Missouri, for
instance, an open approach to citizens'
questions enabled us to demonstrate
high-efficiency thermal destruction of
dioxin-contaminated soils using our
state-of-the-art mobile incinerator. In
Lackawanna County, Pa., the people
persuaded us to upgrade our original
proposal for treatment of a site
contaminated with PCBs by excavating
to a greater depth and down to lesser
concentrations than planned. In
Hamilton, Ohio, in response to
residents' concerns about threats to their
property from airborne contaminants,
we performed additional sampling at
private homes beyond the established
site boundary. This procedure was not
required by law or regulation but won
the support of a broader constituency
and proved that EPA was concerned
and not bound by bureaucratic norms.
Such examples are legion.
In the years ahead, we expect
continued expansion of the Superfund
program, especially as sites currently in
the analytical or feasibility phases move
into design and construction. The
National Contingency Plan requires that
citizens living around Superfund sites
be fully informed of the cleanup
process. I personally have asked all
Assistant Administrators to think about
how to further develop community
relations and public participation
activities as integral parts of their
programs.
The American people clearly want to
safeguard themselves from the avoidable
risks of contamination by pollutants in
all media: land, air, and water. They are
willing to pay for these benefits. We at
EPA intend to merit the confidence they
have placed in us as we move toward
our common goal of a safe, clean, and
healthy environment. We will do
everything we can to elicit their
involvement in all our pollution control
programs. For us, community
participation is no mere abstraction, but
a policy objective we pursue every day,
one that is vital to our continued
success. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA and the Public:
A Long Relationship
by Jack Lewis
U OI71CI! marching for
clean air. ()ver
I he ye.nrs. citizen
involvement furs
lofiist'ti on i:lc(in nil'.
c:lc(iii (voter, uml
toxic: ivfJStrs.
.
\
Community involvement encompasses
all of EPA's efforts to involve; the
public in its decision-making processes.
The process was more wide-ranging
when the agency was first finding its
footing in the early 1970s. In those days,
community involvement was known as
"public participation." The phrase was
appropriate because a broad range of the
citizenry nationwide was up in arms
over air and water pollution.
Today grass roots agitation is more
likely to occur in individual
communities alarmed over isolated
problems like hazardous waste dumps.
But in some ways, community
involvement as practiced today is more
challenging than the public
(Le.ivis is Assistant Editor of the KPA
Journal).
participation of the 1970s,
Environmental problems have grown
more complex over the past 15 years,
and citizen awareness has had to
become much more sophisticated just to
keep up.
Fifteen years ago, it was fairly typical
for environmental concern to take an
emotional and rather diffuse form. In
1970, for example, a group of irate
housewives in Missoula, Mont.,
organized "Gals Against Smog and
Pollution." They then proceeded to
picket the local paper mill with signs
screaming such messages as "Pollution
Stinks" and "Emphysema Kills."
In 1985, the environmental activist is
far less likely to be on the street than in
conference with consulting attorneys
and engineers. Citizens who cannot
afford expert help are finding there is
no alternative to learning the skills
themselves, and that is far from easy
when even scientists disagree over the
relative health effects of tiny doses of
obscure chemicals. Some activists are
turning to a new book called The Health
Detective's Handbook (Johns Hopkins,
1985) for a crash course in statistical
sampling and chi square analysis.
EPA, like the American public, has
been hard-pressed to keep up with the
unfolding panoply of environmental
problems—from the highly visible
pollution of the early 1970s to the more
insidious perils of toxic waste in the
1980s. In part because of the
In 1985, the environmental
activist is far less likely to be
on the street than in
conference with consulting
attorneys and engineers.
idiosyncrasies of its legislative mandate,
in part for other reasons, the agency has
been uneven in its support of the public
participation process. But compared to
other parts of the federal government,
EPA can be said to have public
participation in its blood.
The very existence of the agency owes
a great deal to citizen involvement.
President Nixon acknowledged the
growing wave of environmental protest
in May 1969 when he included a
Citizens' Advisory Committee in his
newly formed Environmental Quality
Council. In all likelihood, he would not
have approved the formation of EPA
had not 20 million Americans made
their feelings known on Earth Day in
1970.
Since its founding in December 1970,
EPA has been given the task of
implementing a wide range of
environmental statutes. Many of these
statutes owe their very existence, to
years of citizen lobbying, so it is no
surprise that some should specifically
mandate "public participation." The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
DECEMBER 1985
-------
1972 (later known as the Clean Water
Act), the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1974, and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 all contain
language requiring EPA to involve the
public in their implementation.
The philosophy behind public
participation found expression in
Section 101 (e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972: "A high
degree of informed public participation
in the control process is essential to the
accomplishment of the objectives we
seek—a restored and protected natural
environment." In what way essential?
Legislators—inspired by the
dedication of clean air activists in the
so-called "Breathers' Lobby"—envisioned
the public as the conscience of EPA.
Their hope was that concerned citizens,
both individually and in groups, would
monitor EPA and ensure that the agency
actually did its job.
It was clear from the outset that the
public could not put persistent and
informed pressure on EPA without a
steady flow of information and guidance
from the agency. Meeting that need has
been the purpose of EPA's public
participation programs. Their mission is
threefold:
• To keep the public informed of
important developments in EPA's
program areas.
• To provide technical information and,
if necessary, translate that information
into plain English.
• To ensure that the agency takes
community viewpoints into account in
implementing these programs.
The public participation "hotspots" in
the agency have changed as EPA has
matured. In the early 1970s, the air
programs required intense public
liaison. Americans feared for something
very precious: their cars. From the mid
to late 1970s, EPA focused its public
participation efforts on the water
programs. In the 1980s, the public
participation pendulum swung back to
an extremely controversial program area:
Superfund and toxic waste.
With the changes in program
emphasis have come some changes in
the techniques of community
involvement practiced by the agency.
There has also been an attempt over the
years to formulate these techniques in
handbooks and regulations.
EPA's earliest public: participation
efforts were in the area of air pollution.
EPA drew personnel and ideas for this
initiative from the National Air
Pollution Control Administration
(NAPCA), which prior to 1970 handled
air pollution as part of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare.
NAPCA played an active role in
sponsoring the "Breathers' Lobby" of the
late 1960s. NAPCA's Community
Support Program made grants to
non-profit institutions such as the
American Lung Association and the
Conservation Foundation, which in turn
disseminated funds to citizen groups.
Community relations is the
indispensable bridge between
the agency and a public which
still holds the final veto power
in the American political
system.
EPA made its continuation of these
NAPCA grants its first major public
participation initiative. Unlike NAPCA,
EPA awarded some of its grants directly
to citizen groups with air quality
concerns. The Metropolitan Washington
Coalition for Clean Air, the Better Air
Coalition of Baltimore, and the Croup
Against Smog and Pollution of
Pittsburgh were among the better known
recipients. These groups wanted to
influence the State Implementation
Plans required of their states under the
Clean Air Act. They did so with a
battery of tools ranging from newsletters
and hotlines to demonstrations and
lawsuits.
The original target of the State
Implementation Plans was the pollution
generated by smokestack industries. In
1972, however, attention turned to the
private automobile. EPA proposed 19
"transportation control measures" ior
consideration at the state level. These
included carpooling, mass transit, fringe
parking, and traffic flow improvement.
EPA awarded grants to organizations
such as the League of Women Voters to
raise awareness of these measures at the
local level. Through such grants, the
agency fostered the formation of citizen
advisory groups to help EPA and the
states keep in touch with the views of
various public constituencies: business,
labor, and environmentalists.
Once it became clear that the Clean
Air Act would impinge directly on the
everyday life of America's drivers,
public interest was not hard to generate.
EPA Administrator William
Ruckelshaus generated banner headlines
when he stunned Los Angeles with a
list of draconian reforms he wanted that
car-centered metropolis to adopt. Public
opposition, in Los Angeles and
elsewhere, led to significant
modifications in the control measures
actually adopted. But EPA's public
information drive, helped in no small
part by soaring gasoline prices, did
succeed in raising awareness that the
car was a pollution culprit.
The automobile control measures
campaign taught EPA four major
lessons:
• No matter what the laws say, they
won't work if they lack public support
or are based on unreasonable
expectations.
• In the long run, federal environmental
objectives and programs must have the
support and understanding of top state
and local officials if they are to succeed.
• Broad polling data is usually an
insufficient and often a dangerous
indicator upon which to base specific
measures or programs. Restrictions
people endorse in theory to protect the
environment may be soundly rejected
by them when put into practice.
• Governments and the public
essentially need one another to fashion
workable environmental protection
programs. Public participation programs
at all levels of government have an
excellent track record of producing
reasonable public consensus and
improved programs.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The agency's experience with the air
program was put to valuable use in the
mid-1970s when work began on the
Water Quality Management Plans
authorized under Section 208 of the
Clean Water Act. President Nixon had
impounded 208 funding. That meant
that individual sewage treatment
projects were approved under the
Construction Grants Program without
prior formulation of the
multi-jurisdictional plans required by
law. Not only were the plans behind
schedule, but an institutional
assessment in 1975 criticized EPA's
water programs for making no more
than a "minimal" effort at public;
participation.
As a public participation project, 208
planning was not nearly as volatile as
the air issue had been. The public:
supported construction of sewage
treatment plants, and the formulation of
management plans was just that—a
managerial issue not calculated, in most
cases, to hit close to home, Other issues,
such as land and energy use, were more
charismatic than water in the mid-
1970s.
Thus, from the public's point of view,
EPA's preoccupation with 208 planning
was less than thrilling. But the agency
learned some valuable lessons from the
208 program. Foremost among them
were:
• The importance of early involvement
as a means of mitigating conflict. An
ongoing exchange of views and
information works much better than a
last-minute quest for consensus.
• The value of small meetings for the
exchange of views and information.
Large public hearings "involve" citizens
in environmental decision-making, but
frequently in a way that leads to
confusion and controversy.
EPA's experience with the 208
program formed the nucleus of its later
public participation regulations.
Specifically, it generated much of the
expertise and many of the methods now
Today the public dcmum/s to br
of" (he environmental decision-making
process.
in use in the Superfund and RCRA
community relations programs. When
public participation regulations were
developed for the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the Clean Water Act, they were
coupled with those for RCRA. The joint
regulations became final on February
16, 1979.
The regulations spoke of the need for
"open processes of government and
efforts to promote public awareness in
the course of making decisions." The
specifics of public participation strategy
were left to the individual programs, but
the regulations did call for:
• The formation of citizen advisory
groups to represent "an informed core
group of citizens."
• The drafting of "responsiveness
summaries . . . intended to appear
immediately after specific: decision
points to indicate briefly to the public
how decision-makers responded to their
participation."
• The training of agency personnel as
preparation for public participation
work.
Budget cutting during the early years
of the Reagan Administration caused a
temporary retrenchment in public
participation programs. In May 1983,
when William D. Ruckelshaus returned
to the agency, public participation once
again became a priority item. The new
Administrator promised an open door
policy at the agency. To dispel public
distrust, he vowed to work in a
"fishbowl."
Ruckelshaus named EPA's first
Assistant Administrator for External
Affairs to ensure that the various EPA
program offices would speak to the
public with one voice. To strengthen
communication skills, EPA also
sponsored public participation training
in all its regions early in 1984.
Two new concepts have become
integral to the new task of
communicating risk to the public in the
1980s: risk assessment and risk
management. Risk assessment is the
scientific analysis of the risk a
substance poses to human health and
the environment. Risk management is
DECEMBER 1985
-------
the managerial decision based on an
evaluation of the social and economic
implications any given level of
protection against that risk will have.
Communicating the subtleties of risk
assessment and risk management to
citizens intent on zero risk is a very
risky business in and of itself. To see
how the concepts of risk assessment and
risk management can be applied at the
local level, the EPA headquarters Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and
Region 9 are co-sponsoring an Integrated
Environmental Management Project in
San Jose, Calif. San Jose, located in the
heart of Silicon Valley, thrives on high-
tech industries that use a wide variety
of solvents. Many of these have been
stored in underground tanks that are
now leaking and contaminating vital
sources of ground water.
The San Jose case is a true test of
community involvement because it does
not involve highly visible pollution of
the belching smokestack variety.
Instead, the residents of San Jose must
try to weigh the effects of parts per
billion of esoteric solvents on invisible
aquifers. To facilitate citizen
understanding of these issues, the
project managers have set up a Public
Advisory Committee that includes
representatives from industry, academia,
state and local government, and
environmental organizations. This
committee meets once a month with
EPA Region 9 and also sponsors "toxics
town meetings" open to the general
public.
Another EPA initiative strongly rooted
in public participation is negotiated
rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking
builds on one of the key insights culled
from 208 water planning: reduce
antagonism by beginning public
participation as soon as possible. The
history of EPA is littered with lawsuits;
in fact, no fewer than 80 percent of all
EPA regulations are challenged in court,
by industry or by citizen groups. It is
hoped that this costly and
time-consuming process can be avoided
by involving interested parties in the
rulemaking process. Early trials of
negotiated rulemaking have been very
promising.
By far the biggest public participation
efforts now under way at EPA are the
community relations programs of
Superfund and RCRA in the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER). The staff of these programs,
A country that got its start
dumping tea into Boston
Harbor is not likely to take
any government edict lying
down.
which have been growing steadily for
several years, now totals nine people at
EPA headquarters plus 50 in the
agency's 10 regions.
It was the agitation of citizens near
Love Canal in Niagara Falls, N.Y., that
first brought the problem of hazardous
waste to national awareness in the late
1970s. Even though the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability "Superfund" Act of 1980
contains no public participation
provisions, the agency has found it
imperative to develop and gradually
expand a Superfund Community
Relations Program.
Otherwise, it would have been all too
easy for relations between EPA and
communities affected by Superfund
cleanups to degenerate into conflict. As
explained elsewhere in this issue (see
next page), citizens affected by Superfund
cleanups need all the reassurance they
can get when their security is suddenly
threatened on so many different fronts.
The potential for conflict also exists
when EPA grants RCRA permits for new
or existing hazardous waste sites. Here
the jurisdictional problems become
particularly complex: state and local
authorities control the actual siting of
such facilities while EPA sets the
standards for their operation. The "Not
In My Backyard" syndrome is
something RCRA community relations
staff has to deal with even though EPA
is not directly responsible for putting
hazardous waste facilities near anyone's
backyard.
By developing community relations
plans specific to each unique case, the
hazardous waste community relations
staff tries to avoid pitfalls inherent in
excessively formal and rigid approaches
to public participation. Responsiveness
to local needs is heightened by the use
of a team concept for site inspections.
Technical and legal staff work closely
with communications staff at every
stage in the inspection process.
EPA's efforts over the years to involve
the public in its decision-making speak
well of the strength of participatory
democracy. It is not easy for the average
citizen to understand the highly
technical reasoning of the scientists and
engineers who formulate so many of
EPA's policies with respect to air, water,
toxic chemicals, and hazardous waste.
But a country that got its start dumping
tea into Boston Harbor is not likely to
take any government edict lying down.
American citizens want to have their
say in the way programs affecting their
lives are implemented, and EPA
managers want to build a consensus for
realistic enforcement of sometimes
unrealistic laws. Community relations is
the indispensable bridge between the
agency and a public: which—even more
than Congress and the President—still
holds the final veto power in the
American political system, a
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Community Involvement in
Superfund: The Results
by Daphne Gemmill and Edwin Berk
The local community's involvement
in Superfund actions has often had
striking consequences. For example, in
May 1983, EPA recommended the
installation of a new water supply at the
New Brighton/Arden Hills site in
Minnesota where organic chemicals had
contaminated two wells used by the city
for its water supply. Citizens objected to
EPA's recommended alternative because
they expected taste and odor problems
from the new water supply. Both the
New Brighton water department and the
city council agreed. The council asked
for treatment of the wells by granular
activated carbon. After careful
consideration, EPA changed its
recommendation to the alternative
preferred by the community.
EPA encourages this kind of input
from local residents because, as in this
is Superfimd (,'oiiimiiriity
Relations Coordinator for h'PA,
-------
expenses, and property values -all
matters of self-interest—are invariably
the major issues, and they are never
treated dispassionately.
Whatever their backgrounds, people
who become involved are usually able
to educate themselves rapidly and deal
with hazardous waste issues in a
sophisticated manner.
There is a great deal of variability,
however, in the amount of community
involvement with hazardous waste sites
and government responses. Some of the
most threatening sites have aroused
only minimal interest in the local
community. To effectively plan a
community involvement program, EPA
must understand the causes of local
opposition to government response
plans.
Public involvement in
hazardous waste problems is
almost always a grass roots
phenomenon.
Often concern over possible effects on
human health or property values does
not, in itself, lead to extensive citizen
involvement in hazardous waste
problems. A high level of community
involvement in a hazardous waste
problem and the development of
opposition to government plans are
usually linked to the way citizens
believe they have been treated by the
government. If citizens hear conflicting
stories about the severity of the health
threat at a site, if they believe
information is being withheld, or if they
do not see any sign of progress in
responding to their problems, they may
become distrustful of everything the
government says or does.
The combination of these factors
seems to have been part of the impetus
for substantial citizen involvement at
the Stringfellow Acid Pits Site in
Riverside, Calif., a site that has received
considerable national media attention
over the years. Located in hills
overlooking the residential community
of Glen Avon, the Stringfellow site is a
series of artificial ponds once used for
hazardous waste treatment and disposal.
Although the site was voluntarily closed
in 1972 after heavy rains caused runoff
into Glen Avon, its presence has
remained a concern to local residents.
This concern has resulted in the
formation of two citizens' groups
dedicated to the goal of complete
removal of wastes from the Stringfellow
site. The groups' high level of visibility
at the site has been directly related to
their admitted lack of trust in the
government agencies responsible for the
remedial action at Stringfellow. This
dissatisfaction was most obvious in the
citizens' request for a technical adviser
in 1983 to help them understand—and
evaluate—the studies conducted by EPA
and the state.
In contrast to the situation at
Stringfellow, where citizens perceived
the government's attention to their
needs to be inadequate and
consequently took steps on their own to
press for action, a tradition of
government responsiveness in an area
may incline citizens to believe that any
problems are under control and that
there is no need for involvement on
their part. The same factors also
influence attitudes towards private
firms.
In recognition of such public
concerns, the Superfund community
relations program has the following
objectives:
• To provide citizens and local officials
with prompt and accurate information
about environmental problems and
government response plans.
• To ensure that citizens are aware of
the limits of the Superfund program and
do not form unrealistic expectations.
• To bring public concerns to the
attention of government decision-makers
so that these concerns may be
considered in developing response
plans.
• To enable the community to comment
upon plans and influence decisions.
• To ensure early and frequent
opportunities for public involvement in
government decision-making.
Thus, the program aims at two-way
communication between government
and citizens. By enabling response plans
to be tailored to local needs, the
community relations program should
increase the likelihood that Superfund
response actions will meet with public
understanding and acceptance, reducing
delays caused by public opposition, and
thereby benefiting the overall quality of
the Superfund response program.
Because the best ways to provide
information to the public, and to obtain
citizen opinion, depend upon the
particular circumstances of the
community, few specific; activities are
required for a community relations
program at a Superfund site. What
works well at one site might not work
elsewhere. Each community relations
effort, therefore, is individually planned
on the basis of on-site discussions with
local citizens and officials.
In general, however, the Superfund
community relations program
emphasizes small-scale, informal
activities. For example, when important
developments occur, EPA's regional
offices often establish information
centers and frequently hold "open
houses" in motel suites or trailers near
sites. Staff are stationed in the area for
several days, during well-publicized
hours, to answer questions. The
Superfund community relations
program stresses the need for
face-to-face discussions with citizens
and local officials, not only to keep them
informed and to solicit their input, but
also to help in planning community
relations activities.
The mainstay of traditional public
participation requirements—the large
formal public; meeting—is used in
Superfund, but sole reliance on large
formal meetings is discouraged because
these meetings may easily become mere
opportunities for unproductive oratory
when issues as highly emotional as
hazardous wastes are under discussion.
It is also important not to rely totally on
intermediaries such as newspapers and
television to inform citizens of
test results and other information that
has an effect on the community health
and welfare.
Community interest in Superfund will
intensify in coming years, in part
because more long-term remedial
actions will be moving from the study
stage to the design and construction
stages. This increased interest will
challenge the program in several ways.
• Experience shows that citizen
involvement often peaks when a
long-term cleanup or construction
proposal is announced.
• Cleanups will cause potential
hazards—in addition to
inconveniences—for residents and
businesses.
• Not only states, but also other federal
agencies—the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Centers for Disease Control—will
have expanded roles, making it difficult
to ensure that the government "speaks
with one voice."
To meet these challenges, the
Superfund community relations
program will continue to emphasize
public participation in government
decision-making. There will also be
EPA JOURNAL
-------
R
special attention to devising new
approaches to resolving any conflicts
that do arise between government and
citizens. In addition, EPA will seek to
develop better methods to communicate
to citizens the health risks associated
with hazardous waste sites.
The Results of Citizen Input for
Superfund Responses
People who invest time and energy in a
community relations program hope to
see results. Most important, they want
to know that EPA's stated objective of
soliciting public input to decisions will
have consequences for those decisions.
The public wants to know that its
comments were not only solicited, but
were heard and acted upon. EPA staff
responsible for soliciting public
comments and maintaining
communication want to know that their
efforts have resulted in better Superfund
actions.
Have citizen inputs provided through
the agency's community relations
efforts, then, made a difference for
Superfund responses?
The answer is clearly yes. Almost
every regional office can cite one or two
Superfund actions that were changed as
a result of citizen input. The New
Brighton example is representative, but
a look at two additional sites may prove
informative. At the first site, as at New
Brighton, EPA selected a different
remedial alternative in response to
citizen concern. At the second site, the
agency modified its recommended
remedial alternative as a result of public
involvement.
At the OMC site bordering on Lake
Michigan in Waukegan Harbor, 111., EPA
began a remedial investigation and
feasibility studv because of excessive
levels of PCB contamination in the
harbor. At a public meeting in March
1984, EPA introduced its proposed
action. Over the three-week public
comment period, citizens,
environmental groups, and affected
businesses expressed overwhelming
disapproval of the proposed action,
particularly through mail and telephone
campaigns. The proposed action, they
objected, would drastically reduce the
use of the lake shore and harm the
town's economy.
In response, EPA devised an
alternative that was basically a mixture
of two previously suggested plans. This
alternative preserved the use of the:
harbor for private and commercial
purposes. The final decision on the
OMC hazardous waste site was
acceptable to Waukegan Harbor
residents and businesses.
EPA conducted a remedial
investigation and feasibility study at the
Lehigh Electric site in Old Forge, Pa,,
after indiscriminate handling and
disposal of fluid containing PCBs led to
soil contamination at the site. At a
public meeting in January 1983, six
remedial alternatives were discussed.
During the public comment period that
followed, EPA received letters and
petitions from the community and
elected officials urging implementation
of the most expensive alternative, which
called for removal of PCB-contaminated
soil to 10 parts pur million (ppin)
followed by installation of a cap over
the site.
Residents insisted that excavation to
the 10 ppm level would lower future
risks to the community. EPA maintained
that this alternative was neither
cost-effective nor necessary,
recommending instead that only soil
contaminated above the level of 50 ppm
be removed.
The Le)u"s/i h'Jectrir site m Lackavvanna
County. Pa. .As (i result of rifixen
involvement. El'A upgraded its proposal
for treatment of PC.'H contamination
here,
As a result of public comment, EPA
was persuaded to modify the
recommended alternative to allow
excavating soil to a PCB concentration
below 50 ppm where it was
cost-effective. The estimated capital cost
of the changes made because of the
compromise alternative was over
$100,000 more than EPA's initial
proposal but over $1 million less than
the citizens' suggested alternative.
In each of the above examples, local
public preferences led to a substantial
revision of the proposed response. Some
EPA regional staff, however, argue that
there should be very few, if any, visible
changes in responses as outcomes of
public involvement, if a community
relations program is operating
effectively. They explain that when the
lines of communication between EPA
and the community have remained open
from the start, highly noticeable
modifications are unlikely because
planning can be continuously
responsive to community needs.
Consequently, EPA's recommendations
will never be a surprise to citizens, and
there will be little need for local
citizens to urge mid-course changes in
response plans. An effective community
relations program will result in a
Superfund response that meets the
needs of the local community.
"Success" in this program is very
difficult to measure. The government
and citizens may have good relations
even without a good community
relations program. Alternatively,
relations between citizens and the
government may break down even with
the best community relations program.
Often the only thing a community wants
is relief from a hazardous waste
problem, which the finest community
relations program, by itself, can never
provide.
The real mark of a successful
community relations program, we
suggest, is that community relations
does not itself become an issue. There is
no reason why people distressed over a
hazardous waste problem should
become further distressed because they
cannot get information from the
government and cannot voice their
concerns. The prevention of such
unnecessary problems may be the best
indication of success in a community
relations program, n
DECEMBER 1985
-------
The View from
Outside EPA
by Dana Duxbury
Ever since George Washington set up
our nation's first citizen advisory
committee to seek solutions to the
problem popularly called the "Whiskey
Rebellion," government leaders have
sought public: advice. James Madison
emphasized the need for public:
information when he wrote, "A popular
government without popular
information, or the means of acquiring
it, is but a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy: or perhaps both."
You may remember that the word
"democracy" is derived from the Greek
and defined as "people rule." But who
are the people, and how much should
they rule? These fundamental questions
are still being asked.
As democracy has evolved, more;
people have been granted the right to
rule. Slavery was abolished relatively
recently in history. Women were given
the right to vote just 64 years ago. At the
turn of the century, many states
established initiatives and referendums,
which broadened the concept of "people
rule." Then in the 1970s, public
participation in environmental programs
was mandated by Congress. Laws were
enacted that required EPA to provide
and assist in public participation
activities.
It is important to look back on the
1970s. We must remember that citizens
launched the environmental movement.
It was, and is, a truly leaderless,
spontaneous movement. But where are
we today?
A group of inner-city residents
marched recently into one of EFA's
regional offices carrying 35 buckets of
soil. Their actions dramatized a deep
concern about lead-contaminated soils
in the urban environment. They feared
that their health and that of their
children were being affected by lead.
These; citizens demanded EPA action.
They perceived a serious problem.
Across the country, other groups of
is rurn'iil/y (lie Wustr
SprridJj'st /or (lie I.ru^iic of U'niiH'ii
Voters of Massachusetts. Slic also lins
bc
-------
educational material and to pay for the
requisite numbers of employees and
their administrative expenses.
And lastly, the circumstances today
are serious enough that such a new
public involvement effort cannot be
conducted just at the grass roots level.
Public involvement initiatives must
include programs to deal with concerns
at the national, state, and local levels
simultaneously. Citizens need to know
that the agency cares, that it is willing
to share information and to include
them in the process. If the agency
focuses its efforts on only one level at a
time, the trickling up or trickling down
process will be too slow or ineffective.
We must build a strong new
foundation of public participation, not
forgetting the power of public opinion.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
I know no depository o) the ultimate
power of the society but the people
themselves, and if we. think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their
control with wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion.
The stuck of Tacoma'.s arsenic sme.'llrr
Joorns in the' background as retired
smelter workers Hichrird rilumVh. left.
tmd John V. Susan discuss emissions
from the plant, in I'JS.'i, Kl'A asked the
Tacoma community for input in setting
arsenic emission levels for (he smeller.
How to "inform their discretion" is
what public participation is all about.
Public participation is not an exact
science. It is an interactive process. It is
more than establishing an advisory
committee, writing a pamphlet, issuing
a news release, conducting a public
hearing, or attending a conference, In its
broadest sense it is "governance." In its
simplest sense it is public service.
There are easy ways for citizens to
participate: by voting, serving on juries,
or paying taxes. But public participation
in the activities of the executive branch
of government, as it implements laws, is
very complex, very new, and very
difficult.
The public needs to know that
the agency cares.
Public participation is needed in
environmental programs. It is an
essential element to achieve change.
And change is the basis for
environmental laws and regulations. As
a result of mandated change we no
longer consider it acceptable for rivers,
lakes, and streams to be the depository
of wastes. It is no longer acceptable for
the ambient air to be polluted by
smokestacks and car exhausts. And it is
no longer acceptable for land or ground
water to be contaminated by toxic
chemical wastes.
The public demands to be included.
It wants to be part of the solution; not
part of the problem. 1 feel EPA cannot
succeed in protecting public health and
the environment without educating and
involving the public. I encourage the
agency to reach out and bring us all into
the process today. Too little too late will
doom us to failure, u
DECEMBER 198b
11
-------
Di-Methyl-Doorknob
and the Right to Know
by Harold J. Corbett
Di-methyi-doorknob. A new chemical
for home builders? No. It's a term
often used by chemical industry and
government officials to stand for
chemicals generally. Rut there is an
aspect to the term that makes it
particularly appropriate as an
introduction to discussing a
community's right to know about the
hazards and safety precautions of
chemical manufacturing.
Di-methyl-doorknob hints at the
strange sound and unpronounceable
nature of some chemical names. And it
is this strangeness that contributes to
the concern many people have about the
safety of certain chemicals, their health
To maintain public acceptance
of oar operations, we will
have to continue being visible,
informative, and responsible
companies in our towns.
effects, and whether the chemical
industry is taking these factors into
account as it goes about its daily
business.
Of course, much more than a vague
concern about the language of chemistry
motivates the public's currently intense
interest in the safety of chemical
manufacturing. The tragic gas leak at
Bhopal, India, and much less serious
leaks last summer in West Virginia are
causing chemical industry managers,
labor officials, regulators, legislators,
citizen groups, and just about everyone
else to ponder how to satisfy the
public's right to know about chemical
hazards and how to allow their
participation in developing emergency
response plans.
Bhopal did not make the chemical
industry a newcomer on the issue of
community right to know. For years,
chemical plants that are a major
presence in their communities have
been providing to local fire, police, and
emergency preparedness officials
|( AH licit is Senior Vice President lor
Environment, Facilities, mid Materials
dl the MonsunJo (,'n.)
12
information on chemicals that could
pose a sudden health threat to the
populace. Plant and local officials have
met to coordinate emergency response
actions and occasionally have trained
together in mock chemical disasters.
In addition, information developed by
chemical companies to educate their
employees on the hazards and safety
precautions for specific chemicals often
reached a broader audience: commercial
customers and others directly involved
with chemicals. Soon after Bhopal, this
kind of information became much more
broadly available. A number of firms
decided to publicly release "material
safety data sheets" for high-hazard
chemicals. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) rules
mandate these sheets for chemical
workers. The sheets typically are three
to four pages long and describe a
chemical's physical properties, its
health effects, safety precautions, and
initial response steps for a spill or leak.
The Bhopal disaster also caused a
number of firms to consider public
outreach efforts that extend well beyond
the release of data sheets. Monsanto, for
example, instituted an "open gates
policy" that encourages citizen groups,
the news media, and other organizations
to tour our plants and discuss potential
hazards and safety systems.
No thoughtful people in the chemical
industry regard this greater community
involvement as a "one-shot" effort. We
know that to maintain public
acceptance of our operations we will
have to continue being visible,
informative, and responsible companies
in our towns.
As a result, the industry's principal
trade organization, the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA), is
enlisting member companies in two
major new community information and
emergency response programs. These
are called the Community Awareness
and Emergency Response (CAER) effort
and the National Chemical Response
and Information Center (NCR1C). The
July/August issue of the EPA Journal
covered these innovative programs in
some detail, so I'll simply summarize
them.
CAER calls on chemical plant
managers to become the catalysts in
their cities and towns for integrating
plant and community emergency
response plans. NCRIC supplements the
industry's long-standing emergency
response telephone service,
CHEMTREC, with "on scene" experts,
training materials for local fire and
police officials, and a toll-free telephone
referral service for citizens to obtain
information on chemical products.
These CM A programs, coupled with
the public outreach efforts of individual
companies, are making available more
information on chemical hazards and
safety measures than occurred before.
These programs are galvanizing cities
and towns into planning for a variety of
emergencies, including natural disasters,
mishaps at oil and gas facilities, and
transportation accidents involving toxic
substances. They reflect a good faith
effort to meet the community's right to
know.
Nonetheless, numerous legislative
proposals at the federal and state levels
are seeking more detailed information
on emissions figures, materials balances.
storage quantities and locations, and
still more fact sheets on chemical
properties and hazards. Much of this
information appears to be sought
without an opportunity for public
comment on its usefulness for public
health protection.
As I've indicated, the chemical
industry supports public disclosure of
information on the potential hazards of
our raw materials and products. We also
think that certain principles ought to
guide further action in this area so that
the public gets wheat, not chaff, in
terms of usable information and so that
the industry is not inundated in new,
perhaps conflicting paperwork
requirements that are expensive to meet
but yield no measurable public safety
benefit.
I'd like to discuss some of these
principles:
1. Existing requirements for reporting
chemical accidents and providing
emergency response should be
recognized. For example, the Superfund
law already requires reports to EPA on
releases of hazardous materials. In
addition, numerous federal agencies,
including EPA and the Department of
Transportation, have prescribed roles to
play in local emergency preparedness
related to chemical accidents. Care must
EPA JOURNAL
-------
be taken to ensure that any new fiats do
not duplicate or conflict with those
already on the books.
2. Information should be tailored to the
needs of specific: groups. For example.
those living near chemical plants should
be informed about potential dangers,
health effects, and community
involvement with emergency response
plans. City officials and emergency
responders will need more detailed
information on quantities of high-hazard
substances, storage locations, and
specific manufacturing practices.
Thought must be given to filling
discrete information gaps for specific
audiences. The danger of swamping
people with superfluous information is
that they will despair of plowing
through or absorbing any of it. In
DECEMBER 1985
/\[ the scene of cm (iccjiJivil. ivorkrrs
transli-r htctil police anil fire
respond to chcnu'cul r
ff.'tmts
attempting to meet dozens of different
fact sheet, labeling, and reporting
requirements. To the extent that certain
parts of the country have additional
information needs, chemical makers are
ready to meet these needs on a
case-by-case basis. We don't have to be
locally legislated into these kinds of
actions.
4. The issue of immediate,
life-threatening harm from accidental
releases should not be confused with
the issue of whether low-level emissions
may cause chronic health harm. The
information and protective measures
needed to safeguard the public from
sudden releases of high-hazard
substances are fundamentally different
from those needed for substances that
may pose a long-term health threat.
Legislative proposals that lump these
two issues together will yield programs
that fail to adequately address either of
them. As I've indicated, much is now
being done voluntarily to prevent
Bhopal-type accidents, and EPA is
developing a sensible, effective
approach to the issue of chronically
hazardous chemical emissions. These
efforts should be allowed to continue
down their separate tracks.
A final element that I hope will not be
lost in nationwide efforts to strengthen
the safety of chemical manufacturing
and to better inform the public, i.s the
recognition that chemical manufacturers
do not handle certain highly toxic
materials to be adventurous. We handle
them to make a living by providing
beneficial products, such as medicines,
agricultural chemicals, fibers, and
plastics. Obviously, this is no excuse for
reckless conduct on our part, nor do we
indulge in it, as demonstrated by our
generally superb safety record.
The industry's commitment to
working with citizens, regulators, and
legislators in meeting a community's
right to know is genuine and
substantive. We ask that, as we join
them in this work, all of us keep in
mind the broader purpose and
contributions of the chemical
industry, n
13
-------
Anticipating Fears
from a Dioxin Study
by Nanci L. Sinclair
Bicycle enthusiasts, joggers, and
business people in downtown
Alexandria, Va., who want a quiet hour
away from the hectic demands of the
day often go to Oronoco Park. The park
is a grassy area along the Potomac River
directly opposite new luxury
townhouses and a new four-story office
building.
Hut what kinds of fears could have
arisen in the minds of townhouse
residents or office workers if they
looked out at the park and Oronoco Bay
and saw figures in white coveralls and
wearing respirators digging in the soil
and the shoreline mud? And what if the
observer had read in the morning paper
that those figures were looking for
dioxin? Would they think about Times
Beach or l.ove Canal? Would they
worry, "My property will lose its
value. . .I'll have to move. . .what have 1
been exposed to?"
This kind of reaction is what EPA
Region 3 wanted to prevent when plans
were made to use Oronoco Park as one
of the agency's National Dioxin Study
sites. The location was selected because
the townhouses, office building, and
riverside park were on land where the
R.H. Bogie Co. pesticide manufacturing
plant once stood. The aim of the study,
which began in 1984 and was to be
completed in 1985, was to examine
such sites lo find out more about the
nature and extent of dioxin
contamination.
To ward off potential fears on the part
of the city of Alexandria and the
residents living by the park, the Region
3 dioxin coordinator and a community
relations specialist went to Alexandria
before the work at the Bogle site began.
They explained the purpose of the study
to local officials and discussed the city's
concerns about how people's fears of
dioxin, coupled with the park's high
visibility and the impact of media
publicity, could create problems for the
community. The EPA team decided that
an advance informational meeting with
nearby homeowners and the office
building management could ease the
fSincJuir is Sirpcrfimd comrnuriilr
relations specialist for KP/\ Men/on :i.|
ni .A/e.Miiidruj. Yd..
nt-tir flic Polomuc
Hivrr. ivorkers drill
lor soil samples us
purl of FPA's
Dioxin
Study.
fears. It was also decided that the press
should be officially informed at the
same time.
During the meeting, residents said
they did understand the sampling in
their neighborhood would be part of a
national study, and that Alexandria was
not another potential Love Canal or
Times Beach. Nevertheless, they were
concerned that news media reports
should be accurate so that the value of
their homes would not be needlessly
hurt. They agreed with the EPA staff
that informing them and the press
together before the work started would
reduce the chance of inaccurate stories.
As part of EPA's response to these
concerns, a community relations
specialist was at the park during all
three days of sampling. Reporters, TV
crews, and curious onlookers started
coming to the site at 6:30 each morning.
People gathered at the park until early
evening to ask questions.
Passing motorists pulled over to the
curb to watch the white-suited sampling
crew dig into the muddy shore of the
bay. One woman, walking a Labrador
Retriever, expressed concern because
her dog often swam in the bay. She, like
all the other onlookers, was told about
the study and its purpose. All were
relieved to hear that the sampling was
being done as part of a broad national
James C. Come
research project and not because EPA
believed their neighborhood had a
serious dioxin problem.
This was confirmed when the
sampling results from the Bogle site
came in. Alexandria officials and the
news media were notified, as were
interested residents and the office
building management. The results of the
soil analysis were negative for dioxin,
but positive for arsenic (at levels later
determined by the Centers for Disease
Control to be non-hazardous). Residents
and officials who had been
apprehensive about the selection of the
Alexandria site for the National Dioxin
Study were relieved by the results.
Many agreed with EPA that it is better
to know now whether a dioxin problem
exists than to find it out years later
when it might be too late to take
corrective actions.
As a result of EPA's communicating
with the public and the press before the
work started, the frightened homeowner
scenario was avoided. And after the
sampling crew had gone, all that could
be seen in Oronoco Park were the
bicyclists, runners, and people taking
time to relax near the Potomac River.
The homeowners and office workers
continued to enjoy the view, n
• ;
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Community Says No
to Incinerator
by Hagan Thompson
Well, the community certainly was
involved.
That's the Baldwin community in
north Florida, just west of the city of
Jacksonville in Duval County. At the
last of a series of public: meetings, some
200 persons let it be known very clearly
that they wanted no part of a mobile
incinerator that would burn liquid PCBs
and PCB-contaminated soil at tin;
Yellow Water Road site.
Incineration of the wastes was
intended to be the final chapter in a
long-running story taking place in an
area where hazardous waste sites are
not uncommon. (There are four National
Priorities List sites in and around
Jacksonville/Duval County and
environs.)
True, the county had approved an
ordinance prohibiting the burning of
hazardous waste. But the Regional
Response Team (local, state, and federal
officials) had met and decided that the
mobile incinerator would be by far the
best way to deal with the 150,000
gallons of contaminated liquid and
4,000 tons of contaminated soil. The
ordinance, it was hoped, could be
rescinded or somehow overcome for this
one-time burn. Economics alone
dictated burning at the site rather than
hauling the material hundreds of miles
to an incinerator in Texas or a landfill
in Alabama.
The wastes would be totally destroyed
in the burn: 99,9999 percent. There
would, of course, be a test burn. The
community could choose a committee of
citizens to monitor the operation.
The alternative to using the mobile
incinerator and burning at the site was
to leave the waste there, in a pasture off
Yellow Water Road near Interstate
Highway 10 ... leave it for consideration
in the remedial phase of the tSuperfund
program.
That's exactly what happened. The
site has been scored and proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List.
A final solution may be a long time
coming.
No amount of knocking on
doors, no meetings, technical
presentations, and
reassurances could change
their minds.
The lesson here is simple. We thought
we had covered everything. It's clean,
it's safe, the wastes are destroyed
totally, and it's the least expensive
course of action.
That was all well and good, but an
essential element was lacking. The
people said no. No amount of knocking
on doors, no meetings, technical
presentations, and scientific
reassurances could change their minds.
With one voice, the community said,
"we didn't bring the waste here, and we
want it out of here. Move it, don't burn
it here, not in my back yard."
The feeling was that somehow EPA
wanted to test an unproven technology
in the Baldwin community. Questions
arose as to what might happen if the
incinerator didn't perform as advertised.
Could there be public health
consequences?
One of the Baldwin community
members opposed to the cm-site burning
put it this way in a Florida
Times-Union news story: "I know one
thing: they aren't going to burn out
there," he said, "I don't care how many
studies they do, the people are scared to
death. They could bring 100 scientists
out here, and I don't think they could
convince these people it's safe." ~
Tin- Yelimv \Vcifer Hoa.J PCK
contamination site near Jacksonville,
Flu. The surroumlm.u roimmmih-
objected to recommendations to
im inenile contaminated soil und
liquids on-site, uml chose instead to
ivuit lor Imi.n-lerm c/eiimip.
(Thompson is (,'liiel', Puhlic Affairs
Brunch, in the Of/in: of Congressional
find ExternaJ Allah's in iiiPA Region 4.)
,
Chuck McPheison
DECEMBER 1985
15
-------
What Does "EPA" Mean?
Some Little Surprises
by Susan Tejada
When we did the "Man on the
Street" interviews for the last issue
of the EPA Journal we encountered one
gentleman who remarked to us as
follows:
"For all the forward movements and
the backward movements of the
Environmental F'rotection Agency, the
one thing that comes through is that
everybody around, anywhere, knows the
meaning of those three letters: E-P-A."
Unfortunately, we learned, the
gentleman was mistaken.
We know because we asked several
classes of third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
graders two questions:
1. What do you think the letters E-P-A
stand for?
2. What does EPA do?
A few students actually did know the
correct response. Most, however, had
absolutely no idea what the letters stood
for. They took some wild guesses.
The most popular reply to the first
question was: Educational Parents
Association. As to the duties of this
little-known group, answers varied. One
child explained that, "It makes kids
more educated." A fifth-grader with a
rather sophisticated vocabulary stated
that the Educational Parents Association
"educates parents to avoid critical
mishaps of the child." Another
concluded that "EPA sort of helps the
school to do various things, such as
arranging carpools."
A little boy obviously wrapped up in
his dislike for a female classmate named
Andrea surmised that EPA could mean
only one thing: Eggy Potatoes for
Andrea, a delicacy he no doubt thought
she deserved.
Another child wasn't exactly sure
what each of the letters stood for, but
knew that, overall, EPA was some kind
of learning disability.
No doubt due to the colorfully
illustrated alphabet books of
pre-schoolers, the letter E stood for
Elephant in a number of young minds.
Here, with a few spelling corrections,
are some of the other imaginative
answers the students provided to our
queries:
What do you think the letters E-P-A
stand for?
What does EPA do?
is Assoridli1 Kili'lor of Ifir EPA
urnal.
Elephant Park Association:
Takes care of elephants at the EPA zoo.
Eternal Problem Association:
EPA always solves problems and E
gets them right.
Especially Provided Attention:
It helps you more than others when you
need help.
Entomology Practice Association:
It studies different science measures.
Expert Personal Appliances:
Tools to help your household.
Ear Piercing Agency:
It's like for giving and getting ear
piercings.
Elephants' Physical Agency:
EPA makes sure the elephants' muscles
are in shape.
Extra Parents Association:
A program that lets kids discard any
parents they don't need.
Electric Potomac Airlines:
An electronic airline a mile away from
the Potomac River.
Exit Popcorn Area:
Directions in a movie theater.
Elderly Persons Association:
It helps old people have a good life, like
homes and food and no burglary.
Expensive Pie for my Aunt:
It's a way to get a pie for aunts.
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Extra Plaster Aftertaste:
It makes bad food.
Eternal Pitching Association:
It throws fast balls forever.
Elephant Police Academy:
Elephants teach elephants how to be
police elephants.
Education Period Altered:
It changes the school time.
Ecological Plant Adaptor:
EPA adapts plants ecologically.
Earth's Public Area:
It allows people to use or do what there
is to do for free.
Eggplant Plops Around:
It plops around.
Education Department of
Pennsylvania Agriculture:
It educates people (presumably
Pennsylvania farmers).
Eating Paper Airplanes:
It makes you sick.
Ethiopian Penthouse Association:
Publishes Ethiopian Penthouse
Association magazines.
Elephant Private Ladies Association:
Holds elephant meetings.
Exercise and Punching for Artichokes:
An exercise program for artichokes.
Every Pupil Alive:
It means living.
Economical Pantyhose Association:
Sells cheap pantyhose.
Eat Plenty Apples:
Advises people about nutrition.
"Enturnal" Printing Association:
Prints movies and music: videos.
A total of 20 students gave the correct
definition of EPA and described its
duties pretty accurately: "cleans up
waste," "protects the environment from
oil spills," "prosecutes anyone who
does damage to the environment," "tries
to keep the air clean." "fights
pollution," and "tests mileage on
automobiles." But our favorite of the
correct answers was the following:
"EPA protects the environment by
finding out about the things that are
hurting the wilderness and then they
will try to get rid of it. My mother
works "for EPA." 3
For helping us compile this list of
definitions, we would like to thank Judy
Baxter; Principals Carolyn Gold,
Particiu Greer. and Joseph Vicuera; and
the teachers and students of Olde Creek
Elementary School in Fairfax, V'ci.;
Somerset Elementary School in Chevy
Chase, Md., und John Eaton Elementary
School, Phoebe Hearst Elementary
School, and The MM ret School, nil in
Washington, D.C.
DECEMBER 1985
17
-------
A Growing Concern
with Indoor Air
by Ronald A. Taylor
You are coughing, wheezing, and
sneezing, and your eyes are burning.
You are suffering from air
pollution—yet you haven't even gotten
out of bed.
Today, the front line in the battle
against poisoned air is far from industry
smokestacks and bus exhaust pipes. It's
in your house.
The Environmental Protection Agent,y
reported on September 11 that toxic
chemicals found in every home—from
paint to cleaning solvents—are three
times more likely to cause cancer than
airborne pollutants, even in areas next
to chemical plants.
EPA scientist Lance Wallace, who
evaluated the data from a five-year
study, said chemicals invested indoors
"make the home more of a toxic waste
dump than any chemical plants nearby.
It was difficult to accept for a while, but
a number of similar studies concluded
the same thing."
Wallace acknowledged that
researchers cannot .say for sure whether
toxics in the home have directly caused
even a single death. He said scientists
are hard-pressed to determine the role
that any particular home-use substance
plays in a cancer-related death.
However, these data and other studies
have shown that Americans are exposed
to surprisingly high levels of toxic
chemicals in their houses through
breathing, eating, drinking water, and
skin absorption.
Hazardous chemical vapors in the
average American home now have
become so bad, reports EPA scientist
Wayne Ott, that "if you found these
levels outside, you'd demand to know
where they were coming from."
In your house, the polluter is you.
The nationwide drive to save energy
by weatherproofing has made the air
inside many homes and offices more
polluted than the air outside. Sealing
windows and doors and insulating walls
and roofs keep heat or cold out but
often trap unwanted gases inside.
(Taylor is As.sockjfo h'ditor,
Km iroitment, for U.S. News and World
Report. This article is reprinted with (hi
permission of th<; magazine.]
EPA tests in Bayonne, N.J., and Devils
Lake, N.D., found levels of benzene and
tetrachloroethylene ranging two to five
times higher than outdoor readings.
Bayonne is close to chemical plants;
Devils Lake is not near heavy industry.
Yet researchers found little difference in.
the levels of indoor contaminants
between homes in the two towns.
Contact with these two cancer-causing
agents is as routine as the Saturday
chores: You inhale benzene and get it
on your skin and clothes during a fill-up
at a self-service gas station; your body
slowly releases these fumes later in your
home. You bring tetrachloroethylene
into your house on clothes fresh from
the dry cleaners.
In your house, the polluter
is you.
Even taking a shower is suspected of
elevating levels of chloroform—a
possible causer of cancer—in nearly
every home because of chlorine in the
water.
Other known household sources of
cancer causers are insecticide, oven
fumes, air freshener, hair spray, paint
thinner, fingernail polish, cosmetics,
and even the dirt and rock surrounding
the foundations of thousands of homes.
One of the worst indoor pollution
problems of all is cigarette smoke. A
Department of Health and Human
Services survey of homes in six cities
last year determined that roughly 60
percent of the nation's children are
exposed to cigarette smoke from one or
both parents. The survey found that
respiratory illness among these children
is 10 to 20 percent higher than in the
homes of nonsmokers.
That view is countered by Tobacco
Institute spokesperson Anne Browder,
who says a 1983 University of Arizona
study on the subject "found no
relationship between children's lung
function and parents' cigarette
smoking."
EPA is just beginning to learn the
dimensions of what Americans breathe
at home. Between 1980 and 1984, some
600 residents in six cities were given
monitors, which they wore by day and
kept beside their beds at night, that
registered minute amounts of 11 of the
most volatile synthetic chemicals. The
profile that emerged from this study
showed traces of substances ranging
from industrial solvents in air
fresheners to nitrogen oxides released
from gas stoves during cooking. Some
toxic chemicals were found to be 70
times more prevalent in houses than
outdoors.
The results don't surprise
building-ventilation experts. "There are
45 aerosol canisters, each containing 15
different compounds, in the average
home today," says James Woods, senior
scientist at The Honeywell Corporation.
The total of chemicals found in
common household products tops
50,000.
At work, employees face widespread
exposure through recycled air to a
witches' brew of poisonous fumes from
photocopying solvents, typewriter
correction fluid, and carpet cleansers.
For many people, indoor
contaminants produce headaches,
dizziness, and tlulike symptoms. When
more than 30 percent of workers
complain of such ailments that
disappear within eight hours after
leaving their jobs, engineers characterize
the problem as the "sick building
syndrome."
Scores of office buildings around the
country have been closed while
toxicologists cope with this problem. In
Knoxville, a Tennessee Valley Authority
building remains closed four years after
nearly 200 workers suffered chest pains,
shortness of breath, and muscle aches
that abated on weekends and vacations.
Similar complaints surfaced in June at
a state Department of Labor office in
Toms River, N.J., where 20 of the 30
employees complained of respiratory
problems. The microbiologist-engineer
hired to study the building and organize
the decontamination says he found a
fungus in the ventilation system.
In Boston, a faulty furnace caused
carbon monoxide poisoning at a
downtown motel last February during a
convention of lawyers who specialize in
prosecuting toxic-liability cases. More
than 50 were treated for poisoning.
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Sometimes, sick buildings are
responsible for death. Legionnaires'
disease led to three deaths in June in ;•
hotel at the Detroit airport. Legionella
bacteria were discovered on the
building's air-conditioning coils.
"Including transportation, people are
spending 85 to 90 percent of their time
Para-Dichlorobenzene
Source: Air fresheners.
Tetrachloroethylene
Source: Qrycfeaning-flutd
fumes on clothes
Threat: Nerve disorders,
damage lo liver and
kidneys, possible cancer
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
Source: Aerosol sprays
Threat: Dizziness, irregular ;
breathing
?
Benzo-a-pyrene
Source: Tobacco smoke
wood stoves
Threat: Lung cancer
\ Formaldehyde
. Source: Furnilure stuffin
i particle board
; Threat: Irritation of eyes
and throat
Chloroform
Source: Chlorine-treated i
water in hot showers
Possible threat: Cancer i
T
Nitrogen Dioxide
Source: Unvented
?as stoves
hreat: Irritated lungs.
children's colds
Radon
Source; Radioactive soil
I and rock surroundmi
, foundation
! Threat: Lung cancer
: flaw EnvarcxinwU.! Protection Agency.
Consume* Pioducl S-atety Commission
Carbon Monoxide
Sources: Faulty furnaces,
undented gas stoves
"' Threat: Headaches.
irregular heartbeat
Methylene Chloride
Source: Paint strippers
and Ihmners
Threat: Nerve disorde
diabetes
(,'i.mircttf! smoke, tilon^ ivilh himrs
photocopying solvents. fypeivniiT
correction fluid, and uirjx'f cleansers.
(ill contribute to the "sick building
syndrome" ivJiicfi some office ivurkcr.s
suffer.
indoors," worries Dr. Joel Nobel, who
tracks indoor pollutants for the National
Indoor Environmental Institute near
Philadelphia.
Nobel and his wife found that their
own house in Montgomery County, Pa.,
was filling up with an odorless,
colorless gas called radon. The naturally
occurring radioactive product that
causes an estimated 5,000 to 15,000
lung-cancer deaths each year among
nonsmokers was seeping into their
subterranean house from the earth and
rocks.
The problem was fixed by adding
suction blowers to direct the radon gas
away from the house. Nobel
recommends that all would-be home
buyers invest $400 to $500 in a radon
test. He and other building-pollution
experts also recommend the use of heat
exchangers to maintain a flow of fresh
air into homes. These devices range in
price from $500 to $1,500 and conserve
up to 80 percent of conditioned air.
Nearly as efficient and a lot cheaper,
however, are $8 spider plants. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
scientists found that these house plants,
with long tendrils, will remove
formaldehyde and other toxic gases
from the average home.
The advice most often offered by
experts is to use more care in handling
toxic products inside the home. Follow
labels carefully, use products sparingly.
and open windows to ensure adequate
ventilation, they recommend.
"A frightening number of things are
being introduced into our homes
without thought. We have wonder
products, and they do nice work. But
they are dangerous," explains Ralph
Goldman, a Natick, Mass.,
environmental scientist. The quality of
human health is at stake, adds John
Spengler, Harvard professor of
environmental health, who says, "The
end points range from irritation to
illness to death." CJ
cur pollutants and their sources.
U S News & World Report
DECEMBER 1985
19
-------
A Plan to Restore
Chesapeake Bay
by Patricia Bonner
On September 20. the, Chesapeake
Bay Program took a major step
forward. The Governors of
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland,
the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
the EPA Administrator, and
representatives of several other federal
agencies gathered at the Hall of States in
Washington, D.C., to present the first
Chesapeake Bay Restoration and
Protection Plan for the region.
Thi! plan is designed to improve
and protect the water quality, habitat,
and living resources of the Chesapeake
The plan is to be a "living"
document, that will be refined
and expanded to reflect what
we learn about the Hay.
Bay estuarine system; to restore and
maintain the Bay's ecological integrity,
productivity, and beneficial uses; and to
protect public health.
The plan provides a framework
for integrating the work of the numerous
agencies cooperating in this effort. It
establishes goals in the areas of
phosphorus and nitrogen loadings, toxic
materials, and the restoration and
protection of living resources and their
habitats. It addresses the management of
programs that are not Bay-specific yet
can affect the ecosystem (e.g. dredging,
ground water, and atmospheric
deposition).
Coals are explained and the strategies
to achieve them are outlined; a second
volume describes each of the projects
and programs of the federal and state
agencies, their purposes, and what they
are expected to achieve.
(Buiinei is Information Officer for KIJA's
.'jirakr Bin
The plan is to be a "living" document,
one that will be refined and expanded
to reflect what we learn about the Bay
and how cleanup and restoration work
affect the Bay's ecosystem. Through the
collection of monitoring data, state and
federal agencies will be able to evaluate
the effects of their strategies and modify
them to work even better. Both point
source and nonpoint source pollution
control programs will be better defined
with more quantification of the
requirements and more specific
targeting.
The document is a beginning, a first
step in what will be a continuing,
cooperative Bay improvement process.
As that process evolves, it will provide
numerous opportunities for people
concerned about the Chesapeake to be
involved in decisions which affect their
future and that of the Bay.
Over the next three years, interested
publics and the agencies and
jurisdictions involved in the Chesapeake
Bay Program will refine water use
objectives, determine the water quality
criteria necessary to support those uses,
and set objectives for the Bay and its
primary tributary rivers. Work has
already begun to develop mathematical
models that will eventually assist
managers in deciding what pollution
loadings will be required to achieve the
water quality objectives.
The process of evaluating the
alternative technologies and control
programs available to achieve the
objectives will start early in 1986.
Finally, the costs and the expected
results of achieving the water quality
objectives will be defined and each
objective and the alternative control
programs to achieve it will be evaluated
in the social/political arena.
By July 1988. all those who
participated in the planning process
should be readv to recommend a
Bay Cleanup Background
In September 1983, when EPA
published the results of its
seven-year study of the
Chesapeake Bay, findings clearly
indicated that the Bay and its
living resources were in trouble.
Declines in living resources
paralleled changes in water quality
which included increases in
nutrients (phosphorus and
nitrogen) and harmful chemicals,
and more soil particles in the
water blocking light from reaching
aquatic: plants and animals. Trends
included declines in submerged
water plants (Bay grasses), declines
in young oysters and landings of
many types of fish, a 15-fold
increase in areas of the Bay where
there is low dissolved oxygen
during the summer, and high
concentrations of toxic chemicals
in the bottom of the Bay near
major industrial facilities.
To save the living resources,
immediate action had to be taken.
On December 9, 1983, the
Governors of Virginia, Maryland,
and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of
the District of Columbia, the EPA
Administrator, and the Chesapeake
Bay Commission signed the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The
Agreement pledged them to work
together to improve and protect
the Bay and its resources, to
accommodate growth in an
I'd
EPA JOURNAL
-------
management program for the future, a
program which federal, state, and local
governments will implement during the
1990s.
environmentally sound manner, to
assure a process of public: input
and participation, and to support
and enhance a regional,
cooperative approach toward Bay
management.
The Agreement is serving as the
framework on which to huild
cooperative and effective
revitalization of the Bay and its
tributaries. Working with the states
and EPA in the cleanup are the
Soil Conservation Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, Army Corps of Engineers,
and Department of Defense, a
Nearly two years ago, the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement was signed. Citi/.ens
who use and care about the Bay cannot
yet see improvements in the waters or
rebounding living resources. Some
wonder aloud when they will see real
change. Those involved in cleaning up
the Bay and its tributaries and bringing
back their productivity know that a
great deal of work has been and is being
done, and are convinced that
improvements will occur.
The Bay will respond, but it is still
too soon to be able to measure change,
Improvements will be gradual, not
dramatic. They will come in small
increments as pollution loads to the Hay
are reduced.
As Administrator Lee Thomas told
those gathered for the release of the
plan, "Now is the time for patience and
support for the Bay and those working
to protect her; the hard work has only
begun." a
Copies of the plan and its appendix
are available from: Chesapeake Bay
Program, 410 Severn Ave., Annapolis,
MD 21408.
Tiro ov.s'tennen on Curlers ('reck in
Virgim'ii disjiJuy their eutrh to a
that includes. from (lie left. Guy. Hurry
Hughes of Muryldmi, (,'ov. Churlcs Robb
of Virginia, and KPA Deputy
Administrator .A. /nines Humes. The
stop UTIS one of several on a September
tour ot' t'ie ('liesnjieuke Jiuv Husin
DECEMBER 198b
21
-------
Getting
Some Good
Out of EDB
by Margherita Pryor
Remember ethylene dibromide, also
known as EDB? As a pesticide, it
had satisfyingly lethal effects on
nematodes and insects. Unfortunately,
studies showed that its effects on people
could be pretty bad, too—effects such as
tumors, genetic mutations, and
reproductive problems.
In light of these studies, EPA several
years ago suspended and canceled all
uses of EDB as a fumigant for soil, grain,
and grain milling machinery and halted
the sale and distribution of EDB
products for this purpose. Grain-based
foods with EDB residues above certain
levels were pulled from grocery shelves,
and all suspended pesticide products
were recalled for disposal as hazardous
wastes.
As far as the public was concerned,
another chemical of the month had
come and gone. EDB was EPA's
headache.
It still is. Stored around the country
are millions of pounds of fumigants,
with concentrations ranging from 1.2 to
95 percent of their weight. Some of
these products also have high
concentrations of other suspect
chemicals, including carbon
tetrachloride, ethylene dichloride, and
methyl bromide. It's EPA's thankless
and difficult task to dispose—safely—of
these materials.
But this is one headache where relief
is on the way. By January of 1986, the
agency expects to begin disposing of
stockpiles of EDB with a process
developed by EPA's Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Lab in Cincinnati.
And if all goes well, EPA may even
make a profit from the operation.
These rosy possibilities weren't
apparent at first. Early last year, the
Office of Pesticide Programs began to
look at EPA's options for disposing of
200,000 to 500,000 gallons of
is Contributing Editor of the EPA
journal.)
formulations left on its hands, and it
was not a heartening prospect.
Incineration was out because EDB is
very corrosive, and other disposal
methods, such as land disposal, were
also environmentally unacceptable. So
in a case of necessity mothering
invention, the Cincinnati lab came up
with the novel idea of treating EDB—or
its constituents—as a resource to be
recovered. Instead of destroying the
canceled fumigants, they could be
reprocessed to recover their
commercially valuable materials.
In the method developed by Charles
Rogers and Alfred Kornel of the
Cincinnati lab, the end products are
acetylene and potassium bromide.
According to Rogers, potassium bromide
is a valuable "commodity"
chemical—that is, it is used by the
chemical industry to make other
chemicals, as well as products such as
pesticides, drugs, and plastics. At
potassium bromide's current market
value of about $.65/lb., Rogers estimates
that reprocessing EDB for its bromine
contents could yield up to $1.75 million
worth of materials.
In addition to paying for itself and
perhaps even making a profit, the
process is both fast and simple. A
mixture of tetraethylene glycol and
potassium hydroxide (the reagent) is
added to a tank (the reactor) containing
the EDB formulation. The reaction from
this produces acetylene gas, which is
simply burned off, and potassium
bromide. By eliminating the need for
heat and complex equipment, the
process can be used in the field or at
various EDB storage sites. It even can be
;i il'ooi In ceiling in ij ivalled-off
section of u rhi'mirn/ rum/Kiny iicur
(,'iiv. Mo.. PIN killed pi'sliri(f(->s
h'DIJ
-------
Update
A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
AIR
Cadmium and Ethylene
Dichloride
The agency has announced
its intent to list both
cadmium and ethylene
dichloride as hazardous air
pollutants under the Clean
Air Act.
This action triggers further
evaluation of public health
risks and control techniques
that could lead to the
proposal of standards
limiting ambient emissions of
these pollutants.
Both cadmium and
ethylene dichloride are
classified as probable human
carcinogens (cancer-causing
substances) by inhalation.
Though the risk estimates
for cadmium and ethylene
dichloride are preliminary,
EPA has concluded that they
are sufficient to warrant
further study to determine
the need for regulation.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Recycled Used Oil
EPA is implementing new
controls over the selling and
burning of contaminated
used oil and hazardous waste
for fuel. The agency is also
proposing controls on the
collection, transportation.
storage, and disposal of all
used oils.
The agency is
prohibiting the selling and
burning of contaminated
used oils and hazardous
wastes for fuel in residential,
institutional, and commercial
boilers.
EPA has determined that
contaminated used oil
burned in boilers in urban
areas may pose a cancer risk
to urban residents. If
contaminated with lead, an
additional risk may be posed,
especially to children. EPA
expects the proposed
standards and their
associated costs to affect
nearly 50,000 used oil
generators and recyclers.
Superfund Cleanup
Procedures
EPA has incorporated new
procedures to speed up and
improve cleanups at
Superfund hazardous waste
sites.
The procedures have been
incorporated into the
agency's National
Contingency Plan (NCR).
The additions to the NCP,
which were proposed in
February 1985, are:
• Remove certain restrictions
that hindered quick response
at sites in some situations,
such as detailed investigative
work;
• Clarify and expand the
authority of local on-scene
coordinators, states, and
other federal agencies
directly involved in response
actions;
• Require application of
federal public health
requirements in determining
the appropriate final remedy
for hazardous waste
cleanups; and
• Require public
involvement through
community relations
programs at Superfund sites.
PESTICIDES
Carbofuran Review
EPA has begun a special
review of granular
formulations of the pesticide
carbofuran after determining
that use of this product is
highly toxic to birds.
Carbofuran is a broad
spectrum carbamate
insecticide used to control
various species on corn and
sorghum as well as other
crops.
The agency's action is
based on numerous field
monitoring studies which
show an extensive number of
bird fatalities in fields treated
with granular carbofuran.
The consumption of as little
as a single granule of
carbofuran may be fatal to
many small birds. Birds of
prey which consume smaller
birds have also been
poisoned with carbofuran
granules.
Between 10-11 million
pounds of carbofuran are
used annually on agricultural
sites.
TOXICS
Investigation of Methylene
Chloride
EPA will investigate
methylene chloride to find
out if it poses an
unreasonable cancer risk to
humans.
Methylene chloride, also
known as dichloromethane,
is a non-flammable, colorless,
volatile liquid with an
ether-like odor, used widely
in industry and in consumer
products.
EPA believes methylene
chloride is a possible human
carcinogen. Studies have
found that it causes
malignant liver and lung
tumors (cancer) in mice.
Under EPA's cancer policy, a
chemical that causes cancer
in animals must be
considered a possible human
carcinogen.
There is potential for
methylene chloride exposure
from a wide range of
environmental sources. Some
examples of methylene
chloride use are as a
degreaser, aerosol propellant,
and solvent in paint removal.
WATER
Wastewater Discharge Rule
A final rule has been issued
by EPA to control the
discharge of waste water
pollutants from the metal
molding and casting
industry.
The rule covers effluent
limitations for four metal
categories: aluminum,
copper, ferrous metal, and
zinc.
The rule sets direct
discharge and pretreatment
standards for existing and
future molding and casting
plants. The regulations
represent a 99 percent
reduction in the total amount
of pollutants discharged in
raw wastewaters. The
principal pollutants detected
or likely to be found in
untreated process
wastewaters from the
industry are: suspended
solids, oil and grease, toxic
metals, including copper and
lead, and toxic organic
chemicals.
Implementation of this rule
will remove annually an
estimated 250 million
pounds of pollutants,
including 12.8 million
pounds of toxic pollutants.
Requirements for Fluoride
EPA is taking action which
will lead to revised drinking
water standards for fluoride.
These actions include
issuing the final
recommended maximum
contaminant level (RMCL) for
fluoride, proposing a
maximum contaminant level
(MCL), and proposing to
amend the interim MCL for
fluoride. All actions set the
level of fluoride at 4
milligrams per liter.
At levels of 1 to 2
milligrams per liter, fluoride
helps to protect against tooth
decay. Above this range: it
also causes dental fluorosis,
which results in
discoloration and pitting of
teeth. At 4 milligrams per
liter and above, it can cause
changes in bone density
which cause no detectable
health effects. At 10
milligrams per liter,
long-term exposures cause
skeletal disorders similar to
arthritis.
The proposed maximum
contaminant level wil! lead
to enforceable standards. The:
MCL for fluoride will protect
the consumer from the
adverse skeletal effects of
fluoride. Q
DECEMBER 1985
23
-------
Appointments at EPA
Erich Brctthauer has been named
Director of EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las
Vegas, Nev. Previously, he was Director
of the Office of Environmental Processes
and Effects Research in the agency's
Office of Research and Development
(ORD).
Bretthauer is a commissioned officer
in the U.S. Public Health Service. From
1978 to 1980, he was Director of (he
Laboratory's Nuclear Radiation
Assessment Division, with
responsibility for a radiation research
and monitoring program. In 1979-1980,
he directed the agency's emergency
monitoring activities at Three Mile
Island. During 1981 and 1982, he served
on legislative assignment with the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public; Works.
Bretthauer received his B.S. in
Chemistry from the University of
Nevada-Reno in I960 and his M.S. from
the same university in 1962. He is a
member of the American Chemical
Society, the American Water Works
Association, and Sigma Xi.
feffcry Denit, formerly Director of the
Industrial Technology Division in the
Office of Water, has been appointed
Deputy Director of the Office of Solid
Waste;. Denit has been with EPA since
1972; before that, he was a captain in
the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps
and a sanitary engineer with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
Denit earned a B.S in agricultural
engineering in 1964 and an M.S. in
agricultural economics in 1966. both
from Clemson University. In 1907, he
also received an M.S. in sanitary
engineering from the University of
North Carolina. He is a member of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, the
American Water Works Association, and
the American Chemical Society.
Dr. Roger Cortesi has been named
Director of ORD's Office of Exploratory
Research. He had been Deputy Director
of ORD's Office of Health Research.
Before coming to EPA in 1972, Cortesi
worked for several engineering firms.
Cortesi received his B.A. in
mathematics from Harvard University in
1956. and his Ph.D in physics from the
University of Virginia in 1961,
Dr. James Falco has been named Deputy
Director of the Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research.
He had been Director of the Exposure
Assessment Group. Falco has been with
the agency since 1971, with a one-year
break for a stint with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Falco received his B.S. in chemical
engineering from the University of
Tennessee in 1964, and his M.S. and
Ph.D from the University of Florida in
1969 and 1971. He is licensed as a
professional engineer in the state of
Georgia, and is a member of the
American Chemical Society and the
American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
Lloyd S. Guerci has been appointed
Director of the RCRA Enforcement
Division in EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Since 1973, Guerci had been an
attorney with the Land and Natural
Resources Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice. While there, he
managed environmental enforcement
litigation for EPA and other federal
agencies, particularly in the area of
hazardous waste enforcement.
Guerci received his B.S. in Electrical
Engineering from Lehigh University in
1969, and his law degree from Rutgers
University in 1973. He is a member of
the bar associations of New Jersey and
the District of Columbia, as well as Vice
Chairman of the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Committee of the American Bar
Association. Guerci is also a member of
the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers.
Dr. Gary Foley has been appointed
Director of the Acid Deposition and
Atmospheric Research Division of ORD.
His responsibilities will include
planning and managing all phases of the
agency's acid deposition research
program, as well as coordinating this
program with the other agencies of the
Interagency Task Force on Acid
Precipitation.
Foley has been with EPA since 1973.
From 1976 to 1979, he was on
assignment from EPA to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development in Paris, where he
specialized in air pollution problems.
Foley received his undergraduate
degree in chemical engineering from
Manhattan College in 1964. He earned
his Ph.D in chemical engineering from
the University of Wisconsin in 1968.
Foley is a member of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers. Since
1981, he has served as Executive
Secretary for the International Air
Pollution Advisory Board of the
(U.S.-Canada) International joint
Commission, and recently has been
appointed a member of the Board. He
also has served as a member of several
other delegations to international
organizations. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The future of public participation: who
knows what issues will be "hot" by the
time these Washington, D.C.,
schoolchildren are oJd enough to
become involved in environmental
decision-making? (See page 16 for
related story on what these children
think about EPA today.)
Back cover: winter frost.
Photo by T.C. Flanigan, Folio, Inc.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
?m&
^ffe
V" W
'™"\
i
. ••
------- |