United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (,
Washington DC 20460
June 1987
EPA JOURNAL
redicting Ozone Pollution
Another Tool
from EPA Research
-------
Research
at EPA
Ice minus.,.Mesocosms...
Microbes.... These aren't
subjects for science fiction
at EPA. They're the concerns
of the Agency's research
program as it provides
know-how to help
implement KPA's regulatory
efforts. This issue of EPA
journal is about R & D at
EPA.
'['he issue also includes a
special feature explaining the
goals for the Agency as
expressed by Lee M. Thomas,
the Administrator.
The K & D portion of this
Journal leads off with an
interview with Vaun Newill,
EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development. Dr.
Newill's remarks range Irom
acid rain to the study of
climate change.
Then eight articles report
on various FPA research
efforts. The topics fit into
four categories: risk
assessment, ecological risk.
human exposure to risk, and
risk reduction, These articles
illustrate the emphasis KI'A
research places on
determining the risks from
environmental problems and
developing methods to help
reduce those risks. Next,
three features report on
technical assistance and
international aid flowing
from research at KI'A.
Under the category of risk
assessment, one article
explains efforts to reduce the
element of uncertainty in
determining risks and
another reports on studies of
the effects of o/.one pollution
on human health.
Articles about research on
ecological risks concern the
laboratory creation of aquatic
environments to help
understand marine pollution,
the scrutiny that a recent
development in
Tanks operated as artificial
ecosystems at EPA's Marine
Ecosystem Research Laboratory
at the University of Rhode
Island, Kingston.
biotechnology has received.
and the techniques EPA
scientists are using to assess
the vulnerability of lakes and
streams across the country to
acid rain.
Features regarding human
exposure to environmental
risks include a report on
surprising results from
studies of people's exposure
to pollution inside their
homes, and an article on how
EPA is using science to
project levels of o/oue
pollution in the U.S.
Research to reduce risks is
illustrated by an article on
the prospect of using
microbes to clean up
polluted ground water.
Payoffs of EPA research as
technical assistance are
shown by a report on how
EPA is involved in measures
to ensure the safety of people
living in the vicinity of the
Las Vegas, Nevada, nuclear
test site. Another article
explains how EPA research
has helped in the detection
of (Jiurciici lamblio cysts in
water. These cysts are often
the prime suspects in
outbreaks of gastrointestinal
disease.
The final article in the
research portion of this issue
reports on how EPA
know-how is helping to
control environmental threats
in other countries.
Other articles in the
magazine include a report on
the Agency's recent proposed
regulations to deal with the
problem of pollution from
underground storage tanks.
And two specialists from
EPA's Environmental
Response Team describe their
trip to Cameroon in Africa to
help figure out how the Lake
Nyos disaster last August
killed 1,700 people in a
matter of hours.
This issue of KP/\ journal
concludes with two regular
features—Update and
Appointments. D
.,
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 13
Number 5
June 1987
v=xEPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, 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 of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the publica-
jion of this 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.. S.W.,
Washington. DC 204fiO. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Design Credits:
Don mi Wasylkiwskyj
Ron Fcirroh;
/in! Jngmni.
Providing Environmental
Know-How
An Interview with Dr. Vaun
Newil! 2
Reducing the Uncertainty in
Assessing Environmental
Risk
by Peter Preuss 6
How Researchers Are
Learning Ozone's Health
Effects
by William McDonnell and
Donald Horstman 8
Creating Environments to
Help Understand Marine
Contamination
by Carole Jaworski 9
Scientists Take a Close Look
at "Ice-Minus"
by Harold Kibby 11
New Techniques to Project
Acid Rain's Impact
by Raymond G. Wilhour 13
Surprising Results from a
New Way of Measuring
Pollutants
by Lance Wallace 15
Projecting Levels of Ozone
Pollution
by Robert Lamb 17
Learning to Use Microbes to
Clean Up Ground Water
by John Wilson 19
Helping to Ensure Safety in
Nuclear Testing
bv Charles Costa 20
Tracking a Culprit in
Outbreaks of "the Trots"
by Walter Jakubowski 22
Sharing What We Have
Learned
by Edwin Johnson 23
Thomas Talks about His
Goals for EPA 25
Underground Storage Tanks
in the Spotlight
by June Taylor 28
EPA Specialists Help Solve
a Mystery in Cameroon
by Harry Compton and Alan
Humphrey 30
Update :»2
Appointments 32
Cover picture:
Computer-generated photograph
based on ROM projections of
ozone concenlralions in !he
northeastern United States. ROM is
the Regional Oxidanl Model
developed by EPA's Atmospheric
Sciences Research Laboratory in
Research Triangle Park, NC. The
model simulates concentrations of
28 chemical substances in the air,
depending on such factors as
sources and control actions.
Pictured is the projected maximum
hourly ozone concentration over a
15-day period in July 1990. The
colors show the highest hourly
ozone concentration in that period.
The present primary limit for
ozone is 0.12 ppm [parts per
million) not lo be exceeded more
than once a year. Scientists E P
3IN1
Co
Str
npa
set i
ny N
\ddr
arm
ess
: or
Add
tion
il Ac
Id re
3S L
ne
Cit
^
State
Zip
Cot
ie
I I Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents!
j j Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Providing
Environmental
Know-How
An Interview with Dr. Vaun
Newill
Vaun Newill
How does research fit into a regulatory
Clancy like EPA? What (in; the Agency's
scientists learning about current
environmental problems? For answers
to these and other questions about
research at the Agency, EPA Journal
interviewed Dr. Vaun Newi'll, (he
Agency's Assistant Administrator for
Hesetm.'h and Development. The text of
the interview follows.
Dr. Newill, you served at EPA
back in the early 1970s, and before
that, you were in the air program at
HEW. Are things different now?
.A. Most definitely, but I believe most
of the changes are very positive. The
most obvious change is that the Agency
is much more complex, in terms of
process as well as the scope of
environmental issues, than when I was
here before. We have many more
legislative mandates. There has been a
definite maturation of the system, so
that in some ways, it's more difficult to
get work done, but you also get a better
responsive product.
U Before you came back to EPA, you
held a research position with Exxon.
Did you bring anything from that
experience with industrial research
programs that will help in heading up
research at EPA?
/\ Well, I certainly learned that, in
many ways, it's easier to put together a
research program at Exxon than it is at
EPA. Private industry has its
bureaucracy, too, of course, and there
are many different groups bringing
pressure on you in terms of your
program. But it's not the wide variety of
groups that you have pressuring you
here at the Environmental Protection
Agency, not the complexity. However, I
think some procedures or approaches
used in private industry can be
extremely useful, and I have tried to
bring some of those to the Office of
Research and Development, such as
greater emphasis on stewardship and
accountability.
But I think that the investigators in
each place do good experimental design
and carry out the work to the best of
their abilities.
Are there major differences in
research procedures between industry
and government?
/\ Not really, because protocols are
similar across the scientific community.
There are some differences, but these
are not related to science. For example,
the motivation for conducting research
might be different. Industry's focus is
generally directed to data development
with regard to a product or process and
not to developing the basic
underpinnings for environmental
science. EPA, on the other hand, has to
respond to much broader questions, and
that requires a much broader based,
multi-discipline research program aimed
at policy and regulation development.
What is the relationship between
basic science and the kind of research
conducted by EPA?
/\ Well, of course. EPA's research is
often driven by the needs of the
regulatory programs. But given that
constraint, let me emphasize that the
difference between basic and applied
science is frequently just one of degree.
If you were to draw a line, one end
being basic research and the other being
applied research, clearly much of EPA's
work would be toward the applied end.
The problem is one of definition; where
one ends and the other begins is
somewhat arbitrary.
EPA is a client of the basic research
community. Often, our scientists take
the results of basic: or fundamental
research, evaluate these findings and
then interpret them to help the Agency
understand the range of uncertainty
associated with our asessments.
How does the Office of Research
and Development support regulatory
decisions? Can you give examples of
cases where your research played a
direct role?
/\ There's an enormous range of areas
in which our research projects had a
major influence, so it's hard to know
where to begin. Just offhand, I can cite
decisions on the PM10 particulate
standard, the ozone standard, and diesel
emissions that were influenced by our
research. Implementation will be based
on research we've conducted on
monitoring and modeling. We've also
played a part by showing the
availability or applicability of various
control technologies; for example, we've
been involved in the development of
baghouses, electrostatic precipitators,
and fabric filters for air emissions. We
also developed the mobile incinerator,
which has had an enormous effect on
EPA's dioxin program and is being
used for the cleanup of soil.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Other contributions include
water-quality criteria and methods for
nutrient removal and upgrading waste
and water treatment plants. We also
developed biological test methods
which are used in making decisions on
the use of new and old chemicals, as
well as registration of pesticides. Our
work in developing GC-MS analytical
techniques for quantifying organics in
water and other media set the standards
for modern-day analytical laboratories.
In fact, it's hard to come up with an
area in which EPA's research has not
had a major effect on a regulatory
decision.
What about research that is not
specifically tied to a regulation? Can
EPA research be designed to anticipate
environmental problems, rather than
react to them?
A Well, we would like for EPA
research to be able to look ahead; we'd
like to build a long-term program. But
because of the pressure to be responsive
to the regulatory agenda, we focus more
on short-term research and providing
technical assistance than we do on
long-term research efforts.
We have not really had a long-range
ecological research program, although
we have had some ecological research
underway for a long time. I want to
leave behind a strong and viable plan to
enhance the ecological research program
at EPA, to take a leadership role in the
federal community. I realize that we
can't do it all, but we must achieve a
balance between ecological and human
health risk-related research.
We really do recognize the need for
anticipating emerging environmental
problems. In large measure, this is why
we are collaborating with the Science
Advisory Board, to work cooperatively
to formulate a long-term research plan
addressing risk assessment (health and
ecological), exposure assessment, and
risk reduction. This should help us
focus on research which can lead to the
greatest reductions in uncertainty in the
risk assessment process. It should also
produce a coherent plan which can lead
to integration of longer-term research
into the overall research program here at
EPA.
Can you go out on a limb and
predict the long-range problems or
emerging environmental issues of the
next 15 years?
/* My training as a scientist doesn't
give me particular talent with a crystal
ball, but there are a few areas that I'd
predict are of significant long-term
importance. One area is the family of
problems having to do with the
relationship between Earth and its
atmosphere. That includes problems of
global climate and stratospheric ozone
depletion, and their related health,
environmental, and socioeconomic
effects.
The scientific community is also
devoting considerable attention to
ecological issues such as maintaining
species diversity and ecological
processes. These, of course, have major
implications for programs involving
everything from endangered species to
wetlands, coastal processes to forest and
crop health.
You mention global climate and
ozone depletion. Do you think we really
understand problems like these,
understand enough to act on them?
•iV What we need to know to
understand the science of these
problems is a great deal; what we need
to know to regulate is probably not
nearly so much. For example, we know
that chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs)
cause depletion of the ozone layer, but
not necessarily how they do this. But
we've taken action against them. EPA is
working to achieve a worldwide
reduction in CFC use, possibly even a
ban on them. Just the knowledge that
CFCs interfere with the ozone layer has
been enough for EPA to start taking
regulatory action.
In other areas, such as global warming
or the greenhouse effect, I think we
understand what the greenhouse effect
is; we know that it's going to cause a
warming trend which will affect the
ecology of the planet. But it's going to
be more difficult to deal with because as
long as we use fossil fuels, as long as we
have carbon dioxide emissions and
some of the other trace gases that
contribute to this effect, it's harder to
know what to do. The problem and the
solution are long term; therefore, there
is urgency in moving forward
expeditiously with a research program
to develop better understanding and
more knowledge for future policy and
regulatory action.
Is biotechnology another area
where EPA should be looking ahead for
long-term consequences?
/\ Biotechnology is certainly one of
the new technologies that we expect to
be widely used in industry. Certainly
we need to know if releases (accidental
or planned) would cause undesirable
effects, on the environment and the
population and, if so, how to protect
both. We are also looking at the other
side of biotechnology, as a tool to clean
up wastes. I think this technology has
great promise. We're trying to develop
the kind of information and the kind of
expertise that would help us understand
this technology enough to develop
appropriate safeguards.
But remember that we are already
using naturally occurring microbes to
accelerate the biological degradation of
certain wastes. Once we have perfected
the techniques, we'll also be using
engineered organisms to carry out that
process.
EPA recently came out with a
report comparing risks from various
environmental problems the Agency is
addressing, including biotechnology.
How useful is risk assessment in
driving EPA's priorities?
/v Risk assessment — another term is
comparative risk — is certainly a tool
that's available to us. We take risk into
consideration when planning our
budget. But 1 emphasize that it's only
one of the tools that we use. Our
program priorities are also driven by
forces such as legislative mandates. All
of these go into the planning, the
priorities of the Agency. When you have
limited resources, it is useful to use
knowledge of risks to attack those that
are most likely to be causing tin: greatest
damage. One of tin; biggest problems
facing us is that we do not have
sufficient knowledge of how to count
the risks associated with non-cancer
endpoints or ecological risks. Both areas
are ripe for some intensive research.
Continued to next page
JUNE 1987
-------
Your area of expertise is human
health. Has government regulation been
proportionate to the actual risks to
human health from environmental
problems?
/i In terms of EPA regulations, let's
take the areas where the most effort has
been expended—the air and water
programs. As far as the general
population is concerned, there has been
a tremendous reduction in the amount
of air pollution exposure. The air
pollution episodes of the 1950s and
early 1960s just don't happen anymore;
you don't hear much about water-borne
diseases anymore, either. So these
programs have been extremely
successful.
Now we've moved on to other
problems, particularly toxic: materials.
These are harder to deal with, not least
because they are often site-specific, and
we have to tailor programs to individual
regions or areas where the problems
crop up. So we're not talking in these
cases about estimates of risk to the
general population.
But if we know there is a risk people
might be exposed to, then it's up to us
to try to put together some sort of
program which will reduce that risk,
keep it at the lowest point in the range
that we can.
There have been reports recently
that acid rain may pose serious human
health problems. Do the facts
substantiate this concern?
/\ I don't particularly agree that the
health effects cited are due to acid rain.
People in the general population are
exposed to particulate matter, some of
which is acid aerosol, and some of that
particulate matter causes some effects.
But 1 really think of that in different
terms than I think of acid rain itself.
The Agency is not ignoring this as a
problem. We're currently developing a
document on acid aerosols that will be
presented at a workshop in June and
will go to the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee in the late summer.
What's being argued is whether or not
the effects we've seen represent acid
rain effects. I don't believe they do.
Then would you say that the
threat from acid rain generally is not as
dangerous as it once appeared?
/i I don't think there has been any
change in the danger of the acid rain
process as such. We still need to know
more about it in order to determine
what to do about it; we still need to
continue with the research effort.
Some people have interpreted recent
EPA lake studies to mean that there is
no threat. What happened was that we
gave our researchers the task of pushing
some of our models and data as far as
possible to see if we could produce
estimates of the numbers of the lakes
that might acidify over a period of time.
And they did that. But to double-check
what we had done, we had our
assessment peer-reviewed. The
reviewers felt that we had really pushed
Office of Research and Development
Laboratories and Field Stations
Oregon
.Newport
'Corvallis
Minnesota Michigan Ohio
Duluth Grosse lie Cincinnati
Monticello '• '•. (3 Labs)
Rhode Island
Narragansett
New Jersey
Edison
Washington DC
EPA Headquarters
Nevada'.
Las Vegas
Oklahoma
Ada..
Florida '•_
Gulf Breeze
Virginia
Warrenton
North Carolina
Research Triangle
Park (4 Labs)
.Georgia
Athens
* Laboratory Location
• Field Station Location
The main building of EPA's Environmental Research Center at Research Triangle Park, NC. The Center includes four of the Agency's
research laboratories.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
the data a bit too far, so that the
number of acidified lakes predicted in
25 or 50 years was too uncertain tor any
definitive statement at this time. This
was not a negative reflection on the acid
rain program, but merely an assessment
of the status of the predictive science
given current scientific knowledge.
You cited peer review as a factor
in the acid rain studies. What is the
role of peer review generally, and how
does it influence EPA research?
/\ Peer review is absolutely critical in
the research process. No matter what
research a scientist does, and what his
results appear to be, those results are
not usable by a regulatory agency until
other scientists — specialists in the
field — have reviewed them. They look at
all aspects of the work, including the
conclusions, and have to agree that the
results are reasonable, based on the
work that was done.
In addition to this classical form of
peer review, we also have what we call
research-in-progress reviews. These are
conducted for the Administrator by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board.
These reviews look at ongoing research
in areas that are of particular regulatory
importance to ensure that our work is of
the highest scientific quality. In fact,
quality assurance in general is an area
which we are heavily committed to.
Is EPA research published in
scientific and professional journals?
/\ Yes, it is, and we encourage
publication. Scientists are measured by
the acceptance of their work by their
peers. ORD is measured by the
performance of our scientists. So
publication in journals that require
scientific review of submitted articles is
a valuable form of peer review, too.
Such publication is frequently a part of
a scientist's job performance evaluation,
and is key 'to internal awards and
promotion.
Would you characterize EPA as a
leader in environmental research?
Should we play that role?
/\ You can't be the leader in every
area, but I think there is no question
that in some areas EPA has world class
experts and is recognized as the place
where some of the best and most
innovative science in a given field is
taking place. Although it is very
important to develop that leadership
and maintain it in some areas, it should
not be the only measure of the research
program in a regulatory agency.
What's important to EPA is that ORD
manages to attract and hold on to
scientists who are intelligent.
competent, respected, and doing
scientific work at the cutting edge of
their field, and who are thus able to
interact with scientists outside the
Agency. Our scientists have to be aware
of the work that is going on, and be
capable of interpreting and
understanding its implications for EPA's
programs. This ensures that our
decisions are based on the most
accurate and current information.
under the direction of the Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment.
And this is leaving many other exciting
things out.
Is it difficult to recruit scientists to
work for the Agency?
/V Yes, but we are very fortunate in
ORD. We have a superb group of
scientists across many scientific
disciplines in our laboratories. Many of
our research groups are world
renowned. I don't doubt, though, that
recruitment will continue to be a
problem. Attracting the best scientists is
a historical problem in government
because we find it difficult to compete
with aspects of the job environment in
academia and the private sector.
Universities provide scientists the
opportunity to work on what they want,
not on what is needed for a regulatory
decision. Regulatory time pressures do
not exist. The nature of academic life is
different and can be very appealing.
Then too, non-governmental
organizations can often be more
responsive in providing salary, research
funds, and sophisticated equipment. So
again, I think the loyalty and dedication
of our scientists is admirable.
Q What work at the EPA
laboratories do you consider
particularly well done?
/\. Of course, 1 think the scientific
quality of all our labs and work is
extremely high. 1 mention just a few of
the areas where our scientists have
gotten recent national attention: the
biotech work at Gulf Breeze; the fish
tumor work there and at the lab in
Duluth; combustion research at our
engineering labs; inhalation toxicology
work at our health labs in Research
Triangle Park; the in-situ biodegradation
research at Ada and the eco-region work
at Corvallis; and the risk assessment
guidelines developed by the Agency
In terms of communicating with a
non-scientific public, you've travelled
extensively abroad. Are third-world
countries with serious pollution
problems in a position politically or
technologically to take advantage of the
results of EPA research?
/\ Yes, and it happens in many
different ways. It happens by direct
interaction between EPA people and the
people in some of the countries. It
happens by EPA's interaction with
organizations such as the United
Nations Environmental Program, or with
World Health Organization programs to
develop documents that are put out
specifically to help third-world
countries build their own programs.
It's really a technology transfer. Those
countries, because of their culture, or
where they are in their economies, may
not be able to build the kind of
programs that we have — the expensive
kind of program we have here; — but they
certainly can trade off the risks they
have and decide which they can tolerate
and which they can't.
Do you see steps that would help
to make ORD more effective in the long
run, such as closing or consolidating
some of the labs?
/\ Well, there are lots of arguments
for consolidating laboratories, such as
bringing programs together and not
having overhead expense spread out the
way it is at the present time. But I think
it's unrealistic, to think about
accomplishing any of that.
So I accept the labs as a given and 1
think we ought to go ahead and build
the best program we can within each ot
our labs.
As I mentioned before. I think a major
step that will help ORD's program is to
get the Science Advisory Board
involved in planning longer-term
research. The con; capability ue want to
maintain within ORD relates to health
risk assessments, to identifying
ecological risks, to measuring exposure,
and to taking care of risk reduction. I
believe the expansion of the research
program to give the regulatory efforts
more solid underpinnings than they
have at present will be good for ORD,
but it will be even better for EPA. a
JUNE 1987
-------
Reducing the Uncertainty in Assessing
Environmental Risk
by Peter Preuss
Some people hate it; others love it!
Some people see it as a smokescreen
to mask political decisions not to
regulate; others see it as an essential
tool for making decisions in a
resource-limited society. There are very
few people who are neutral about the
issue. I refer, of course, to risk
assessment.
This tool, and particularly the
quantitative aspects of it, have been the
focus of controversy for many years.
Yet, under both former Administrator
William Ruckelshaus and current
Administrator Lee Thomas, EPA has
made a very strong effort to incorporate
risk assessment into its decision-making
process. Similarly, risk assessment has
begun to play an increasingly important
role in other federal regulatory agencies,
and in many state regulatory agencies as
well.
This heightened use of risk
assessment has fueled controversy about
the validity of using it, and has, at the
same time, added a significant new
component to the agenda of EPA's
Office of Research and Development.
Risk assessment has been defined by
the National Academy of Sciences as
the use of available scientific
information and reasonable scientific
assumptions to evaluate the health risk
to people from exposure to hazardous
materials and situations in the
environment. Risk assessment, in the
Academy's term, consists of four parts:
• Hazard identification involves
gathering and evaluating information on
the types of health injury or disease that
may be produced by a chemical and on
the conditions of exposure (e.g.
inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption)
under which the injury or disease is
produced.
• Dose-response assessment describes
the relationship between the amount of
a chemical taken up by the body and
the incidence or seriousness of the
injury. This includes extrapolation from
animals to people and from the high
concentrations used in an experiment to
the trace amounts likely to be found in
the environment.
• Exposure assessment describes the
kinds of people exposed to a chemical
(whole populations, children, expectant
mothers, etc.) and the magnitude and
duration of that exposure.
• Risk characterization is a summary
statement of the likelihood of injury or
disease resulting from exposure to that
chemical, and a description of the
uncertainties associated with the
assessment.
Each of these four components is
based on current scientific thought, and
utilizes chemical, physical, and
biological data to estimate risk. In
almost all cases, however, the scientific
bases for assessments are global
unifying theories, and these are often
inadequate to deal with the specifics of
a particular assessment.
For example, our assessments of the
carcinogenicity of chemicals are based
on currently accepted theories of how
carcinogens act, and how they influence
the genetic material in the incorporation
and reproduction of information so that
a healthy cell is turned into a cancerous
clone. Nevertheless, our theories are
generally incapable of explaining how
individual chemicals act to produce a
specific carcinogenic effect.
Similarly, while we use modern
methods to measure concentrations of
chemicals in air, water, and food
sources, our exposure assessments are
too imprecise to tell us the actual
amount of a specific chemical to which
a person has been exposed. This is in
large part because pollutants
continuously move through the
environment and people do not stay in
one place.
As a result of these gaps in our
knowledge, theories, and data, we are
required to use a series of assumptions
in our assessments. These assumptions,
coupled with the errors in our
experimental data and our models,
introduce rather large uncertainties into
our assessments. These assumptions and
uncertainties lie at the heart of the
controversy about the use of risk
assessment.
Perhaps a simple example would be
useful at this point. Let us suppose that
we have studied Chemical A in a
long-term animal test and have found
that it produces a significantly increased
number of tumors, of several types, in
both male and female mice and rats.
Suppose, in addition, we had looked at
the presence of Chemical A in the
environment, and found traces of it
in certain food products, in the ground
water in several parts of the country,
and emitted into the air from several
manufacturing facilities.
In order to assess the risk to people
exposed to Chemical A, we must first
assess whether or not this substance is
likely to be a carcinogen in humans
(extrapolation from animals to people);
then we must assess whether or not
there is likely to be a risk at the low
doses to which people are exposed
(extrapolation from the high doses in
the animal study to the trace amounts
observed in the environment); and then
we must assess the extent to which
selected groups of people, or perhaps
even the entire population of the United
States, are exposed to this chemical
(extrapolation from limited monitoring
and emissions data). Other assumptions
and uncertainties also underlie our risk
assessments.
In response to this dilemma, the
Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment in EPA's Office of Research
and Development has started a research
program specifically designed to reduce
some of the uncertainties in risk
assessment. Currently, scientists are
working to lay out the assumptions that
are used in our assessments. A work
group will review these assumptions
EPA JOURNAL
-------
and select those few that seem to be
most critical to the process and at the
same time are capable of being resolved
by research. Once assumptions to be
investigated have been selected, a
research plan will be developed and
implemented. This multi-year plan will
go into effect in fiscal year 1988.
In the meantime, however, we have
iilnuuh begun a number of ri's<>an:li
projects in those areas that seem to be
particularly important and urgent. These
activities fall under two of the risk
assessment components defined earlier,
namely, dose-response and exposure
assessment. Projects in the
dose-response area deal with
extrapolation from animal tests to
projections about human health. From
them, we hope to develop mathematical
models for dose-response assessment
that more closely parallel our current
understanding of the toxicology of these
chemicals. The extrapolation projects
are examining chemicals for which data
exist in both humans and test species
(e.g., chemotherapeutic drugs and
hormones). Our goal is to develop
factors for extrapolation from animals to
humans that, in the absence of human
data on a chemical, could be appiied to
existing animal data for estimating
human risk.
EPA's biological/mathematical
modeling projects are in the areas of
cancer and of
reproductive/developmental toxicology.
The intent of these studies is to
integrate basic knowledge of biological
and biochemical processes and data on
the metabolic properties of the chemical
with dose-response data. As such.
so-called mechanistically based models
can be derived that predict human risk
more accurately.
One of the major uncertainties in
exposure assessment is that we
traditionally measure or estimate the
concentration of chemicals reaching the
body, but not the amounts taken up by
the body and reaching the affected
organs. Developing an understanding of
this so-called "delivered dose" is a
major aspect of the research. Some of
the projects are examining how different
exposure variables may affect the dose
actually delivered to the individual and
the occurrence of toxicity. Variables
being evaluated include the influence of
dose-rate over time and route of
administration (ingestion, inhalation,
skin absorption).
Other projects are designed to
measure the metabolism of single and/or
multiple agents once entry is gained
into the body (pharmacokinetics) and
the development of biological markers
that could serve as equally valid
measures of this "internal" dose (e.g.,
non-essential changes to DNA).
The remaining projects reflect
attempts to increase the uniformity in
the conduct of exposure assessments
across offices in the Agency. Areas
under investigation include the
development of consensus validation
criteria that could be applied to the
selection and application of an exposure
model appropriate to a particular
situation, and the establishment of
uniform strategies for evaluating the
effects of short-term or periodic
exposures.
These current projects will ho
integrated into the more systematic,
coordinated program that is being
developed by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment to further
EPA's objective of "Reducing
Uncertainties in Risk Assessment." This
program, if successful, will do a great
deal to strengthen risk assessment for its
role in the regulatory process. It will
result in less reliance on "fall-back"
assumptions, i.e., those assumptions
that we use because of a lack of
knowledge or information. It will create
greater confidence in the results of the
risk assessment process by generating
confidence in the estimates produced,
Finally, it will reduce the controversy
about the validity and the utility of risk
assessment as a part of the regulatory
decision-making process. ZJ
(Dr. Preuss is Director of the Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment
in EPA's Office of Research and
Development.)
Most information for risk
assessments is obtained
through animal experiments
which produce data used to
estimate the health
implications for humans.
EPA's scientists are
constantly trying to improve
the accuracy of their
projections from animal data
to human health risk.
JUNE 1987
-------
How Researchers Are Learning
Ozone's Health Effects
by William McDonnell, III, and Donald Horstman
Tlunning in the Los Angeles area on
Ivan August afternoon may well be the
ultimate jogging nightmare, but some
brave souls are actually volunteering to
do it. Only they're not actually doing it
by the side of the road in Los Angeles.
These runners are volunteers in EPA's
Health Effects Research Laboratory
(HERL) in Chapel Hill, NC. Their track
is a treadmill in a computerized, ozone
exposure chamber, and their goal is to
assess the human health effects of
exposure to ozone under conditions
which mimic those found in many
urban areas of the United States.
Ozone is one of six "criteria" air
pollutants for which the Clean Air Act
requires EPA to set standards
specifically protective of human health.
A chemical oxidant and major
component of photochemical smog,
ozone can seriously affect the human
respiratory system, and is one of the
most prevalent and widespread of all
the criteria pollutants.
Although the current standard for
ozone is set at 0.12 parts per million
(ppm), many areas of the country are
not in compliance with this standard,
and studies have shown that ozone is
harmful at concentrations above the
current EPA standard. To ensure that it
provides adequate protection, EPA
reviews the standard periodically. But
to do this, EPA needs to identify
precisely why, how, and to whom ozone
effects occur.
There are several ways to do this,
including animal, epidemiological, and
clinical studies. Animal and
epidemiological studies can be very
useful for examining acute and chronic
exposure effects, but standards to
protect human health can not be based
upon these alone. For that, we need
clinical studies—and volunteers.
HERL's ozone study volunteers range
in age from teenagers to senior citizens,
and include students, faculty, and staff
from local universities, as well as
townspeople and medical professionals
from around EPA's Chapel Hill research
facility. Although some volunteer just to
earn a few extra dollars or to have a
thorough physical examination for free,
many participants are in the health and
scientific fields and have professional
interests in the studies.
Regardless of their motives, however,
all volunteers are rigorously screened
for existing or potential physical and
psychological problems. This screening
includes a medical history,
psychological testing, comprehensive
blood tests, and a complete physical
examination. To ensure that they
understand their part in the studies,
participants must study and sign a
consent document which has been
reviewed by the University of North
Carolina Medical School's Committee
on the Protection of the Rights of
Human Subjects, and which explains
any potential risks.
Exposure experiments vary, although
ozone concentrations rarely exceed
those of Los Angeles on a very smoggy
day; most of the studies, in fact, are
conducted at levels near or below the
current standard of 0.12 ppm. Most
exposures last from one to two hours,
although some may go as long as seven
hours in order to simulate exposure
conditions in the real world. Because a
given exposure level produces much
smaller effects on people at rest, many
of the experiments include exercise on a
treadmill to simulate brisk uphill
walking. Very fit athletes, such as
marathon runners, also participate and
run on treadmills.
Tests take place in stainless steel
exposure chambers controlled for such
factors as temperature, light, humidity,
and pollutant concentrations, and
equipped with redundant alarm systems
to prevent any deviations. This facility
is unique. It is highly sophisticated,
using modern computer technology,
allowing the most carefully controlled
exposures possible as well as
measurement of subtle physiological
responses.
Before, during, and after exposure, the
volunteers are measured for
physiological performance and their
subjective experience of pain,
discomfort, and other symptoms.
Investigators are present at all times
during the experiments, as is a
physician. Aside from a few faints and
episodes of light-headedness, however,
the ozone studies have been free of real
emergencies—a tribute to the quality of
the facilities and the careful planning
and care by the investigators.
HERL's volunteers have already
provided us with some very important
facts. They've proved that exposure to
acute ozone conditions—equivalent to
0.3 ppm, or what Los Angeles routinely
experiences on a bad day—can cause
chest pain, coughing, and shortness of
breath, as well as limit people's ability
to perform physically.
But the most surprising fact to emerge
from the volunteer studies is that
normal responses to ozone exposure
vary enormously. Among healthy, very
similar males 18 to 30 years old, for
example, identical ozone levels caused
acute discomfort for some, while not
bothering others at all. Clearly, such a
finding has important implications for
setting the ozone standard, especially
considering the law's requirement for an
adequate margin of safety. It means that
we need to study further the
mechanisms by which ozone affects
respiratory systems, as well as identify
previously unsuspected effects and
groups who may be more sensitive to
ozone risks than others.
Those groups include not only
joggers, but children, the elderly,
asthmatics, cyclists, outdoor workers,
and pedestrians—anyone, in fact, who
exerts himself outside. The published
data from research conducted in the
EPA clinical facilities have been used
directly to establish the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone.
Thanks to the volunteers and Agency
scientists at Chapel Hill, EPA will be
better able to carry out its mission to
protect the health and environment. D
(Dr. McDonnell is a research medical
officer in the Clinical Research Branch
at the Health Effects Research
Laboratory in North Carolina. Dr.
Horstman is chief of the Physiology
Section in the same branch. Assisting in
preparing the article was Mary Ellen
Radzikowski, a program analyst with the
Office of Health Research in EPA's
Office of Research and Development.]
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Creating Environments
to Help Understand
Marine Contamination
by Carole Jaworski
Each day in the United States, over
20,000 sewage treatment plants
discharge over 20,000 chemicals into
coastal waters, impacting more than
30,000 species of marine organisms. Yet
very little is known about the long-term
fate of these chemicals and how they
affect the environment.
Laboratory or field studies cannot give
a comprehensive view of what is
occurring in this daily mix of seawater,
chemicals, and life. Laboratory studies
have limitations in their ability to
capture a number of simultaneous
processes that occur in ecosystems.
Field studies are often limited by the
difficulties in defining what is going on
in this extraordinarily complex system.
For the past 10 years, the
Environmental Protection Agency's
Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory
(MERL) at the University of Rhode
Island has been trying to get an
experimental handle on whole marine
ecosystems. The laboratory was
established in 1976 in one of the
country's first major attempts to study
the effects of pollutants on marine
systems.
The facility is largely a piece of
plumbing. It consists of 14 tanks, 5.5
meters high, 1.8 meters in diameter,
each containing 13 tons of seawater
overlying one ton of natural benthos
(sediment).
The tanks—called "mesocosms" by
MERL researchers—are living models of
marine ecosystems. Temperature, light,
mixing, and water turnover are adjusted
to closely simulate natural systems.
When not deliberately manipulated, the
biology and chemistry are largely
indistinguishable from lower
Narragansett Bay.
Not only do the tanks at MERL
simulate the real world, but the system
can be experimentally controlled and
manipulated. This allows researchers to
make observations not possible before.
During the past decade, MERL has
studied the fates of various metals,
hydrocarbons, and pollutants in the
marine environment. The use of
radioactive tracers has allowed
researchers to track, with great
sensitivity, what happens to various
substances.
Maureen McConnell, marine research
specialist, lifts a plankton net out of a tank
at EPA's Marine Ecosystem Research
Laboratory at the University of Rhode Island
at Kingston, Rhode Island. Conditions in the
tank simulate those in Narragansett Bay.
Researchers were able to show, for
instance, that oil spills do not stay long
in the water "column" between the
surface and the bottom. Oil either
evaporates, degrades, or adheres to
suspended particles and sinks with
them to the bottom. Water, in the end. is
a very transitory habitat for oil.
Over the last five years, studies at
MERL have concentrated on problems of
eutrophication, or undesired
over-enrichment of the marine
ecosystem.
Since the settlement of Rhode Island.
the Providence River has received a
steady stream of disease organisms.
nutrients, metal, and more recently.
toxic organic compounds. Most of these
pollutants have settled to the bottom of
the river and stayed there. The rest have
flushed through the system into
Narragansett Bay. The sediments
remaining represent a vast reservoir of
pollutants spanning some 350 years of
contamination.
What is the impact of these sediments
on the overlying water? Can a system
with such a long history of pollution
ever recover? If it can, how long would
such a recovery take?
To answer those questions,
researchers collected sediments from the
Providence River along with measurably
polluted sediments from
mid-Narragansett Bay, and relatively
"clean" sediments from the mouth of
the bay. Tanks were filled with each of
the sediments and an experiment was
conducted for 21 months.
The results were unexpected.
It was observed that even though
pollution sources were removed, the
heavily impacted sediments remained
polluted. What's more, they would
probably remain polluted for decades.
What was surprising, however, was that
the water column would recover and
do so quickly. In spite of a steady
stream of pollution for some 350 years,
the study concluded that the river itself
would recover in as little as four to
seven years if pollution sources WITC
abated.
And once clean sediment is deposited
over a site no longer receiving pollution,
it seals off older, more polluted
sediments from the overlying water. A
healthy "bottom community" can
develop again—and healthy
water—provided the sediments are not
repeatedly stirred up.
This finding argues strongly that the
money spent on efforts to clean the
environment has been money well
spent. Eons are not necessary for a
polluted system to recover. It may do so
JUNE 1987
-------
rather quickly once pollution is
stopped.
Following this study, research at
MERL turned to the effects on the
marine environment of various added
amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
silica—additions such as would come
from an ideal, 100 percent-efficient
sewage treatment plant.
A series of nutrient loadings, ranging
in amount from the average loading fed
into Narragansett Bay to that of the
inner New York Bight, was applied to
the test beds.
At lower loads, production and the
total amount of all trophic (food) levels
was enhanced. At higher loads, massive
shifts in species composition and
community dynamics were observed.
The experiment was particularly
valuable for indicating at what level of
nutrient loading detrimental effects to a
system can be observed. Although the
experiment examined a wide variation
of nutrient loadings, detrimental effects
were observed only at the level
currently impacting the Providence
River. They were not observed when
lower rates of nutrient loading occurred.
Many systems throughout the country
are now approaching the same loading
rate as the Providence River. But many
other systems are, in fact, negatively
impacted by a much lower rate due to
stratification or slower flushing of
pollutants from their waters. As a
system is observed to be approaching a
detrimental level, it becomes obvious
that management decisions on alternate
disposal sites or solutions need to be
made.
Once MERL researchers knew the
effects of pure nutrients, they turned to
the problem of complex effluents, such
as sewage sludge, on the system. There
have been many efforts to assess sewage
sludge disposal in the past, but the
controlled mesocosm experiment at
MERL offered an opportunity. In the
laboratory tanks, the researchers could
quantitatively assess the fate of sewage
sludge components, their effects on
plankton and other benthic (bottom)
marine organisms, and the levels of
sludge addition that cause detrimental
effects.
As expected, the study found that the
assimilative capacity of sludge was
much lower than that of the nutrients
per se, due to the demand for additional
oxygen generated by carbon in the solid
sludge. The experiment quantified the
rate of sewage sludge addition to water
that caused hypoxia, or low oxygen
concentration, eventually leading to fish
kills. The study concluded that, at
summer temperatures, sludge amounts
10
in excess of one gram of carbon per
square meter per day will at first cause
changes in zooplankton and benthic
community structure and, finally,
hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, in
shallow water.
In addition, the experiment also
discovered that sewage sludge settled to
the bottom more rapidly than previously
predicted. Hypoxia, therefore, was also
likely to occur in deep water.
Results of the experiment were
consistent with field studies. The
detrimental effects that were observed
were all due to the depletion of oxygen
from the water column by sewage
sludge addition. No direct toxic effects
were attributed to the sludge treatments,
but this may have been due to the short
duration of the experiment or the
generally lower concentrations of
toxicity in the sludge examined.
The earlier nutrient experiment had
raised an interesting hypothesis and,
following the sludge study, researchers
decided to test it. The nutrient
experiment seemed to suggest that an
abundance of silica in the sewer
discharge led to more favorable
progression of nutrients up the food
chain, from tiny diatoms (algae) to more
preferred species such as fish. When
silica was lacking, less desirable
progression seemed to occur, leading to
such undesirable species as jellyfish. If
this were true, researchers wondered,
would it be possible to "control"
eutrophication and guide the nutrition
enrichment process in a direction
leading to economic benefits from an
improved fish catch?
The resulting experiment settled the
question, but, unfortunately, not to the
degree hoped. Adding silica did result
in improved progression up the food
chain to more desirable fish species,
and did result in increased fish size. But
the magnitude of the response was not
sufficient to justify the effort. While the
hypothesis proved correct, only a small
percentage of change in fish size was
observed. To be effective, a much larger
increase in fish size would be required.
In 1986, MERL became part of a much
larger three-level experiment looking at
single species, mesocosm, and field
studies of the same sewage effluent. The
purpose of this study is to compare the
three approaches for assessing toxicity
of sewage effluent in marine
environments and to verify
single-species tests and their
predictability.
The classic approach—and still the
hallmark and workhorse of regulatory
action today—is single-species testing
for toxicity. The problem with this
approach is that it can't predict what
other components in an ecosystem also
change due to sewage discharge.
Mesocosm studies, however, can allow
such prediction and at the same time
add scientific credence to single-species
testing. They can show when it is
appropriate to use single-species testing
and when it is not. Mesocosms can also
test the validity of laboratory findings
and determine what can or cannot be
extrapolated to the field.
In addition, mesocosms are excellent
mechanisms for testing mathematical
models. While such models are well
adapted to sensitivity analysis, they are
not necessarily good predictors of
complex interactions. Interaction,
replication, and complexity are the forte
of the mesocosm.
In the decade since the MERL was
built, it has been a remarkable success.
Two aspects of this success are of
particular interest and use to EPA.
• First, it has offered the possibility
of studying an ecosystem by changing
various parts of it in a realistic and
meaningful way, thus moving ecosystem
research from being an almost purely
observational science towards being an
experimental one. As EPA is more
aggressively concerned with protecting
the environmental values, the
importance of this research to EPA in
general, and specifically as applied to
coastal ecosystems, cannot be
overemphasized.
• Second, the MERL can get
ecosystems data on transformation, fate,
and effects of pollutants in coastal
ecosystems, thereby providing actual
numbers that can be used by EPA and
state permit writers, enforcers, etc.
EPA funding, augmented by the
National Science Foundation, the
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, enabled
researchers from different disciplines to
be team players, with time to gain a true
perspective of what a complex system
like MERL can model.
Researchers from EPA; Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution; Cornell; the
University of Rhode Island; the
University of Connecticut; Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; the
University of Stockholm; the Marine
Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole; and
the University of North Carolina; as well
as other institutions, have already
utilized the facility. Q
(Carole Jaworski is a consultant at EPA's
Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory
at Narragansett, RI.j
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Scientists Take a Close Look
at "Ice-Minus"
by Harold Kibby
One of the staples of science fiction is
the invasion of Earth by new, alien
forms of life. Even though nature seems
to be constantly evolving new forms of
life, there is considerable apprehension
when this process is controlled by man:
witness the public concern and legal
action that preceded the two
agricultural biotechnology field tests
described in this article and put into
action just this past April.
This problem is now upon us with
the emergence of the science of genetic
engineering into practical reality.
Intentional modifications of the genetic
structure of microorganisms has
tremendous potential for human benefit,
but will it also be accompanied by
human or environmental harm? As with
any new technology there are risks, yet
with genetic engineering, even when the
risks appear to be minimal the public
concern is great.
This is illustrated by recent public
hearings at Tulelake, CA, which
preceded one of the first authorized test
releases in the U.S. of a genetically
engineered organism. Even though this
particular instance didn't involve
introduction of new genetic
material—merely the removal of a gene
from a bacterium that already exists
harmlessly in nature in large
numbers—fears ranged from food
contamination to an outbreak of cancer.
The source of all this controversy is
an effort to reduce agricultural losses
from frost. Many plants are sensitive to
frost and cannot tolerate ice crystals
forming within their tissues. The
resulting damage is a significant
problem to farmers growing many fruits
and vegetables; thus, ice damage
directly affects the price consumers
must pay for agricultural products.
Scientific evidence suggests that frost
on plants is formed by naturally
occurring bacteria that live on the leaves
and produce a protein in their cell
membranes that enables them to serve
as a nucleus or "seed" for ice crystals.
Strains of Pseudomonas syringae are the
most common ice-plus bacteria found
on plants in the United States. Other
common, naturally occurring bacteria
such as Envinia herbicola and
Pseudomonas fiuorescens also serve as
nuclei of ice crystals.
During growth of Pseudomonas on
plant leaves, some strains—known as
"ice-minus" bacteria—naturally lose
their ability to form ice crystals. The
ice-minus bacteria occur in such small
numbers that they cannot successfully
displace the ice-plus strains on their
own. However, if the normal population
of bacteria on plant leaves could be
replaced with bacteria that do not have
ice nucleation genes, then frost damage
would be reduced and much crop loss
prevented.
To take advantage of this possibility,
two groups of scientists, one at
Advanced Genetic Sciences (ACS) of
Oakland, CA, and the other at the
University of California, Berkeley,
identified the genes in Pseudomonas
that cause ice formation and
successfully altered them so the bacteria
no longer form the nucleus of ice
crystals. By genetic engineering, they
created in the laboratory a strain of
ice-minus bacteria nearly identical to
those occurring in nature.
This was done by removing from the
Pseudomonas a piece of chromosome
containing the gene necessary for
ice-plus protein synthesis. This piece of
chromosome was transferred to a second
bacterium, where a portion of the ice
nucleating gene could be removed. The
chromosome with the modified gene
was re-inserted back into the original
EPA monitoring equipment is used to find
out whether frost-deterrent bacteria are
migrating from these strawberry plants into
the environment.
11
-------
Even though nature seems to
be constantly evolving new
forms of life, there is
considerable apprehension
when this process is controlled
by man.
Pseudomonos, thus altering the genetic
make-up of the original organism by
eliminating only a portion of a gene.
Laboratory experiments demonstrated
that these "manufactured" ice-minus
bacteria prevent frost damage down to a
temperature of about 23 degrees F.
Normally, frost damage occurs at about
28 degrees F.
The controversy surrounding these
bacteria erupted when both research
groups applied to EPA for an
experimental use permit to test the
bacteria in the field, as required by the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). which
requires pesticides to be registered by
EPA. The altered bacteria are considered
a pesticide because their intended use is
to control the ice producing "pest,"
ice-plus strains of Pseudomonas
syringae.
One could ask, why use genetic
engineering to control frost when there
already are conventional methods such
as spraying water, burning smudge pots,
or using wind machines? Each of these
methods is effective under certain
conditions, but each also has
operational, economic, or environmental
limitations. Spray irrigation requires
large amounts of water and is ineffective
when wind or other factors prevent
continuous wetting of the plant; smudge
pots burn fossil fuels; and wind
machines require electricity.
The use of ice-minus bacteria does
not involve adding "new" genes to the
environment, or the creation of a new
life form. Instead, it artificially creates a
strain of bacteria by removing a piece of
a gene. The resultant organism is nearly
identical to the bacterium that occurs
naturally.
Nonetheless, some citizens worried
about how these tests would affect
them. Concerns ranged from fear of
increased cancer risk to the possibility
of agricultural crops becoming
contaminated with harmful bacteria.
There is concern that crops from the test
areas might be boycotted, with resultant
economic losses.
There are also scientific questions.
While it is controversial, some scientists
believe that the ice-plus strains of
Pseudomonas have several significant
broader ecological roles, including
influence on patterns of rain and snow,
and possibly on the geographical range
of frost-tolerant plants. Scientists know
that the ice-minus and ice-plus strains
have almost equal ability to compete in
nature and that, in a competitive
situation, the strain with the initial
advantage in numbers is likely to
become dominant for some short period
of time. A few worry that, where there
are low or non-existent natural
populations of Pseudomonas, the
ice-minus bacteria could proliferate and
produce unknown environmental
consequences. Other scientists contend
that it is extremely unlikely that
sufficient numbers of ice-minus bacteria
will leave the experimental plots to
become established as the dominant
strain. Recently, a panel of expert
scientists advised EPA that there was
little if any risk involved in introducing
these bacteria under test conditions into
the environment.
Field tests are necessary to evaluate
the effectiveness of the bacteria. Prior to
last April, all experiments were
conducted in the laboratory. It was not
known whether or not the ice-minus
bacteria would be effective in the
natural environment. The final
determination can be made only where
the bacteria compete with a diverse
array of naturally occurring bacteria
under naturally occurring weather
conditions.
EPA approved the experimental
release of these organisms at two
different locations. The release of
ice-minus bacteria by ACS took place
on strawberries near Brentwood, CA.
The University of California released its
bacteria on potato plants at Tulelake,
CA. As part of the permit conditions,
scientists from EPA's laboratories at
Corvallis, OR, and Las Vegas, NV, are
determining if there is movement of
bacteria off the spray sites. A detailed
plan was developed to determine how
far downwind the organisms could be
detected with air sampling units.
Sampling was to continue for up to 49
days following the release, depending
on whether bacteria were detected in
the samplers.
A variety of sampling devices are
being used, ranging from complicated
mechanical samplers that allow
Laboratory experiments
demonstrated that these
"manufactured" ice-minus
bacteria prevent frost damage
down to a temperature of
about 23 degrees F.
scientists to estimate the numbers of
bacteria in the air over time to simple
plates of agar that grow bacteria. Since
plants can "capture" bacteria, portable
trays of oats were also used to monitor
the movement of bacteria. These plants
have an additional advantage over
conventional mechanical devices since
they can integrate sampling over long
periods of time.
Ice-minus bacteria are only one of
innumerable bacteria that are being
engineered for a myriad of uses. Many
are naturally occurring microorganisms
that are being released in large numbers
into new environments; others are new
forms of life genetically engineered for
specific purposes. Genetically
engineered microbes (GEMs) have
tremendous potential for helping
society. Because of the potential
benefits, a large biotechnology industry
has already emerged. However, until the
last several years, little has been done to
assess the ecological fate and effects of
such engineered microbes. There will be
increasing pressure on EPA to evaluate
new biotechnology products in a safe,
efficient, and effective fashion. Studies
will continue to be needed that employ
a variety of scientific tools such as
simple laboratory tests, microcosm
studies, and finally, when we believe
that any risks are minimal, full-scale
field studies, a
(Dr. Kibby is chief of the
Toxics/Pesticides Branch in the
Agency's Environmental Research
Laboratory in CorvalJis, OR.J
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
New
Techniques
to Project
Acid Rain's
Impact
by Raymond G. Wilhour
Lake in the Adirondack Mountains in New
York State. Samples were taken of 155
lakes in the Adirondacks during EPA's
National Surface Water Survey to determine
how many in the region are acidic or
acid-sensitive.
How many lakes and streams across
the United States are acidic or
sensitive to acid deposition? Where are
they? And how many more are likely to
be affected by acid rain if future levels
of acidic deposition do not change?
Environmental Protection Agency
researchers using a new approach to
risk assessment based on regional
ecology are seeking the answers to these
questions.
Acidic deposition that may make
lakes and streams inhospitable to
aquatic life is challenging ecological
science with an unprecedented set of
policy questions. The answers will
affect regulatory decisions that could
involve billions of dollars in
pollution-control expenditures.
Although EPA has statutory
responsibilities for protecting both the
environment and human health, the
Agency's approach to ecological
protection is not as well-defined as it is
for human health. This is partially due
to the enormous complexity and
variability of the natural environment
and to the lack of data on the diverse
array of ecological systems. Most
ecological data come from intensive
investigations of single lakes, streams.
or other ecological systems. While such
studies help scientists to understand
how ecosystems function, they do not
provide a basis for national or regional
estimates of what resources may be at
risk from man-made factors such as
acidic deposition.
Scientists at EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Corvallis, OR,
faced this dilemma when they were
presented with a series of policy
questions on the problem of acid rain
and other forms of airborne acidic
deposition. Most of the data available to
them came from site-specific studies. It
could not easily be applied to all the
lakes and streams in a large region such
as the northeastern United States or. for
that matter, the entire country. The only
traditional alternative for gathering such
data was a statistically random survey
of lakes and streams across the
country—an enormously and
prohibitively expensive undertaking.
The Corvallis scientists turned instead
to techniques they were developing to
deal with other water pollution
problems, and applied them to the
design of a regional-ecological approach
to surveying the nation's lakes and
streams. The big question was: could a
timely, cost-effective survey be
developed to provide the needed
national and regional estimates of
how many such bodies of water uviv
-------
acidic or acid-sensitive? Their response
to the question was to create the
concept that became the National
Surface Water Survey (NSWS).
The survey's objective was to describe
the broadscale current impacts of acidic
deposition on our nation's surface
waters and to provide a basis for
forecasting future impacts. This meant
making measures on hundreds or
thousands of lakes and streams, rather
than just one or several sites as had
been done in the past.
Although a regionally designed
ecological study was not an entirely
new idea, the Corvallis scientists along
with a sister laboratory (Las Vegas)
took several innovative steps to ensure
that their approach would be more
successful than previous efforts to
collect comparable information on a
regional scale. The ecological basis for
their design was that biological
communities, physical and chemical
landscape features, and the chemistry of
lakes and streams are naturally
organized into areas or regions in such a
way that there is greater similarity
within a region than there is between
different regions. Historical events
responsible for these patterns include
geological activity such as glaciation
and erosion, and climate patterns.
Collectively, these ecological elements
determine the chemistry and biology of
surface water. Although these ecological
patterns are obvious to all of us as we
travel across the country and see
grasslands, forests, plains, and
mountains, defining them scientifically
is extremely difficult.
Step one in using these natural levels
of organization to create the desired
regional approach to the survey was
the development of a Total Alkalinity
Map of the United States in 1983.
Corvallis geographers used regional
ecological analysis methods to display
broad areas that were potentially
sensitive to acidic deposition because of
their low surface water alkalinity (a
measure of the water's ability to
neutralize acid). The map gave
policy-makers and scientists an
indication of possible problem areas,but
offered no scientifically defensible
projection of the number of acidic or
sensitive surface waters within a given
region—data described as critically
important by EPA policy-makers.
The next step was to develop a
statistical base for the survey. The
alkalinity map plus information on
vegetation, geology, soils, and land use.
After painstakingly interpreting and
mapping these data for the entire United
States, the scientists were able to define
regions of the U.S. likely to contain the
majority of low alkalinity lakes and
streams. Regions such as the Northeast
could then be further subdivided into
subregions, such as southern New
England, to better define areas of
ecological similarity within which the
lakes and streams survey would be
performed.
Next, the lakes and streams in these
areas were selected on a statistical basis
so the scientists could ultimately
estimate with a high degree of precision
the total number of acidic and low
alkalinity lakes and streams within each
region surveyed. Water samples were
collected during a very short period
when conditions were relatively stable
to provide an "index sample" that gave
the scientists a clear picture of the water
chemistry within a given region.
For example, 155 Adirondack
Mountain lakes in New York were
sampled during the NSWS study.
Because of the way the lakes were
selected, the samples were used by EPA
scientists to estimate the chemical status
of the 1,290 lakes in the Adirondack
subregion. They concluded that at least
138, or 10.7 percent, are acidic. They
also estimated that as many as 190
could be. This higher estimate is
referred to as the upper confidence
bound—probably the highest number.
The upper-confidence bound magnitude
varies from area to area, depending on
the total number of lakes in the area and
the percentage actually sampled. In the
Southern Blue Ridge subregion, where
94 out of 258 lakes were sampled,
scientists could be morn confident of
their statistical estimates, whereas the
confidence bound is greater for an area
such as the Upper Great Lakes, where
they sampled only 141 lakes out of an
estimated 4,515.
The regional approach is a
breakthrough in our ability to apply
sound ecological theory to scientific
questions related to a large area or
region instead of being limited to a
Acidic deposition that may
make lakes and streams
inhospitable to aquatic life is
challenging ecological science
with an unprecedented set of
policy questions.
single lake, stream, or local ecosystem.
The National Surface Water Survey has
shown that policy-makers, dealing with
significant questions requiring regional
or national ecological assessments, can
be provided with the information they
need for making regulatory and other
risk management decisions. Specific
answers to specific questions—where
are the most acid-sensitive streams in
the Appalachians located, for
example—are available from the
chemical data compiled by NSWS
studies. And with those data we can
further refine the regions of concern,
create new subregions, or merge others.
The information gained from these
regional studies shows us how we can
better define regions according to the
problems we are trying to solve. NSWS,
in fact, is the first regional application
of this new approach.
This does not mean EPA is no longer
interested in detailed research at
individual sites. There will always be a
need for studies of specific lakes and
streams. But now we have a tool for
determining how such a study site
compares to other surface waters within
a region or to select sites for additional
research that best represent a region.
A marriage between geography,
ecology, and statistics, the new regional
approach to answering questions about
acidic deposition is a major
improvement over previous methods,
and it needn't stop with acid rain
research. Already, Corvallis scientists
are using the ecoregion approach for
practical applications at the state level.
For example, an ecoregion map of Ohio
provides Ohio water-quality managers
with a picture of the state's natural
water-quality patterns. The Corvallis
loboratory has developed similar maps
for Arkansas, Minnesota, and Oregon.
Using the information shown about the
regional patterns, the state officials can
tailor their cleanup efforts for maximum
effectiveness.
And, as scientists and managers gain
experience with this new tool, it is
anticipated that the regional approach to
answering environmental questions will
become an increasingly important part
of environmental research. D
(Dr. WiJhour is chief of the Air Branch
af EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in CorvaJlis, OR.)
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Surprising Results from a New Way of
Measuring Pollutants
by Lance Wallace
Most people probably assume that
the air inside their homes is better
than the air outside a New Jersey
chemical plant or a Los Angeles
refinery. But according to a recent EPA
study, this is not the case. The air in
their homes is likely to be worse.
That's one of the surprising
conclusions of EPA's five-year, Total
Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM) study, which measured
personal exposures to 20 toxic and
carcinogenic compounds for 600
persons in seven U.S. cities. Included
were two of the most concentrated
chemical manufacturing and petroleum
refining areas in the world:
Bayonne-Elizabeth, NJ, and Los Angeles,
CA. Yet even in these urban-industrial
locations, and for every one of more
than a dozen prevalent chemicals, the
mean personal exposures exceeded
outdoor concentrations by 200 to 500
percent. Validated by other researchers
and by EPA's own follow-up studies,
the results clearly suggest that the major
sources of potentially harmful exposure
are in our own homes.
Some of these sources have already
been identified, although others remain
unknown. For example, the TEAM
study has shown that the major source
of benzene and styrene exposures for
about 50 million American smokers is
the smoke they inhale from their
cigarettes. This smoke also affects
nonsmokers, because the air in smokers'
homes averages 30 to 50 percent higher
concentrations of benzene and styrene
than the air in homes of nonsmokers.
Tobacco smoke is not the only
culprit. The study also implicates a
large number of consumer products and
building materials as sources of
household exposure, including such
common items as paints, adhesives,
carpeting, linoleum, wallpaper, and
moldings. Other surprising compounds
found in households include
tetrachloroethylene from dry-cleaned
clothing, para-dichlorobenzene from air
fresheners and room deodorizers, and
airborne chloroform released by normal
domestic hot water uses such as
showers, clothes washing, and
cooking.
Another common source of exposure
to harmful chemicals is the use of
pesticides in the home. The initial
results of an EPA study currently
underway in Jacksonville, FL, and
Springfield-Chicopee, MA, found that
three out of nine homes sampled in
Jacksonville had measurable levels of
13 to 14 pesticides in the air. The same
study showed that at least 80 percent of
People can do a great deal to
lessen their exposures without
waiting for government
regulations or major technical
advances.
people's airborne exposure is occurring
in their own homes.
These major and previously
unsuspected sources were identified by
using small, personal monitors to
directly measure the daily exposures of
a representative sample of the
population; the results of these
measurements suggest a significant
indoor pollution problem, with
implications for both acute and
long-term health effects.
More frequently found in offices than
homes, acute effects are sometimes
called "sick building syndrome", and
may be caused by a mixture
of organic compounds released
by paints, adhesives, carpet, rubber and
plastic products, particleboard, etc. In
fact, some scientists have been able to
reproduce sick building syndrome in
sensitive persons by using a mixture of
these typical chemicals. Although some
people may be permanently affected by
these acute reactions, and many are
temporarily affected, it may be that the
most important effect is not on health
but on productivity. A nationwide poll
indicated that 25 percent of workers in
the United States believe that air quality
in their workplaces affects them
adversely.
Chronic effects are much more
difficult to quantify. Some of the
measured chemicals cause cancer in
animals and may cause cancer in man.
Benzene, for example, is known to
cause leukemia in humans, and two
recent studies have shown significantly
increased leukemia mortality in the
children of smoking parents. While we
do not yet have satisfactory estimates of
risks due to other chemicals found in
the study, because of the lack of human
studies to determine their
cancer-causing potency, the observed
personal and indoor exposures average
three times greater than outdoor
exposures.
These risks are not inevitable,
however. People can do a great deal to
lessen their exposures without waiting
for government regulations or major
technical advances. They can dispose of
or store properly old paint cans,
solvents, and pesticides, and minimize
or eliminate the use of nonessential
products such as room deodorizers. Dry
cleaning can also be minimized, and
freshly cleaned clothing can be hung
JUNE 1987
15
-------
outside to disperse the vapors. Those
who must smoke can eliminate
exposures to others by confining their
smoking to one room vented to the
outside.
If sources cannot be eliminated, there
are methods for cleaning the air.
Electrostatic: precipitators can remove
particles, and homes with central air
conditioning may be able to use
charcoal filters to remove such gases as
benzene and tetrachloroethylene. Some
homes are now being built of non-toxic
materials and include separate
ventilation systems for basement hobby
shops, bathrooms, and other possible
sources of toxic exposures.
Organizations are becoming involved,
too. The American Lung Association
distributes several pamphlets on toxics
in homes and offices, and the American
Society for Testing and Materials is
developing standards to limit organic
emissions from building materials. The
American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers sets building ventilation
standards. These are important first
steps, but much remains to be done, a
(Dr. Wallace is an environmental
scientist in EPA's Office of Research
and Development.)
The Volunteers
"Volunteers needed for exposure study
in Bayonne-Elizabeth, New Jersey."
The request was in a letter from then
EPA Administrator William
Ruckelshaus for volunteers to
participate in the Agency's TEAM study
of volatile organic compounds, a
large-scale, statistically representative
analysis of people's daily exposures to
20 known toxic and carcinogenic
compounds, All they had to do was
wear a vest containing a one-pound
personal monitor for a day or so and
breathe into a special spirometer.
Patricia Blau of Research Triangle Institute,
a non-profit contractor for EPA, wearing a
specially designed vest containing a
personal air monitor and a battery-powered
pump for collecting air samples.
Apparently, people were interested.
About 4,400 households were initially
interviewed for the New Jersey study,
with 600 selected for participation after
screening for age, sex, smoking habits,
and occupations.
Because the vest monitors can collect
and concentrate organic substances only
for 12 hours at a time, sampling began
in the evening. Each participant
received a vest with a monitoring
cartridge in it, the vest to be worn or left
by the bedside for the first 12 hours. In
the morning, study members replaced
the exposed cartridges with fresh ones
and also collected household tap water
samples. Twelve hours later, the vests
were picked up and tap water samples
taken again. Finally, participants were
asked to answer a questionnaire
detailing their activities for the previous
24 hours and breathe into a spirometer.
To establish the influence of outdoor air
levels on personal exposure, some of the
households had also been provided with
fixed-site monitors in their backyards.
These, too, were picked up at the end of
the test period.
That was it. Yet these simple efforts
confirmed the significance of indoor
pollution as a source of exposure by
yielding the startling information that,
for some chemicals, indoor levels
exceeded those outside by 200 to 500
percent.
EPA so far has conducted TEAM
studies on volatile organic compounds,
carbon monoxide, pesticides, and
particles. Developed specifically for the
TEAM study, the miniature personal
monitors have, for the first time,
enabled the Agency to realistically
"follow" participants through the day,
sampling the air they breathe on and off
the job, in and out of the house. These
monitors are so extraordinarily sensitive
that they measure chemicals at less than
one part per billion, the equivalent of
finding a single grain of sand in a
100-yard section of beach.
And not only are the monitoring
instruments new, the selection of
participants is now based on the
extremely accurate statistical sampling
methods first developed for political
polling efforts.
This unique combination of
engineering and social science will
provide a solid foundation for future
Agency efforts against indoor air
pollution, a
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Projecting
Levels of
Ozone
Pollution
by Robert Lamb
In the early 1960s, the scientific
techniques available to air quality
engineers were primarily simple
empirical formulas for estimating the
rate of dilution of pollutants within a
few miles of their source. They were
capable of treating only primary air
pollutants discharged directly into the
atmosphere as waste products: sulfur
dioxide and carbon soot, which are
products of coal combustion, and
carbon monoxide and lead, which are
generated by the combustion of
petroleum products in automobiles.
Methods of such limited scope are
sufficient to treat the primary pollutants
because, once they are airborne, their
concentrations generally decrease
steadily as a result of dilution, chemical
transformation, and natural removal
processes. Thus, the maximum
concentrations are generally found in
the immediate vicinity of their sources.
Moreover, such pollutants tend to
respond well to control efforts. A
reduction in their emission rate results
in a proportionate reduction in the
atmospheric concentration. These
attributes, plus the fact that the first
major air pollutants were of the primary
type, led to the early perception that air
pollution is a localized phenomenon,
controllable through regulation of local
sources.
But when ozone emerged in the 1950s
as a major new pollutant, it was the first
secondary pollutant to become a
significant problem. Secondary
pollutants are substances like ozone that
are produced in the atmosphere itself by
chemical reactions among primary
pollutants, the products of primary
pollutants, and normal constituents of
the atmosphere. Others in this group
include peroxyacetyl nitrate (FAN) and
the sulfates and nitrates that cause acid
rain. Chemists are still trying to sort out
the detailed chemical steps involved in
ozone production. It is known that three
basic ingredients are necessary, nitrogen
oxides, which are among the primary
pollutants emitted by combustion
sources; hydrocarbons, released into the
atmosphere through the combustion,
handling, and processing of petroleum
products; and sunlight. The nature of
the process involved is much more
difficult to treat theoretically than that
of primary pollutant production. While
a particular ozone molecule might owe
its existence to a nitrogen oxide
molecule emitted by a power plant and
a hydrocarbon molecule from a dry
cleaning establishment miles away, a
molecule of primary pollutant can, in
principle, be traced back to a single
specific source.
The air quality engineer of the early
1960s had no technology available to
treat pollutants as complex as ozone.
Even after the basic chemical reactions
responsible for ozone production had
been established, the information could
not be used in engineering studies
because it was in the form of
mathematical equations whose solutions
were unknown. The equations,
sometimes referred to as the governing
equations, describe the joint effects of
chemistry, winds, turbulence, sources,
deposition, etc. Because they were so
difficult to work with, it was not until
computers became available in the late
1960s that the scientific: knowledge
embodied in these equations could be
applied to engineering analyses.
Although computers cannot solve the
governing equations themselves, they
can solve specially formulated analogs,
or models, of these equations. By the
mid-1970s, two basic models, the
Environmental Kinetic Modeling
Approach (EKMA) and the Airshed
model, had been developed for use by
engineers in testing strategies for
hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides
emissions controls aimed at reducing
ozone levels. The EKMA model was
developed in-house by scientists at
EPA's Atmospheric Science Research
Laboratory, the Airshed model was
developed under contract to the same
laboratory.
The IBM 3090 supercomputer on which the
EPA's Regional Oxidant Model (ROM) is
run. The model is being adapted to project
ozone concentrations in the northeastern
United States.
Both models are limited in their
applicability to individual urban areas
and both treat only the daylight hours.
These limitations are largely a result of
the old view that air pollutants,
including ozone, are local problems
correctible through the regulation of
local sources. The ozone abatement
policies in place today were formulated
under this philosophy and engineered
with the aid of the EKMA and Airshed
models.
In the late 1970s, however, evidence
from field studies and analyses of air
monitoring data began to indicate that
ozone is not a localized phenomenon
after all. One important factor is that
sunlight is required for ozone
production. A mixture of hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides emitted after sunset
will not produce ozone until irradiated
by sunlight the next day, and by then
the mixture might have traveled 100
miles or more from its area of origin.
And if the ozone is produced over
another urban area, it can act to weaken
the effects of any ozone control
measures implemented there. If the
mixture is over a rural or remote area, it
can create an ozone problem that local
emissions changes cannot eliminate
because there were few, if any,
emissions to control. Another possible
contributor to the widespread nature of
ozone is hydrocarbon emissions from
plants growing on the earth's surface. It
was established in the late 1970s that
many species of plants emit
hydrocarbons that promote the
production of ozone in the atmosphere.
Anticipating significant impacts of
these factors on the effectiveness of
ozone abatement policies, EPA's
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory at Research Triangle Park,
JUNE 1987
17
-------
ROM tracks the concentrations
of 28 chemical species,
including ozone, and 70
chemical reactions among
these species.
NC, began work on the Regional
Oxidant Model (ROM). This
model is designed to provide a means of
developing and testing ozone control
strategies that will take into account the
chemical and physical processes that
are important in multi-day, long-range
transport of ozone and its precursors,
including plant-released biogenic
hydrocarbons. ROM spans an area from
mid-Ohio to Portland, Maine, and from
Northern Virginia well into Ontario.
This rectangular area is divided into
2,520 grid "squares," roughly 12 miles
on a side. Each of these is divided into
three vertical levels, or grid cells, of
varying thickness that simulate clouds,
variations of wind speed and direction,
mountain effects, atmospheric
inversions, turbulent mixing, and other
meteorological processes. Within each
of its 7.560 grid cells, ROM tracks the
concentrations of 28 chemical species,
including ozone, and 70 chemical
reactions among these species. The rates
of the reactions are functions of the
local temperature, air density, humidity,
sun angle, and cloud cover in each cell
at each hour.
The land area within each grid square
is partitioned into sub-areas according
to land usage, e.g., urban land,
agricultural land, deciduous forest,
water, and five other categories. This
information is used to estimate surface
heat variation and terrain and building
resistance to wind needed in calculating
turbulence effects. It also helps to
estimate dry deposition of each of the
28 kinds of chemical.
Emission rates of each primary
chemical pollutant from both man-made
and plant sources in each grid cell are
also determined. Emissions from
man-made sources are based on state and
county inventories of fuel usage, traffic
counts, chemical processing, electric
power production, wood burning, and
many other processes; emissions from
plant sources are based on estimates of
the dry foliage mass of 61 species of
trees, 10 types of field crops, and two
groups of grasses compiled for each grid
cell from detailed Forest and
Agricultural Service records. These
biomass data are combined with
empirical emissions factors for each
species, and hourly temperature,
sunlight, and cloud cover data to yield
biogenic hydrocarbons emissions rates
that vary according to local weather
conditions in each grid square.
Finally, ROM also uses meteorological
information: temperature, humidity,
wind speed and direction, etc. These
data are gathered from weather records
taken during times when maximum
ozone levels were observed.
Once all the input data are available,
the computer begins producing values
for concentrations of each of the 28
chemical species in each of the 7,560
grid cells for each simulated 30-minute
time interval. To simulate one day, for
example, the computer must perform
nearly 100 billion computations and
process tens of millions of data values.
On EPA's IBM 3090 supercomputer, this
task takes about two hours. The cover
photo of this issue of the Journal is an
example of the model's output, generated
by the computer based on ozone
concentrations predicted by the ROM.
Thus, the ROM is essentially a
numerical analog of a scale model of the
northeastern United States, allowing
policy planners or engineers to
manipulate emissions, land usage, and
weather conditions in any desired
manner to estimate their likely impact
on air quality. The most common
application is the assessment of the
changes in ozone levels that would
result from specified changes in
hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide
emissions at one or more locations.
Applications of this type are being
planned to aid the development of
emissions control strategies for the
Northeast for the period after the 1987
ozone-level attainment deadlines.
The ROM can also be used for
diagnostic purposes. For example, in a
given ozone nonattainment area, the
model can estimate the fraction of the
ozone that is generated from imported
precursor chemicals and the fraction
produced from local precursor
emissions. Applications of this kind are
underway to help guide post-1987
control strategy planning and to provide
information that Congress can use in its
work on the reauthorization of the Clean
Air Act.
Perhaps the ultimate regulatory use of
a model like the ROM would be as a
component in a larger modeling system,
one that could evaluate specified
maximum permissible concentrations of
each regulated pollutant and the cost of
emissions controls for each source, and
then calculate the least costly control
strategy to satisfy air quality
requirements. The mathematica!
techniques to build such a system are
available today, but a computer at least
100 times faster than EPA's present
supercomputer would be required to
make any implementation feasible.
Indeed, the future of large models like
the ROM will be determined largely by
advances in computer technology. D
(Dr. Lamb is a meteorologist with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration on assignment to EPA's
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory in Research Triangle Park,
NC.J
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Learning to Use Microbes
to Clean Up Ground Water
by John Wilson
Graduate students Hanadi Rifai and Charles Newell discuss computer modeling for the
use of microbes in cleaning up contaminated ground water.
A growing national concern about
pollution of underground water
resources has encouraged
Environmental Protection Agency
researchers to search for new ways to
remove contaminants. Microbial
degradation of toxic wastes, combined
with other remedial technologies, shows
promise of offering less expensive and
more effective ways to remove the
pollutants.
We have studied the self-purification
of lakes and rivers, and rely on natural
processes to treat the wastes discharged
into them. We have long relied on
natural biological processes to treat
domestic wastes applied to the land,
either through septic tank discharges or
by land farming. We now recognize that
these same natural biological processes
can destroy contaminants in soils and
aquifers that result from leaks and spills
or from disposal of hazardous materials
to the land.
In a pristine aquifer, each glassful of
water is exposed to more than a billion
microorganisms that are busy extracting
organic compounds in order to support
their own lives. Their appetite keeps the
concentration of biodegradable organic-
matter very low. When an aquifer
becomes contaminated with something
they can metabolize, the
microorganisms quickly proliferate and
gobble up the new source of food.
Occasionally, the microbes exhaust
their supply of oxygen before the
contaminants are removed. In the
absence of oxygen, removal of
biodegradable contaminants is often
inhibited or stops altogether. As a
consequence, the natural movement of
ground water will spread the
contaminants, thereby increasing the
threat of human exposure.
Several important classes of
hazardous wastes can be degraded
biologically. Spills and leaks of
petroleum products from underground
storage tanks are probably the most
common example; others include
certain wood-creosoting wastes or
refinery sludges, and coal tars left from
the production of illuminating gas in
the era before electric lighting. The
latter are of increasing concern because
most of the former sites of the old gas
plants are still contaminated with these
tars, and many are located in what are
now the centers of our cities.
All of these wastes are primarily (or
entirely) composed of natural organic
compounds, mostly hydrocarbons, that
are oily and only slightly soluble in
water. They are considered hazardous
because they often contain
cancer-causing compounds such as
benzene or benzo(a)pyrene, but they can
be biologically degraded if oxygen is
present.
When oily material is released to the
earth, it drains through the unsaturated
zone (above the water table) under the
influence of gravity. Because it becomes
trapped in the pore spaces, some of the
oily material is left behind, while the
remainder drains down to the water
table. The water table moves up and
down under the influence of pumping
or annual cycles of precipitation. This
fluctuation smears the oily material
through the aquifer and allows
laterally-moving ground water to
become contaminated.
Contrary to the old adage, oil and
water do mix. The more water-soluble
components of the oily waste, such as
benzene, can dissolve to some extent in
water. As ground water moves through
the contaminated area, the soluble
components of the oily material
dissolve, each according to its particular
chemical characteristics, and a plume
develops and moves toward a pumping
JUNE 1987
19
-------
Helping to
Ensure Safety in
Nuclear Testing
by Charles Costa
well or some other point of discharge.
This contaminated portion of the aquifer
can serve as a source of ground-water
pollution for decades.
When the plume of contamination
leaves the source area, it is depleted of
oxygen. However, diffusion and
dispersion of the ground water
ultimately bring the plume into contact
with surrounding oxygenated water;
when this occurs, the microorganisms'
ability to degrade the dissolved waste
compounds is restored. Under such
favorable circumstances, many
plumes—the areas of contaminated
water—have a natural limit to their size.
Since the rate of degradation is,
effectively, the rate at which oxygen can
be introduced to the plume, it is often
possible to predict the ultimate size and
location of the plume from the
concentration of the contaminant and
the supply of oxygen in the aquifer in
which it is harbored.
EPA and state regulatory agencies
need tools that can predict the
maximum extent of existing plumes and
forecast the effects of various remedial
activities on their size. One such tool, a
mathematical model called BIOPLUME,
is being developed by EPA and Rice
University. The model is based on
several years of subsurface
microbiological research led by our Ada
laboratory, whose scientists have pulled
together a multi-disciplinary team of
microbiologists, hydrologists, geological
engineers, analytical chemists, and
computer scientists. The model will be
supported by a manual which provides
guidance on appropriate use of the
model, and contains standard operating
procedures to obtain the site-specific
information required for its use. A
version of the model, designed to run
on an IBM AT personal computer, will
be ready for general distribution late
this year.
Although it is possible to reduce the
size and life expectancy of contaminant
plumes by the addition of oxygen and
other nutrients, some may not require
remedial action because natural
processes alone are adequate. If the
hydrogeology of a contaminated site
permits these natural processes to be
characterized, BIOPLUME can be used
to address the fate of the plume. It can
also be used to estimate the effects of
remedial action technologies.
Although the scientific basis of
biorestoration is well understood, actual
application of the technology to
hazardous waste sites is inhibited by a
lack of information on its performance
at field scale. There are a number of
research projects now underway to
evaluate the performance of this
technology, to more accurately define
the optimum operating conditions, to
minimize costs, and to develop new
approaches for biorestoration.
The basic concepts of natural or
enhanced biodegradation to restore
contaminated ground water complement
more commonly used engineering
approaches such as pumping and
treating, excavation, or the creation of
isolation barriers. The latter are most
efficient and cost-effective in dealing
with heavily contaminated materials,
while biotreatment is most promising
when dealing with lower
concentrations. Because the two
approaches complement each other,
they will be most fruitful when used as
tandem remedial action technologies.
The challenge remains to identify the
conditions under which each is most
appropriate and the proper staging for
their application. D
(Dr. Wilson is a research microbiologist
at EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Ada, OK.j
Every time Department of Energy
scientists explode a nuclear device at
the Las Vegas, NV, test site,
Environmental Protection Agency
personnel are involved in activities
designed to protect people living in the
area from any radiation releases which
might take place.
Their actions are part of a monitoring
program that began in 1954 with an
agreement between the then Atomic
Energy Commission and the United
States Public Health Service (USPHS).
The laboratory they created is now
EPA's Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory (EMSL) at Las
Vegas, one of 14 research facilities in
the Agency's system. Its overall
mission is developing, evaluating, and
applying methods and strategies for
monitoring the environment.
Radioactivity monitoring in public
areas around the Nevada Test Site and
other nuclear test sites was the initial
focus of the laboratory's activities under
the Public Health Service. USPHS
scientists conducted environmental
radiation monitoring, quality assurance,
and research activities to monitor the
Atomic Energy Commission's nuclear
testing program throughout the 1960s.
They also carried on a large biological
research program.
When the laboratory came under EPA
in late 1970, its overall mission was
expanded to include research on
monitoring systems for a variety of
pollutants, but the radiation program
remained a major mission and now
operates under an interagency
agreement with the Nevada Operations
Office of the Department of Energy.
During the early days of nuclear
testing, above-ground tests released
considerable radioactive debris. But
since 1963, all weapons tests have been
underground. In the past 15 years, there
has been only one accidental release of
radioactive material into the air. This
safety record notwithstanding, EPA
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
continues to carry out a number of
programs designed to minimize the
likelihood and extent of offsite radiation
exposure, reduce the risk to local
residents should an accidental release
occur, and facilitate risk communication
to area inhabitants.
EPA participates in the decision
process that precedes each test,
providing the test controller with safety
advice based on the Agency's review of
the weather patterns, safety
preparedness, population distribution,
and related factors. At the time of each
detonation, EPA staff are stationed
downwind to measure and mitigate the
effects of any accidental release of
radioactive material.
Because ground water is the most
probable pathway for radionuclides
from underground tests to reach the
public, EPA also conducts a long-term
program of hydrological monitoring to
assess the movement of radioactivity
through the aquifers. The Agency
routinely monitors ground water from
23 wells on the test site and another 52
beyond its boundaries.
To facilitate risk communication, EPA
also has a highly visible Community
Monitoring Network in communities
around the Nevada Test Site. Designed
to promote community-wide
understanding of environmental
radioactivity and its measurement, the
program operates 15 stations in offsite
communities. Each measures air
samples for particulates and reactive
gases, noble gases, tritium, gamma
radiation exposures, and exposure rates.
The data are provided to ouch
community every week. Public meetings
and training programs in community
high schools are also part of this
program.
From Las Vegas, the laboratory also
maintains a nationwide monitoring
network of both continuously operating
and standby stations. This network,
which operated around the clock after
the Chernobyl accident, also includes
volunteers who routinely wear
dosimeters, dairies or ranches close to
the test site from which milk is
sampled, and locations from which
animal and food samples are taken and
analyzed for radionuclides.
People living near the test site are
monitored also as the ultimate means of
determining internal radionuclide doses.
These data serve as a baseline for
comparing the amount of radiation in
people around the test site with those
elsewhere in the United States, and are
especially important for making such
comparisons at the time of an accidental
release.
All of these activities are recorded in
computerized data bases maintained for
each type of radiation. A system is
being tested for entry of the data
directly from field-data cards at the time
of collection. And, finally, EPA staff at
the Las Vegas EMSL are completing
computerization of historical dosimetry
data for use in generating exposure/dose
estimates based on complete geographic
and chronologic information.
Back in the 1960s. Las Vegas
researchers followed the movement of
radioactive iodine in a cow's
milk-generating system through a
"window" in the cow's side. Now, with
much more sophisticated technology,
they are watching for radioactivity in
air, water, humans, and animals, but
the name of their game hasn't changed.
It's still using research to protect our
population from environmental
contamination, a
(Costa is chief of the Nuclear Radiation
Assessment Division in h'P.A's
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas. \V.)
The Community Monitoring Station at Las Vegas, NV, is one of 15 developed to reinforce
public confidence in the safety of the environment around nuclear test sites.
JUNE 1987
21
-------
Tracking a Culprit in
Outbreaks of "the Trots
by Walter Jakubowski
Many Americans traveling outside of
the United States take steps to
protect themselves from traveler's
diarrhea, otherwise known as
"Montezuma'a Revenge," "Delhi Belly,"
the "Purple Burps," and other more or
less exotic and descriptive terms. Most
of us have either experienced this
malady or know someone whose dream
vacation or business trip was disrupted
by encountering one of several possible
causative microorganisms in the local
water supply. Consequently, the
sophisticated American traveling abroad
carries a variety of palliative remedies,
carefully selects menu items, and
scrupulously avoids drinking tap water.
In contrast, Americans living or
traveling within the U.S. demand and
expect safe drinking water from their
taps. And Environmental Protection
Agency research and related technical
assistance is helping to ensure its
availability.
Although the microbiological quality
and safety of our drinking water may be
superior to that delivered by suppliers
in many other countries, waterborne
disease outbreaks do continue to occur
in the United States. Since 1970, there
have been about 500 such outbreaks,
resulting in thousands of cases of
infectious disease. The causative
organism most frequently identified in
these outbreaks is a single-celled
intestinal parasite known as Giardia
Jamblia. The gastroenteritis it causes is
called "giardiasis", and it can be severe
enough to require hospitalization.
Giardia also infects birds, frogs, rodents,
and other mammals, and because it is
shed in their feces, all surface water
supplies are potentially subject to
contamination with Giardia. Since 1965,
when the first incident was reported,
there have been about 100 waterborne
giardiasis outbreaks in various parts of
the country.
Looking for clues concerning a gastroenteritis outbreak in Pennsylvania, Steve Waltrip, a
biological technician with EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH,
collects a water sample under icy conditions.
Determining whether a particular
outbreak of infectious disease is
waterborne can be difficult and
time-consuming. First, a sufficient
number of cases must occur to bring the
outbreak to the attention of public
health authorities. Then, an
epidemiological investigation seeks to
discover the common sources of
exposure, e.g., food, water, or
person-to-person contact. Finally, if a
common source of exposure is
identified, steps are taken to interrupt
the transmission process and to prevent
a recurrence.
This can be quite complicated, and
new cases may continue to develop
during the investigation. Rapid
determination of the route of
transmission and the source of
contamination is important if timely
intervention and corrective action are to
be taken. Urgency increases when a
large community water supply is
involved because many people can be
exposed to the contaminant in a short
period of time. An appropriate
intervention in such a situation may be
the issuance of a boil-water order, an
action which could have considerable
economic impact on restaurants,
hospitals, bottling plants, and other
businesses that use large amounts of
water.
Prior to 1976, the organism had not
been detected in a finished drinking
water supply. Methods then available
were cumbersome and difficult to use.
In 1976, scientists at EPA's Health
Effects Research Laboratory (HERL) in
Cincinnati developed the first practical
method for detecting microscopic
Giardia cysts in water and successfully
demonstrated the presence of the
organism in finished drinking water.
However, the technique requires an
experienced analyst who may have to
spend hours examining sample
concentrates with a microscope, and
even today, relatively few laboratories
have this capability. Nevertheless, the
HERL method, and subsequent
modifications, is being used to assist
authorities in the investigation of
suspected waterborne outbreaks.
In April 1977, for instance, the
laboratory staff at a hospital in Berlin,
NH, note an increase in the frequency
of giardiasis diagnoses over a short
period of time. They notified the state
health department and, through EPA
Region 1, HERL provided assistance.
Berlin gets water from two
rivers. At that time, it also had
two treatment plants—one constructed
in 1939-40, the other a brand-new
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
filtration plant that had just become
operational,
At first, only the water from the older
plant was suspect, but HERL.
investigators found that raw and
finished waters from both rivers and
both treatment plants contained Giardia
cysts. It was subsequently determined
that a design flaw in the new treatment
plant allowed some unfiltered water to
mix with filtered water before it entered
the distribution system. The timely
results obtained by EPA allowed water
supply and health officials to make
informed decisions on a plan of action
to end the outbreak of waterborne
infections.
Another example of HERL technical
assistance occurred in the winter of
1983-84, when about 250,000
Pennsylvania residents were advised by
health authorities to boil their water
because of concerns about Giardia.
Again, the HERL-Cincinnati laboratory
was requested by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
through EPA Region 3 to analyze for
cysts. Numerous water samples from
several communities were examined,
and the results aided in determining
which supplies were at risk and in
evaluating the utility of corrective
actions.
In another kind of technical
assistance, HERL scientists participated
in workshops in Pittsburgh and Boston
to help train staff in other laboratories
to do Giardia analysis. Training was
also given to microbiologists at the
Region 1 and Region 10 laboratories to
give those regions capability for doing
the test.
Giardia continues to be a problem,
especially in unfiltered surface water
supplies or where filtration is
improperly practiced. Control of
waterborne giardiasis was a primary
concern of the authors of the 1986
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act. These amendments require EPA to
develop criteria for the filtration of
surface water supplies. Implementation
of the filtration regulations, which are
now under development by the Office of
Drinking Water, should decrease
occurrence of waterborne disease and
maintain consumer confidence in this
vital resource. HERL investigators
continue to develop new methods for
detecting, identifying, and enumerating
microorganisms in water. D
(Jakubowski is a microbioiogist with
EPA's Health Effects Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH.)
Sharing What
We Have Learned
by Edwin Johnson
EPA invests millions of dollars each
year, first in research and
development, and then in technology
transfer of the results. The investment
more than pays for itself in terms of
improving the scientific and technical
bases of this country's environmental
protection programs. EPA also benefits
from exchanging information with other
developed countries, either directly or
through such organizations as the
United Nations and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
None of this should be surprising.
However, the relationships between
EPA's research and the developing
world do have their surprising aspects.
Pollution problems in developing
countries are not all the same. Some
countries lack the resources to develop
and implement necessary pollution
control measures; others are
experiencing significant environmental
problems because their rapid
development has not been accompanied
by appropriate environmental
safeguards. Yet both kinds may enjoy
the benefits of EPA's research, although
each provides unique challenges.
The first group of nations suffers more
from the lack of development than
because of it. They face the historic
problems of domestic sewage
contamination of surface and ground
waters, contaminated drinking water
supplies, air pollution in urban areas,
and inadequate disposal of trash and
garbage. We've learned how to correct
many of these problems over decades of
experience and research in this country.
But given their very limited resources,
how can poor countries take advantage
of this expertise? Clearly, it makes little
sense for EPA to send documents or
technical personnel to countries without
the resources to implement solutions.
EPA believes that the most effective way
to assist these countries is to work
through international funding
Part of the pollution problem India faces in the famed Ganges River. EPA is helping
India in an effort to control the pollution.
JUNE 1987
23
-------
organizations, such as the U.S. Agency
for International Development (AID), the
World Bank, or other multilateral
development banks, whose mission is to
provide developmental aid.
On the other hand, countries whose
environments have been damaged by
development often need to obtain
technical assistance in repairing the
ravages of rapid industrialization, and
guidance on how to avoid such
problems in the future. In such cases,
EPA often works directly through a
bilateral agreement, helping local
experts deal with their problems and
take advantage of over 20 years of
experience and research in the United
States.
The Agency is committed to helping
developing countries with
environmental problems in ways that
recognize their individual social,
economic, cultural, and other needs.
In India, for example, EPA is
contributing to a multi-year program to
clean up the Ganges River, a project
initiated by Prime Minister Gandhi
shortly after he took office. To date, six
teams of EPA experts have traveled to
India to work with their counterparts in
assessing the problems, planning a
program to reduce Ganges pollution,
and helping plan the implementation of
pollution-control measures for India's
holiest river. Already, numerous
workshops have been held in various
Indian cities. The Ganges project,
however, is just part of a broader series
of activities underway under the aegis
of the Indo-U.S. Subcommission on
Science and Technology, whose
activities range from environmental
medicine and toxicology to natural area
preservation.
In neighboring Pakistan, there was a
serious problem with pesticide
contamination. Stocks of aging
pesticides in leaking containers had
been left throughout the country in
hundreds of small shops and storage
areas. When pesticides were moved out,
the contaminated quarters were often
used as dwellings. Although the health
hazards of this situation were well
recognized by Pakistani authorities, the
government and the pesticides industry
could not'agree on how to dispose of
the material or who would pay.
EPA was asked to assess the situation
and make recommendations for
disposal. A team including an EPA
pesticides disposal expert, an EPA
economist, and a private-sector
professional visited Pakistan and
recommended a disposal option for
possible funding by AID. EPA's research
and practical experience with the
disposal of toxic materials made this
contribution possible.
In Brazil, EPA worked with the U.S.
Conservation Foundation, a
nongovernmental organization, and a
group of international consultants to
help the Sao" Paulo'state regulatory
agency (CETESB) resolve a critical air
pollution problem. Industrial air
pollution had devastated a tropical
forest on the coast, which in turn led to
severe landslides from the weakened
surface of the Serra Do Mar mountain
range. Our approach was not to dictate
solutions to the Brazilians but rather to
help sort through the array of options
they had already identified. The team of
consultants made recommendations on
the good points of Sao" Paulo's
proposed abatement program and
suggested future directions for the
program.
The experience was so positive that
both governments expressed a desire for
consultation and training on a
continuing basis. CETESB is
administering a World Bank loan
provided for creation of
pollution-control equipment in the state.
The Bank has stipulated that a
substantial percentage of the original
amount, plus a portion of the loan
payback by industrial polluters, be used
for research, development, and training.
Through its agreement, EPA will make
available its expertise and CETESB will
pay for the expenses of our staff.
In China, EPA Office of
Research and Development
scientists are working in a
village to study the effects of
cooking smoke on human
health.
In China, EPA Office of Research and
Development scientists are working in a
village to study the effects of cooking
smoke on human health. Such work
will help the Chinese improve the safety
of hazardous environments, and will
help us to evaluate the implications of
our own indoor air research program.
The International Registry of
Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC), a
branch of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP)
located in Geneva, Switzerland,
provides computerized information on
hundreds of chemicals. Through this
organization, EPA can share with
developing countries data on the risks
associated with known and potentially
toxic materials. These data come not
only from EPA's own research, but also
from research and other investigations
that EPA requires of certain industries.
EPA provides similar information, but
in more detail and more specialized
ways, through the International
Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a
joint program of the World Health
Organization (WHO), the International
Labor Organization, and UNEP, which is
administered by WHO. Environmental
health criteria documents produced in
draft by EPA as well as other
institutions are provided to the IPCS to
be critiqued and modified based on
international peer review. The resulting
documents are intended primarily for
developing countries.
Pesticide data are reviewed by WHO
and the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) through the Joint
Meeting on Pesticide Residues. This
provides not only international review
of toxicological and residue data for
developing countries, but also
establishes Maximum Residue Limits for
pesticides on commodities in
international trade, thus informing
developing countries of standards that
they may be required to meet in trading
with other countries, and of limits they
might apply to their own imports of
food. In addition to supplying written
documents, EPA technical experts
participate regularly in these scientific
forums.
Such a list could go on and on, but
the one common element is that both
the United States and the other
countries benefit from interaction. Our
scientists gain knowledge of pollution
situations that they might never see in
the United States, thus dramatically
broadening their range of experience
and allowing them to gain important
scientific information. They also gain
perspective on alternative approaches to
dealing with problems that we face
here. Frequently, the information or
insights gained through the program
have helped our scientists find more
efficient ways of dealing with domestic
problems. In the long run, this
cooperation helps some other country or
distant village, or even some aspect of
our own environment; it also allows our
scientists to work in a larger arena in
their efforts to help make this world a
better place in which to live, a
(Johnson is Director of the Developing
Countries staff in EPA's Office of
Internationa] Activities.)
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Thomas Talks
about His
Goals for EPA
Lee M. Thomas
On February 24, 1987, at a Senior
Executive Service Forum in Baltimore,
Lee M. Thomas talked informally to
EPA managers about the "Seven
Management Themes" that ivill give
direction to the Agency in the years
ahead: I/ risk reduction; 21 balancing
environmental gains against other goals;
31 environmental federalism; 41 better
environmental science; 51 negotiation
and consultation; 6/ enforcement; and 71
human resources.
The following are excerpts from
Thomas' remarks:
i ( As I have worked with EPA over
-ii-the past four years, I have found
that we all have to struggle with very
difficult problems. Some we are
handling very effectively. Others we
need to talk through to see if there are
better ways we can deal with them.
"That's the reason for our session here
in Baltimore. I'm hoping that we'll
arrive at new ideas by meeting and
talking through some of our major
problems.
"EPA has made a lot of progress in a
lot of areas since it was founded in
1970. But the Agency's early
achievements differ in fundamental
ways from what I expect its future
achievements to be. A different frame of
mind—and a different management
tone—are needed if we are to make a
successful transition to the needs of the
late 1980s and the 1990s."
Risk Reduction: EPA's basic mission is
to reduce the level of risk to health and
to the environment posed by pollution.
To that end, the Agency will focus its
resources, and those of society at large,
where pollution causes the most
damage.
"One of EPA's major challenges in the
years ahead will be to sustain the
progress we've already made in
environmental protection throughout
this country. There have been
significant reductions in criteria
pollutants, and massive cleanups of
waterways and lakes. A major system is
in place for managing hazardous waste
in the United States. We are tightening
controls on toxics and pesticides much
more systematically than we have in the
past.
"How do we maintain that direction,
sustain that progress, and, at the same
time, confront all the complex new
challenges before us? We're going to
have our hands full juggling all these
tasks.
"I think that even in sustaining the
progress we've made, we're going to be
challenged to talk about the scientific:
basis of the direction we've come, the
priorities that have guided our past
progress. For instance, on a basic
pollutant like ozone, we worked and set
a standard early on, then reviewed the
standard several times. The result was
significant progress on that pollutant for
15 years. But that doesn't change the
fact that we're going to be challenged
hard over the next year about the
scientific basis for that standard and the
benefits of new ozone controls we're
trying to put in place.
"Few risks need containment as much
as toxics. Toxics dominate our time,
and, I believe, will do so increasingly in
the years to come. Unfortunately,
however, we can measure toxics better
than we can manage them. We can find
parts per trillion and quadrillion of
certain pollutants, and yet we really
don't know what it means as far as risk
is concerned once we find them.
"The existence of these data presents a
great challenge to EPA managers, since
it is up to us to decide what
risk-reduction actions it calls for.
"The whole area of risk reduction is
greatly complicated these days by the
problem of cross-media pollution: cases
where a contaminant we are trying to
eliminate from one medium winds up
causing damage in another. We are
becoming increasingly aware of
cross-media impacts in every aspect of
our work, but as yet, we have not
developed a systems approach so we
can deal with them effectively."
Balance Environmental Gains Against
Other Goals: Environmental protection
actions should be designed to achieve
the greatest social benefit. The Agency
will strive to manage its resources to
achieve the greatest overall benefits for
the public.
"Regulatory costs are going up. Every
day we are seeing this. The first 95
percent of pollution we have brought
under control. As we work on the last
five percent, it is going to cost us a lot
more than the first 95. Those last few
increments won't bring us nearly as
much environmental benefit, for the
money expended, as the first
increments.
"We can already see the impact of
economic considerations in a number of
EPA programs. Look at the Waste
Management Program just since I've
been with EPA. We have been moving
dramatically to improve waste
management in this country. We're
trying to move away from laud disposal
of hazardous waste, and we're pushing
waste reduction and waste
minimization. But those of you who
follow the waste-management industry
know that it's having a hard time
adapting to the economic impact of
EPA's new regulations.
"But how much further should we go
in making people spend a lot of money
on waste management? That's a
question we're going to have to answer.
I think we will be questioned hard
JUNE 1987
25
-------
A splendid view of a beach. Such isolation
is no longer enough to protect areas from
pollution. According to EPA Administrator
Lee Thomas, environmental issues such as
climate change and stratospheric ozone
depletion now transcend national
boundaries and call for global solutions.
about the impact of our regulations and
what we hope to achieve with them.
"EPA clearly has the broadest and
deepest regulatory authority of any
federal agency. People joke: From the
washroom to the boardroom, EPA is
there. Well, in fact, that is the case. We
cover it all. People are uma/ed when we
get up and talk about the full range of
statutory authority that backs up our
regulatory efforts.
"Hut we have to back up that
authority with good judgment. We need
to fully understand the impact of that
authority, and be ready to explain why
the exercise of that authority is justified
in particular cases.
"For example, when we talk about
ground-water cleanup, and we say we're
going to spend this much money for this
level of protection, we had better be
prepared to explain the reasoning
behind our decision. We are going to be
pressed for answers to tough questions:
Why didn't we opt for some
greater—and more expensive—level of
protection, and why didn't we opt for a
lesser and cheaper level?
"Economics is going to be a major and
a growing part in future discussions we
have with the public, and with the
people in the White House and on
Capitol Hill who oversee what we do.
"So we had better be prepared not
only to talk about what the impact is,
but also about why we think a
particular level of protection is
appropriate—or inappropriate, what
environmental benefits we expect to
accrue from it, where we're prepared to
go ahead now, and where we feel we
should go in the future."
Environmental Federalism: We
recognize that each level of government
has a proper role in public health and
environmental protection, and that
concerted and coordinated efforts of
federal, state, and local agencies will
best serve the public interest.
,'t;
EPA JOURNAL
-------
"Environmental federalism is basically a
matter of sorting out responsibilities
among different levels of government.
And they must be sorted out more and
more clearly as our various programs
move to management at a state and -local
level.
"EPA can't just delegate a duty to a
state and say, 'Okay, now it's your
responsibility.1 But that doesn't mean
we shouldn't push ahead as fast as
possible toward responsible delegation
of program management. We should try
to delegate responsibility to the level of
government that is closest to the
problem at hand, yet still able to handle
all the administrative detail involved.
Of course, this delegation must be done
with strict and clearcut accountability,
with ongoing EPA oversight to ensure
that objectives are being met.
"The states need to understand what
actions we consider timely and
appropriate, both on their part and ours.
There shouldn't be any surprises about
when the feds will step in; how we will
supervise their actions and how
frequently.
"That's why information systems are
so important. You can't delegate
accountability to the states; you can
only delegate responsibility. As
Administrator of EPA, I can't go to
Capitol Hill and deflect a question by
saying, 'Well, I don't know because the
state runs the program.' I and all my
management colleagues here at EPA
need a first-rate information system to
stay informed of what is going on at
other levels of government. And it must
be an information system that is seen as
relevant and valuable by workers in the
field. Otherwise, they won't feed good
hard data into it for use here in
Washington."
Better Environmental Science: We will
work to expand the knowledge available
to manage health and environmental
risks. This priority involves improving
the scientific basis for environmental
protection decisions.
"Better science and technology are
crucial to our future success. Our risk
assessments won't stand up to close
scrutiny unless they are based on the
very best science, and we won't be able
to deliver on cleanup goals without
top-notch technology.
"Environmental problems are solved
not in offices, but in the field, and
now—more than ever—we need
improved technology to carry them
forward. I've seen a struggle within EPA
over the past few years concerning how
to deal with Superfund cleanups. On
the one hand, we have scientific
information explaining what the
problem is and what kind of an effort is
needed to solve it. But matching that
information up with the right
technology is another story. Everybody
wants to know: 'Where's the technology
I need for that kind of solution.' I see
this same pattern not just within
Superfund, but across each of EPA's
programs.
"We can't get better and quicker
answers to these questions until we
improve not just the scientific but the
technical information at our disposal.
And we need to look at the whole area
of technology with an eye for new
solutions. I'm strongly in favor of
improving our in-house technological
capability. But I'd also like to see us
utilize knowledge that's outside the
Agency.
"How can we do a better job of getting
at this information? We need improved
channels of communication with
industry and with the academic
community so we can be sure our
scientific and technological information
is state-of-the-art. We also need to
spread federal grants around to the most
promising researchers. By becoming
creative partners in the world of
research, we can hasten the day when
we get exactly the knowledge and the
tools we need."
Negotiation and Consultation: In
finding solutions to environmental
problems, we will expand the use of
negotiated regulations and consultative
proceedings with a wide range of
representatives from industry,
environmental organizations, state and
local government, and the general
public.
"We need to do a better job of involving
a wide range of constituencies in the
formulation of EPA policies and
regulations. Industry and environmental
groups obviously deserve to be
consulted, but so do U.S. citizens and
even the international community.
"The level of public involvement in
EPA programs is changing. In the early
1970s, taxpayers gave overwhelming
support to the new environmental
programs pioneered by EPA. Polls today
indicate that there is still overwhelming
support for the general concept of
environmental protection. But when
EPA proposes specific measures these
days, the public is a lot less inclined to
accept the Agency line.
"Right now Americans are terrified
about toxics. And, in a way, our own
expertise is feeding this fear. We can
detect and measure the most minute
traces of toxics in the environment. But
how do we prevent the public from
getting scared to death when they learn
of our findings?
"This situation is based, at least
partly, on the tremendous fear of cancer
that runs through our society. EPA says
some pollutant causes cancer, and the
public gets scared to death. We have to
learn how to deal with these often
irrational fears. And we can't do that
unless we can get the essence of our
risk-assessment reasoning across to
millions of non-scientists.
"Another syndrome we're going to
have to confront is: 'Not In My
Backyard.' This is having a crippling
impact on EPA efforts to safely manage
waste. What are we going to do with
waste from Superfund cleanups, where
are we going to locate treatment
facilities, if every neighborhood in the
United States shouts 'Not in my
backyard!'
"Another major challenge we face is
that our problems and solutions are
becoming more global in nature. There
was a strong tendency in the past to
focus almost all our resources and
energies on domestic issues. Now we're
dealing with all kinds of issues that
transcend national boundaries: acid
rain; stratospheric ozone; the
greenhouse effect; the after-effects of
disasters.
"EPA was heavily involved in dealing
with the international aftermath of
Chernobyl. All of us who were directly
involved quickly learned just how small
the world is, and how quickly our small
planet can become contaminated.
"We're going to have to make the
search for global solutions to global
environmental problems a permanent
part of our agenda. And we're going to
have to start managing our domestic
regulatory programs with the awareness
that, directly or indirectly, they have
global impact."
Enforcement: We will enforce
environmental laws vigorously,
consistently, and equitably to achieve
the greatest possible environmental
results.
"Sorting through enforcement
responsibilities is a major aspect of
environmental federalism. A large
portion of our enforcement program is
JUNE 1987
27
-------
already being carried out by the states.
State/federal enforcement agreements
are trying to establish how this
arrangement should work.
"Among the questions to be answered:
How will the states and the feds go
forward with an enforcement program
together? Who will do what? And
when? What will the feds do if the
states don't take timely and appropriate
action? Having answers to such
questions is already changing the way
we do business. Lately I'm beginning to
hear people say: 'Hey, wait a minute,
we did a pretty good job, but you
didn't.' But even to reach this point has
not been easy. It's been a challenge, and
will remain a challenge.
"As we work through issues of
consistency and equity in enforcement,
we often find those are competing
objectives. How can we be both
consistent and fair when we're dealing
with such different circumstances in
each enforcement case? Well, it calls for
a tremendous amount of judgment. That
judgment must be exercised by
managers at many different levels just
within EPA, not to mention the states.
Good communication among managers
is and will remain vital."
Human Resources: We will promote
excellence and growth in EPA staff at
all levels.
"There has been a lot of talk about
human resources in the past few years.
And with good reason. Human
resources can't be talked about too
much. But action is needed, too, and we
can't have that without an increasingly
sophisticated human-resources program
at EPA.
"EPA has one of the most important
jobs there is to do in this country. But to
do that job, we've got to have the best
people. To get the best people and to
keep them, we've got to give them every
opportunity for growth and
development, for input and feedback.
Because if we don't do those things, we
won't be able to carry out our mission
the way the public expects us to, and
the way we ourselves want to do."
Seven Themes, Uniform Consistency
"It's vital that we take a consistent
approach in applying these seven
management themes throughout EPA.
We've got to have consistency.
"If we're going to talk about toxic A in
the Pesticide Program, the RCRA
Program, the Water Program, or the Air
Program, we had better be talking about
it in the same way. Consistency in risk
assessment and in the way we manage
each risk has got to be a major part of
the way we manage EPA.
"We cannot accept a zero-risk
approach, no matter how much idealists
crave one. We are not living in a
risk-free society, and there are technical
and economic reasons why risk cannot
be reduced beyond a certain point. But
it is imperative that we deal with the
issues before us in a rational way.
"That approach should be rational
whether we are using it under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act, or to
determine pesticide tolerances, or to
make permitting decisions for hazardous
waste sites. Striving for commonality in
the way we assess and manage risks is a
goal we must hold before us at all times.
'"I'm hoping that even better ideas and
even better management themes will
emerge from our future work
together."o
Underground
Storage Tanks
in the Spotlight
by June Taylor
You can't see them, but they number
in the millions.
You can be driven out of your home
or lose your water supply if one of them
leaks near you.
They are underground storage tanks
and have been called "ticking time
bombs." They represent one of the most
widespread threats to our ground-water
resources, from which over half of our
country gets its drinking water.
Originally placed underground as a
fire safety practice, these tanks become
a hidden source of pollution when they
and connected pipes corrode and
develop holes, or for other reasons
break. Leaks and resulting fumes can
also cause fires and explosions when
the unseen products accumulate in
basements and storm and sewer pipes.
The number of leaking tanks reported
has increased dramatically. A generation
of bare steel tanks installed in the late
1950s and early 1960s are now
corroded, leaky hulks. Many of these
old tanks are "orphans"—their owners
are out of business, victims of a rapidly
changing oil market. The next time you
see an abandoned gas station, you might
wonder if the owner properly emptied
and closed out the tanks, or if there is
leftover fuel just waiting to leak out.
On April 17, 1987, the Environmental
Protection Agency published proposed
regulations for dealing with the
estimated two million commercial
underground tanks that store petroleum
products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuels) and
hazardous chemicals. These proposals
are called for under Subtitle I
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Heating oil, small residential, and farm
tanks are currently exempt from federal
law.
EPA is proposing that all tanks must
be protected against corrosion and must
have leak-detection devices. New tanks
must meet these requirements at the
time of installation, which will add
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
about 10 percent to the cost of a new
tank and its connected piping. The EPA
proposals also call for national
standards for new tanks to ensure that
tanks in the future will be better built
and less likely to leak, and that if they
do leak the owner or operator will be
alerted to trfe problem by leak-detection
devices. A number of leak-detection
methods are allowed under EPA's
proposal.
EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has been
investigating the effectiveness of various
leak-detection devices at two EPA
laboratories. At Edison, New Jersey,
ORD has installed two tanks in
controlled, lined excavations and is
evaluating devices placed inside the
tanks to test their tightness. At its Las
Vegas lab, ORD is evaluating systems
that detect leaks in the soil or water
outside tanks. While its research teams
are evaluating the types of devices
already available to tank owners, EPA
hopes that new, improved devices will
be developed for this potentially
enormous and lucrative market.
Under the proposed regulations,
owners putting new tanks into the
ground must certify that the tank is
properly installed. Poor installation has
been a major cause of leaks, as
evidenced by the experience of
Farmington, NM. In 1986, that city
decided to put two of its above-ground
tanks underground. Unfortunately, the
contractor who did the work forgot to
put plugs in the tanks' washout holes.
As soon as the tanks were filled they
leaked thousands of gallons of gasoline.
The city thought the gas had been stolen
and installed a fence around the tanks
and put locks on them. Then they filled
them up again! More than 20,000
gallons of fuel were lost, and the city
barely stopped the contamination from
reaching the water supply. Several
hundred thousand dollars have already
been spent on cleanup, and the work
continues.
The regulations also deal with tanks
already in the ground. Surprisingly,
only about half of these are for
retail gasoline sales. The remainder are
generally owned by small plumbing,
electrical, and contracting firms, and
other types of business that have four or
more trucks and fuel them up from their
own pumps.
Recognizing the problems of small
business, EPA would allow owners of
existing tanks three to five years to
install leak detection devices, which can
be retrofitted onto existing tanks, or to
test their tanks for leaks. Then, over the
next 10 years, under the EPA proposal,
all tank systems would have to be
upgraded to meet the new standards (by
retrofitting corrosion and leak
detection), or be replaced with brand
new systems. The goal is that at the end
of the 10-year period all tanks will be
safer and equipped to prevent pollution.
The EPA proposals also contain
special requirements for piping, a major
source of leaks, and devices to prevent
overfill spills. They address proper tank
repair and closure, and other tank
management practices, and require that
records must be kept to show correct
steps were taken. New chemical tanks
must have a second wall around the
tank, or have a lining or some other
barrier in the pit to contain any leaks.
The proposals require that leaks be
reported to the closest "regulating
agency," which could be a local fire
department or a local or state health or
environmental agency. In the absence of
acceptable local or state programs, the
job will be done by EPA, which will be
responsible for seeing that the
contaminated area is cleaned up.
However, EPA feels that local or state
officials will usually be in the best
position to decide how much cleaning
up should be done. The level of cleanup
required after a leak is detected will be
based on whether the threatened ground
water is used for drinking or industrial
or other purposes. Thousands of
cleanups will probably be necessary,
and the proposed regulations reflect the
Agency view that getting the cleanups
underway is more important than
delaying for arguments about the need
for a strict national standard that may
not be technically achievable.
Who bears the cleanup costs, which
can range from several thousand
dollars—if the leak is caught quickly
and doesn't reach the water table—to
hundreds of thousands or even millions
if long-term groundwater cleanup is
needed? Congress specifically required
that petroleum tank marketers carry a
minimum of one million dollars in
insurance or other "financial
responsibility" coverage to pay for
cleanups and any other damages.
Congress also created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund to help pay for cleanups of
petroleum leaks from orphan sites,
where the source of the leak is in doubt
or where the owner is insolvent.
Almost every community in the
United States has underground storage
tanks—and often lots of them. The new
tank proposals affect one of the largest
"regulated communities" under EPA's
jurisdiction.
The Agency has been working with
numerous trade associations to let tank
owners know what's coming down the
pipe. While the response has generally
been that EPA's proposed program is
reasonable, there is some fear that many
marginal businesses, primarily small
gasoline stations, may suffer severe
financial hardship if forced to comply,
and environmentalists think the
proposals are too lenient.
Ron Brand, Director of EPA's Office of
Underground Storage Tanks, believes
that tank owners and operators must be
able to carry out the new requirements.
Says Brand, "Anything we propose has
to be realistic. The leak detection and
other requirements have to be
something a gas station owner or the
high-school kid who's running the gas
station while the boss is out can
handle." Brand is concerned that states
develop acceptable programs to carry
out federal law in lieu of EPA. Many
states already have active programs,
some stricter than the EPA proposals,
but many do not.
Brand notes, "Before there was a
federal law, there were leaks, and
somebody dealt with those that were
reported. Maybe it was the fire marshal,
maybe the health department, but
somebody responded. We want them to
continue to respond and we hope our
regulations will make their jobs easier
by ensuring that future tanks are better
built and better installed, and that leaks
are caught before they cause a
catastrophe. We also have the capability
to do research (such as developing
cleanup techniques and testing
leak-detection devices), to develop
training programs, and to produce other
information that will help states and
local governments, as well as tank
owners and operators. That's a better
role for EPA than trying to inspect every
tank in America."
For more information on the proposed
regulations, write to the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (WH 562A),
EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, D.C.
20460 or call the RCRA Hotline at
800/424-9346 (in the Washington, D.C.
area, 382-3000). Final regulations are
expected to be issued early in 1988. D
(TayJor is a communications consultant
to EPA's Office of Underground Storage
Tanks.]
JUNE 1987
29
-------
EPA Specialists Help Solve
a Mystery in Cameroon
by Harry Compton and Alan Humphrey
Lake Nyos, a volcanic crater lake in the Republic of Cameroon in Africa, showing the
spillway through which carbon dioxide escaped after the gas rose to the surface of the
lake in a cloud formation.
More than 30 volcanic crater lakes
form a chain through the Republic
of Cameroon's northwestern bush
country near the Nigerian border. Local
legend holds that the lakes are inhabited
by spirits—some good, some bad. Luke
Nyos was believed to house a
benevolent spirit until August 21, 1986.
But that night, a mysterious cloud rose
out of the lake and surged over the
northwest rim of the crater into the
adjacent low-lying territory. In a "matter
of hours, 1,700 people, 3,000 cattle, and
untold numbers of wildlife were dead.
The location of the calamity is a
remote highland region featuring some
of Africa's most spectacular scenery. It
is a territory of far-flung cattle ranches
and agricultural settlements nestled
among volcanic hillsides. The populace
is primarily the Fulani and Bamileke
tribes, who are further subdivided by
religion (Catholicism, Islam, and folk
religion) and language (French, English,
and 28 other local dialects). Here the
roads are little more than widened paths
and telephone communication is
nonexistent outside of the provincial
center of Bamenda, a rough four-hour
ride from Nyos.
Sadly, the very isolation that has left
this area untouched also hampered
word of the disaster. It took two days for
the full story to reach the capital city of
Yaounde. Once the situation became
known, however, international support
was immediate, with half a dozen
countries joining forces to provide
medical aid and scientific expertise. The
U.S. team, for example, included not
only medical specialists, but also
chemists, a vulcanologist, a limnologist,
and ourselves—environmental scientists
from EPA's Environmental Response
Team.
First in was a medical team from the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Second came a group of chemists and
vulcanologists headed by Dr. John
Lockwood of the Hawaiian Volcano
Observatory. Finally, little more than a
week after the killer cloud had struck,
we, too, were on our way to Cameroon,
along with George W. Kling. a
limnologist from Duke University. Our
job was to help figure out what had
happened and why. In that way, we
might be able to prevent it from
happening again.
Our first problem was the rainy
season. Rescue and supply efforts
naturally took first priority, but the rain
was causing great delays for the limited
number of Cameroonian aircraft.
Furthermore, the unpaved roads of the
Nyos region had become oceans of mud
traversable only by large, four-
wheel-drive vehicles operated by
experienced drivers. Because of these
transportation limitations, we had to
scale down our equipment to items that
could be backpacked, hung on a utility
belt, or hand-carried to the provincial
city of Bamenda, where other U.S. team
members were already at work.
In Bamenda, we were briefed by Dr.
Edward Koenigsberg, who was
coordinating U.S. disaster assistance.
Initial findings from survivors seemed
to indicate that conditions differed
according to proximity to Lake Nyos
(casualties and health effects were
reported as far away as 12 kilometers
from the lake). A herdsman on a ridge
above the lake reported seeing lights
flashing on the lakes's surface and
hearing approximately 20 seconds of
deep rumbling. Those near the crater
also heard rumblings. Yet survivors
from areas more distant from Lake Nyos
said they smelled an overpowering
odor, alternately described as rotten
eggs or gunpowder, usually an
indication of sulfur. Initially, skin
lesions on both the living and the dead
from these regions seemed to support
the theory that a sulfur species had
leached out of the cloud at some
distance from the lake. However,
sampling and analysis by members of
the U.S. team found no evidence of
sulfur compounds. And except for the
herdsman nearest the site, no one had
seen anything.
Koenigsberg also told us about the
strange report from Subum village,
located 10 kilometers from Lake Nyos.
Almost all the inhabitants had been
killed or significantly affected by the gas
cloud. The only survivors were the
women and infants confined to the
second-floor maternity ward of the
Subum dispensary, the only two-story
structure in the village. This would later
prove to be a significant clue to explain
the Nyos incident.
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
After meeting with Dr. Koenigsberg,
we flew to the town of Wum, the largest
community near Nyos. and the site of a
refugee camp. From Wum, we were
helicoptered to Lake Nyos to link up
with Dr. Lockwood's team. Circling the
lake, we were struck by the size of it:
over a mile in length, perched among
the mountaintops with sheer cliffs on
both sides. At the north end, a majestic
waterfall dropped over 75 feet to a lush
valley below. Floating mats of
vegetation, uprooted on the lake's shore
by the tremendous volume of displaced
water, were visible everywhere.
We looked out over this now-calm,
idyllic lake and tried to comprehend
what had taken place here only days
before. Lockwood told us they had been
hampered by foul weather and
transportation problems. Furthermore,
French investigators first at the site
believed there would be further
disturbances and had warned others to
stay off the lake. But we were eager to
get out on the lake; no samples had
been taken and the weather was good.
Assisted by chemist William Evans, we
collected gas, water, and biological
samples at different levels of the
220-meter deep lake.
Upon returning to shore, however, we
learned that air transport back to Wum
was not available. A truck could pick us
up, but we would have to meet it in
Nyos village at the foot of the
northwestern slope, an hour's hike
down densely vegetated mountainside.
Nyos village had been wiped out by the
gas. Entering the village at sunset, we
saw an African village like an old
Tarzan movie, but with brick and
mortar houses totally empty. There were
no villagers' bodies, but their mass
graves were visible. Lifeless,
decomposing cattle littered the area
without a worm or fly on them, because
even the insects had been killed by the
gas. Even the vultures wouldn't land.
They just circled endlessly. The stench
and the silence were overpowering
evidence that the Grim Reaper had
passed through.
The following day, we returned to the
lake for further sampling and a
complete physical survey. Air samples
were taken at the outfall of the lake, as
well as further analysis of the gaseous
bottom waters. We had to sample
quickly, however, to avoid being caught
on the lake by the daily monsoons
which blew up suddenly. All samples
were brought back to Wum that evening
for testing.
JUNE 1987
The result of all this testing was a
relatively simple theory to explain the
Lake Nyos incident. U.S. investigations
suggested that carbon dioxide had
apparently been seeping from deep
magmatic sources into the lake bottom
for some time. Extreme pressure caused
by the lake's depth resulted in a
massive build-up of dissolved carbon
dioxide. Something caused this deadly
gas to come out of solution and literally
be belched up to the lake's surface.
Evidence of the force of this action was
seen on a cliff at the southeastern corner
of the lake, where we measured a high
water mark left by a wave of 80 meters.
Four conditions might have caused
this to occur: (1) a fast temperature
differential causing a lake overturn
which displaced the gas; (2)
de-stabilization caused by some of the
violent storms of that particular rainy
season; (3) reduced low-level pressure
causing a sudden loss of solubility; or
(4) a rock-
evidence that such a slide had taken
place, we were unsure whether it had
happened before the gaseous emission
or because of it.
Whatever the initial cause, the gas
rose to the surface and was carried by
prevailing winds over the northwestern
rim of Lake Nyos. Carbon dioxide, being
twice as heavy as air, seeks the lowest
possible level; hence, it followed creek
gullies and river beds. Tragically, many
villages lie along these waterways. The
incident took place at 9:30 p.m , when
most inhabitants had eaten and were
preparing for bed.
The cloud probably overcame and
asphyxiated many of the victims as they
slept; certainly the forensic findings saw
little or no sign of agonized struggle or
suffering. Even those who were awake
could not escape because carbon
dioxide is colorless and odorless. Nor
does exposure to high concentrations
cause traumatic warning signs. The
lesions first attributed to sulfur
compounds actually resulted from
bodies lying in fixed positions for up to
36 hours.
The story of the Subum dispensary
survivors also led us to conclude that
the cloud reached a height of
approximately 10 feet from the lowest
ground level in any given area, a theory
supported by the survival of
herdspeople in close proximity but at a
higher altitude than the lake.
The U.S. investigators initially
recommended a much more extensive
study during the dry season, when data
would be easier to collect and rescue
efforts would be over, making
transportation more available and
feasible. But the commitment of the
United States government to Cameroon
pointed to a more immediate
investigation. A similar incident
resulting in 37 deaths had taken place at
the region's Lake Manoun in 1984.
Further, the local people had an oral
history that seemed to identify similar
incidents in the past, although these
were tightly bound to legend and tribal
religion.
The decision was made to examine
another half dozen lakes in the Nyos
region. This team included Dr.
Lockwood, William Evans, George
Kling, and ourselves. We conducted air
reconnaissance and lake sampling from
September 9 through 11, with negative
findings about any further immediate
dangers.
Despite the pressures of sampling
work, we did get a chance to visit the
Wum refugee camp, where the children
were fascinated by our different skin
color. They rubbed our hands and arms,
pointing and repeating a remark
translated as "white men!" Authorities
explained that in this part of Cameroon,
many people go through their whole
lives without seeing Caucasians.
Luckily, among the items we hadn't left
behind was an oversized bag of hard
candy. Needless to say, Americans were
very popular among these rural
Cameroon children.
A year later, most of the world has
forgotten about the "killer lake" in
Cameroon. Disasters and catastrophes
seem to replace themselves with
disturbing regularity. But for us, Lake
Nyos is a living, breathing entity, not
unlike the spirit the Cameroonians
believe lives there. But now we have an
amulet to protect against the beast: a
degassing system developed by Robert
Cobiella of EPA Region 2.
An air lift pump designed to suit the
economic and power limitations of a
Third World nation, it consists of a drop
pipe which delivers compressed air
below the water's surface. The resulting
mixture of air and water will be lighter
than the surrounding water/gas solution,
causing the gas to rise slowly to the
surface over a longer period of time.
This should diffuse the deadly carbon
dioxide build-up that decimated the
Nyos region.
From now on, the spirit of Lake Nyos
should remain at peace, a
(Compton is an environmental engineer
with EPA's Environmental Response
Branch in Edison, NJ, and
Humphrey is an environmental scientist
with the same branch.)
31
-------
^^^JvlQlv A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
AIR
Lead Standard Violations
EPA has announced that it is
seeking about $4.7 million in
penalties from four refining
companies for violations of
the lead phase-down
regulations.
Among companies cited in
the violation notices is Citgo
Petroleum Corp., of Tulsa,
OK, which the Agency
alleges improperly reported
importing almost 23 million
gallons of leaded gasoline
containing less lead than
Agency standards allow. In
fact, the imported product
was unfinished gasoline
blend stock. The Agency said
that by labeling it as finished
gasoline, Citgo improperly
claimed over 15 million
grams of lead rights which it
could sell, trade, or use in
the future under the Agency's
lead banking program.
In arlditon to Citgo, the
violation notices were issued
to Aectra Refining and
Appointment
Marketing, Inc., and Coastal
Refining and Marketing, Inc.,
of Houston, TX; and Canal
Refining Co. of Church Point,
LA.
Clean Air Standards
EPA announced major
revisions of the national
clean air standards for
particulate matter, changing
the focus from larger, total
particles to smaller, inhalable
particles that are more
damaging to human health.
The new rules replace the
current standards for total
suspended particulate matter
(TSP) with a new indicator
that includes only those
particles that are 10
micrometers or smaller.
These smaller particles are
likely to be responsible for
most of the adverse health
effects.
• Kimbrough
Renate Kimbrough has been
named to the new post of
Regional Director for Health
and Risk Capability. She will
advise the regional" offices on
risk reduction and
management.
Dr. Kimbrough began her
career at EPA in 1970 as a
research medical officer and
from 1972 to 1973 served as
Director of the Toxicology
Laboratory. Since 1974, she
has served as a Medical
Officer with the U.S. Public
Health Service, Center for
Environmental Health,
Centers for Disease Control.
Dr. Kimbrough earned her
medical degree from
Gottingen University in West
Germany. She is a member of
a number of organizations,
including the Society of
Toxicology and the American
Academy of Pediatrics. She is
also a Diplomate of the
American Board of
Toxicology.
Particulate-matter air
pollutants are largely dust.
dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid
droplets directly emitted into
the air by sources such as
factories, power plants, cars,
construction activity, fires,
and natural windblown dust.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Violation of Hazardous
Waste Laws
EPA and the State of
Louisiana have asked a
federal court in Baton Rouge,
LA, to impose penalties
against Browning-Ferris
Industries' subsidiaries,
Browning-Ferris Industries,
Chemical Services Inc.
(BFI-CSI), and CECOS
International, Inc., for
violations of federal and state
hazardous-waste laws at an
active commercial
hazardous-waste facility in
Livingston, LA. They are
asking for penalties up to
$25,000 per violation per
day.
The government's
investigators have detected
over 2,800 Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) violations over
the six years of BFI/CECOS
operations that have been
evaluated.
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas said, "This is a
particularly important case
because of the large number
of violations of federal and
state laws found...." "The
substantial penalties we are
seeking reflect EPA's strong
commitment to enforcing the
law to protect human health
and the environment."
BFI-CSI owned and
operated the facility from
1978 to 1983. CECOS, which
now handles all of BFl's
hazardous-waste operations,
acquired ownership and
operation from BFI-CSI in
1983. BFI is one of the
nation's largest waste
handlers.
TOXICS
Asbestos Abatement Loans
and Grants
The Agency has offered $8
million in financial
assistance to public and
private schools in the second
round of funding for
asbestos-abatement projects
under the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Act of
1984 (ASHAA).
In this round of funding,
the Agency offered awards to
35 school districts that
applied for federal funds for
66 separate projects.
EPA based school selection
upon the severity of the
school's asbestos-related
problem and its financial
need. Earlier this s'pring, EPA
awarded $34.2 million in
financial assistance, for a
total of over $42 million in
federal grants and loans
offered in 1987 to needy
schools to help abate asbestos
hazards,
Reporting Form Proposed
EPA has proposed a
toxic-chemical release form
which owners and operators
of facilities using certain
chemicals will be required to
submit annually to the
Agency and to the states.
The reporting requirement
applies to owners and
operators of manufacturing
facilities that have
manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used a toxic
chemical listed on the
emissions-inventory list in
excess of a specified
quantity.
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas said that, "By July
1988, thousands of facilities
in the, United States will be
required to report
environmental releases of
over 300 toxic chemicals
annually to EPA and the
states. For the first time, this
information will be made:
available to the public and
will allow for more informed
participation by the public
on toxic issues."
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Summertime. Photo by Steve
Delaney, EPA.
-------
1
- ". :
------- |