•jr> ted States
E nv ronmenta. P'ctecT'jn
Aaenrv
Office of
Public Affairs i'A-107i
Washincton DC 20460
Environmental News
EPA ANNOUNCES
SIGNIFICANT
PROGRESS IN
MEETING U.S.
CLEAN WATER
DEADLINES
A compilation of news releases, advisories to the press and other timely information
For further details, contact 202/382-4355.
Eighty-seven percent of all publicly-owned sewage
treatment plants in the country met the congressionally-
established July 1, 1988, deadline for legally-required
pollution cleanup, EPA Administrator Lee Thomas announced
today. As a result, 95 percent of the total sewage
processed in the United States receives secondary or
better treatment. Secondary' treatment protects public
health from the disease potential of human waste and also
protects fish and other aquatic life.
Thomas cited both voluntary compliance and federal
and state enforcement efforts as reasons for achievement
of the 87-percent compliance figure. Municipal compli-
ance with water pollution control laws has been an EPA
priority since 1984 , wh,en the agency established its
National Municipal Policy (NMP). The NMP required
municipal compliance by July 1, 1988, whether or not a
city got federal funding for sewage treatment plant
construction.
The 87 percent which achieved compliance with their
water pollution control permit requirements serve 108
million people nationwide. Of the remaining 13 percent
of sewage treatment plants in the United States, most
are on enforceable timetables leading to compliance or
are in some stage of a judicial process leading to the
establishment of these timetables.
Speaking at a joint Washington press briefing with
Roger Marzulla, U.S. Justice Department Assistant
Attorney General for Land and Natural Resources, and
Roberta Savage, Executive Director of the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrator?
R-131
(more)

-------
-2-
Thoraas praised the cooperative federal and state effort that made this
compliance success possible:
"Under the landmark 1972 Amendments to the federal Clean Water
Act, Congress set for a pollution-plagued nation the formidable goal of
making most U.S. waters fishable and swimmable again," Thomas said. "A
large part of this task was cleaning up wastewater from our often overloaded
and overworked municipal sewage treatment plants. To meet this challenging
goal, Congress mandated a joint federal-state cooperative effort in pollution
cleanup. Since 1972, EPA has provided over $45 billion in federal grants
to help local communities build and upgrade sewage treatment facilities,
with state and local governments contributing an additional $15 billion in
matching funds. Although the majority of municipalities have met the
nation's clean water goals, there has been recalcitrance, but EPA, the
U.S. Justice Department and state officials have been aggressive in bringing
these cities into compliance. More than 125 lawsuits have been filed by
the federal government against municipalities since 1984 to obtain compliance
under the NMP. The 87 percent compliance rate of U.S. sewage treatment
plants is a success story of which state and federal environmental officials
can truly be proud."
The vast majority of Americans are served by publicly-owned (taxpayer-
supported) sewage treatment plants (POTWs). Of the rivers and streams in the
United States that do not meet their state water quality standards, 17
percent are failing because of pollution from POTW's. For estuaries, 22
percent are not meeting their standards because of POTW's.
For Treatment plants, meeting the July 1 deadline meant complying with
permit requirements to provide at least secondary treatment of wastes.
Secondary treatment is the second stage of sewage treatment, in which
bacteria is used to eliminate organic human waste. (The first step in
sewage treatment is called primary treatment, in which screens and sedimentatio
tanks are used to remove most materials that float or settle.) Secondary
treatment protects communities from the disease potential of untreated
human waste and removes materials that can rob waters of oxygen necessary
for aquatic life. For some treatment plants, the July 1 deadline was tied
to permits requiring more advanced waste treatment that significantly
reduces materials like nitrogen and phosphorus, which can also choke and
kill water bodies and their fish.
The National Municipal Policy, established in January 1984, grew out
of congressional, federal and state concern in the early 1980's that many
cities were not making expected progress in treatment-plant construction.
The original deadline in the 1972 Amendments for plants to meet their
permit requirements was 1977; Congress later extended this deadline for
some cities to 1983, and then to July 1, 1988.
Also, diminishing federal funding of the program raised the question
at that time of whether cities would be required to comply with discharge
limits. Since 1977, the courts had ruled that treatment plants had to
comply with their discharge limits, regardless of the availability of
federal money.
•131
(more)

-------
-3-
The NMP made it clear that, with or without federal funding, EPA and
the states would b. pushing municipalities to meet their permit requirements
by July 1, 1°>88, or sooner if possible. The sole exceptions were those
cities that could prove they were physically or financially unable to
complete construction by this deadline; however, they generally would have
to abide by court-enforceable schedules to achieve compliance as quickly
as possible.
There are about 15,500 publicly-owned treatment plants in the United
States. About 3700 are what EPA calls "majors," defined generally as
plants designed to serve 10,000 or more people and to process one million
gallons or more of wastewater a day. The rest, which EPA calls "minors,"
total about 11,800.
Of the 3,700 total majors, 2,200 had achieved compliance by 1984.
The NMP focused on the remaining 1,500 major sewage treatment plants
which had not achieved compliance as of 1984. As of the July 1, 1988,
deadline, over 1000 achieved compliance. Of those not achieving compliance,
the majority are on enforceable court schedules or are the subject of
federal or state judicial actions. Further, over 60 percent of the remaining
NMP majors not in compliance already provide secondary treatment or better.
Of the 11,800 total minors, 9,300 had achieved compliance by 1984. The
NMP focused on the remaining 2,500 minor sewage treatment plants which had
not achieved compliance as of 1984. As of the July 1, 1988, deadline, over
800 have achieved compliance. Of the rest, approximately 1,500 are on
enforceable schedules or are the subject of federal or state enforcement
actions.
"As impressive as these figures are," said Thomas, "EPA and the states
have no intention of slacking up on our enforcement efforts. We are
reaffirming our commitment to bring all sewage treatment plants in this
country into compliance with the law and to make sure these plants remain
in compliance. Together, we will ensure that all plants currently on
enforceable compliance schedules stay on those timetables and that those
plants not yet on schedules are put on them as soon as possible. I want to
make it absolutely clear that EPA is prepared to take additional enforcement
actions against cities that refuse to cooperate in protecting the environment
and health of their citizens."
# # #
R-131

-------
United States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
vvEPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1988
EPA PROPOSES	The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today
ADDING 229 SITES
TO SUPERFUND	proposed adding 229 hazardous waste sites, including
PRIORITY LIST
14 federal sites, to its Superfund list of most serious
hazardous waste sites. In addition, the agency is
announcing its intended action for 43 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites previously
proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Superfund program provides funds to take
action at the nation's most serious hazardous waste
sites. The funds are authorized under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The
NPL is the agency's list of hazardous waste sites
potentially posing the greatest long-term threat to
human health and the environment. NPL sites are
identified through a process which evaluates sites
according to threats to nearby populations through
actual or potential contamination of groundwater,
surface water or air.
With today's proposals, there are now 799 final
sites and 378 proposed sites, bringing the total to
1,177 on the list. Sixty-two federal sites are proposed
for the NPL.
"In the twenty months since passage of the Super-
fund amendments, we have made considerable progress in
addressing the nation's most serious hazardous waste
sites. Today's addition to the National Priorities List
is an important step in identifying hazardous waste
sites which are eligible for the federal program," said
Jack McGraw, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
R-I07
(more)

-------
-2-
Sites from 42 states are being proposed. California leads the list
with 25 sites, followed by Pennsylvania with 17 and Washington with 15.
New Jersey continues to have the most NPL sites (110), followed by
Pennsylvania (97), California (88), Michigan (81) and New York (76).
Under the June 1986 policy, facilities subject to RCRA corrective
action are deferred from being listed on the NPL unless the owner or
operator is bankrupt or is unwilling to undertake remedial activities.
Four new categories of facilities announced today also may be placed on
the NPL to ensure timely action — for example, facilities where EPA cannot
compel corrective action until the facility's RCRA permit is renewed in
several years.
Under this NPL/RCRA policy, EPA is reproposing 13 sites for placement
on the NPL and is soliciting comment on the appropriateness of listing
them.
EPA also is proposing to remove 30 RCRA sites currently proposed on
the NPL because site problems can be addressed under RCRA authorities alone
or in conjunction with other authorities, and the sites do not meet the
criteria for listing. RCRA authorities, substantially broadened since the
passage of the 1984 RCRA amendments, require corrective action at hazardous
waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities similar to that required
under Superfund. Remedies under both RCRA and Superfund are designed to
protect human health and the environment.
The policy for non-federal RCRA facilities is intended to ensure that
solutions to as many site problems as possible are achieved by their owners
or operators, thereby preserving Superfund money for sites where no other
authority is available.
The agency will be publishing a Federal Register notice in the next
several weeks which will clarify how the agency will determine an owner's
or operator's unwillingness or inability to perform corrective action under
RCRA. This will be used to determine if a non-federal RCRA site should be
placed on the NPL.
The inclusion on the NPL of 14 federal sites being proposed today is
consistent with the agency's policy. Although Superfund money cannot be
spent on remedial activities at federal sites, SARA requires all federal
facilities comply with the same standards to protect human health and the
environment that apply to any non-governmental entity.
Superfund also is available for emergency and short-term actions at
sites to alleviate immediate threats to human health from toxic substances.
To date, 1,184 emergency response actions have been undertaken, 259 at NPL
sites.
This rule will appear in the Federal Register in the next two weeks
and will have a 60-day comment period.
R-107
# t #

-------
United 5tates	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-l 07)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
£EPA
Superfund Status
Report
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1988
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
was signed into law on Oct. 17, 1986. The five-year, $8.5-
billion program provides federal authority and resources to
address the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste site
problems. This report will be updated and issued quarterly
to identify progress .r.ade in the Superfund program.
SUPERFUND INVENTORY OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SITES: 29,463
sites have now been identified as potential hazardous
waste sites. Preliminary assessments have been
completed at 27,082 of these sites. 8,875 site inves-
tigations have been completed. Those sites posing
the greatest potential hazard and requiring significant
long-term action under Superfund will be assessed for
placement on the National Priorities List (NPL).
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: There are presently 1,177 sites on
the agency's priority list of hazardous waste sites.
NPL sites are identified through a process which
evaluates sites according to threats to nearby popula-
tions through actual or potential contamination of
groundwater, surface water or air. There are 799
final sites and 378 proposed sites on the NPL at the
present time. Sixty-two of these are federal sites.
Sixteen sites have been deleted from the NPL and an
additional five have been proposed for deletion.
SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS: Removal actions are undertaken
to stabilize or remediate hazardous waste sites or
incidents that pose a short-term threat to human
health or the environment. SARA allows such removal
actions to last up to 12 months and to cost up to $2
million. 1,217 removal actions have been undertaken;
376 of these were performed at NPL sites.
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES: Thirty-two NPL sites have
completed remedial activities. These sites include
those which have been deleted from the NPL, are proposed
for deletion, or soon will be proposed for deletion.
An additional three sites have been "ompleted, but
operation of control systems remains underway.
R-109
(more)

-------
-2-
o NPL REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES - There currently is work underway
at 881 NPL sites. Activities at an NPL site are undertaken
in several phases:
currently
underway completed
641	327 RI/FS - A Remedial Investigation/Feasibi1ity
Study is the initial study conducted at the
site to determine the type and extent of
contamination and to identify possible
remed ies.
327 ROD - A Record of
chosen remedy. A
results in a ROD.
Decision documents the
completed RI/FS
137	149 RD - The Remedial Design details the engineering
design plans and specifications for conducting
the remedial action.
103	68 RA - The Remedial Action stage is the implemen-
tation of the chosen remedial activity. (This _
number refers to completed actions at portions of
sites -- operable units as well as whole sites.)
o NPL SITES IN LONG-TERM RESPONSE - Many NPL sites will require
continuing actions, such as long-term pumping and treating of
groundwater, long after the remedial activity and final construc-
tion are completed. These sites will not be deleted from the NPL
until the long-term response efforts are completed (e.g. achieving
the required cleanup level in the groundwater). At present, EPA
has completed work at three sites where operation of control
systems remains underway.
SUPERFUND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: The agency can require accountable
private parties to pay for or undertake activities at Superfund
sites. Through enforcement actions, EPA and the states have
secured from private parties approximately $600 - $700 million
through 735 actions. EPA has issued 602 administrative orders
requiring responsible parties to take action at sites. EPA has
referred 281 cases to the Department of Justice and 232 of these
have have been filed in the courts.
SUPERFUND COST RECOVERY: The agency has initiated judicial cost-
recovery actions at 191 sites for $258 million. In addition, EPA
has achieved administrative settlements at 68 sites for cost
recovery through fiscal year 1987. To date, $78 million has been
reimbursed to the fund.
S„PERFUND BUDGET INFORMATION: Since 1981, Congress has appropriated
$4.4 billion to the Superfund program. In 1988, Superfund is
operating under a $1.5-billion budget for the year. EPA has
requested $1.6 billion for fiscal year 1989.
R-109
* * *

-------
United States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
v>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1988
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today
proposed regulating the use of the pesticide aldicarb
to prevent contamination of groundwater. Under EPA's
proposal, the continued use of aldicarb will depend on
the development of pesticide-management plans by those
states identified as having areas with the greatest
likelihood of groundwater contamination by this product.
EPA also is proposing label restrictions, including
a prohibition against using aldicarb within 300 feet of
drinking-water wells in all areas of the country.
EPA has determined that there are unacceptable
risks to persons drinking water that is contaminated
with aldicarb at levels greater than the health advisory
of 10 parts per billion (ppb). Health-advisory levels
are established by EPA's Office of Drinking water.
"Some innovative measures are included in today's
proposed action which we believe will prevent contami-
nation of groundwater by aldicarb," said Dr. Jack Moore,
EPA's Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. "Because the decision on aldicarb will be
the first to implement fully our recently released
strategy to protect groundwater from pesticide contami-
nation, we are soliciting specific comments on a wide
range of issues surrounding today's announcement. This
is a very different kind of problem, in that both the
risk-assessment and risk-management answers are geogra-
phically dependent. The ultimate solution calls for a
new way of thinking and managing pesticides."
Aldicarb, marketed under the trade name Temik, is
a pesticide used to control insects, nematodes (root
EPA PROPOSES
STATE MANAGEMENT
PLANS TO PREVENT
GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
BY ALDICARB
PESTICIDE
R-110
(more)

-------
-2-
worms) and mites. The major uses are on cotton, citrus, potatoes, peanuts
and soybeans. Other uses are on sugar beets, tobacco, ornamentals, sweet
potatoes, dry beans, pecans, sugarcane, seed alfalfa (California only) and
grain sorghum.
Animal tests show that aldicarb is highly toxic when in contact with
the skin, inhaled or orally ingested. It is one of the most acutely toxic
pesticides registered by EPA. Aldicarb is a cholinesterase inhibitor and
acts by interfering with the normal transmission of nerve impulses.
According to a large range of valid test studies reviewed to date, neither
aldicarb nor its metabolites have been shown to exhibit any adverse chronic
effects.
Aldicarb has been found in the groundwater of 48 counties within 16
states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The levels range from the
"level of detection" to 515 ppb. Detection of aldicarb in groundwater has
been associated most commonly with its use on potatoes and citrus.
EPA has made a presumption that the aggregate risks posed by aldicarb
above the 10 ppb health-advisory level in drinking water will exceed the
benefits derived from its continued use.
In accord with a proposed strategy issued by EPA in late February for
addressing concerns of groundwater contamination by pesticides, the agency
has evaluated three options with regard to aldicarb in areas of the nation,
with groundwater vulnerable to contamination.
In the first option, the agency considered use of a registrant-submitted
label-modification proposal which would be targeted to the users. The
costs of monitoring groundwater contamination and taking corrective actions
would be borne by the registrant. Preventive measures would be tailored to
specific conditions of the application site to prevent contamination of
drinking-water wells above the health-advisory level. This option was
rejected as it was believed that the label would be too difficult to
interpret. EPA is prepared, however, to accept those label modifications
which are easy to follow and which would reduce the potential of ground-
water contamination by aldicarb.
The next two options, both of which permit states to play the lead
management role in protecting groundwater, consist of three components. A
labeling component would prohibit use near all existing wells and would
restrict use of aldicarb to certified applicators because of groundwater
concerns (aldicarb is already classified for restricted use due to its
acute toxicity). The second-component would require monitoring in medium
vulnerability areas to characterize better the potential for aldicarb to
reach groundwater and to help determine whether further regulatory action
is needed. Finally, in areas where there is the highest likelihood of
groundwater contamination, the continued use of aldicarb will depend on the
implementation of state pesticide groundwater-management plans.
R-110
(more)

-------
-3-
EPA is seeking extensive comment on the design of management plans and
will be sponsoring a series of regional workshops beginning this summer to
explore the concept further. As currently envisioned by EPA, the management
plan would need to: 1) describe the state's overall philosophy and approach
to protecting groundwater from pesticide contamination; 2) list specific
measures to be employed; 3) identify the state's authority and capabilities
for implementation; 4) identify the location of all groundwater that is
currently or potentially a source of drinking water; 5) contain a monitoring
scheme; 6) establish contingency plans and funding mechanisms to deal with
contaminated groundwater; 7) in cases where contamination occurs above the
specified level, describe the mechanisms to be used to reduce contamination,
including the source of funding; and 8) describe how the public will be
kept informed and involved.
Under today's proposed action, EPA would use the two options which
permit states to play the lead management role in protecting groundwater.
In addition to labeling and monitoring requirements, states would need to
implement management plans in areas identified as having a high potential
to leach. The two options use different methods for identifying these
areas. One option is based on a groundwater assessment which evaluated 11
hydrogeologically similar areas called heath regions. If this method were
used, the following states would need to submit management plans: Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The other option is based on a county evalua-
tion assessment. Although the agency has not yet applied the county-
assessment criteria to all counties in the United States, it is anticipated
that 15 to 24 states would need to submit management plans. Both assessment
methods use various criteria which are then used, with a weight-of ~ev idence-
approach, to designate those areas having a "high," "medium," or "low"
potential to leach. Both approaches place emphasis on actual monitoring
data and use computer modeling to predict an area's vulnerability to
contamination. The agency is soliciting comment on which option is favored.
If aldicarb were cancelled, the cost to producers/growers is estimated
at $104 to $135 million. Users would switch to alternatives which are
typically less effective, some of which would contaminate groundwater or
present other adverse ecological and/or toxicological effects. Specifically,
the estimated adverse economic effects would be the following: citrus,
$54.5 million (Florida oranges and Texas grapefruit) and peanuts, $17 to
$33 million. Moderate economic effects at the national level would be
expected for cotton — $20 to $29 million; potatoes — $11 to $15 million;
tobacco — $0.1 to $0.7 million; sweet potatoes — $1.3 to $2.7; and pecans
-- $0.48 million. For all uses, these effects would result primarily
because alternatives are less effective and more expensive than aldicarb.
Use of aldicarb already has been banned in a number of areas because
of groundwater contamination": Suffolk County, N.Y., where it was used on
potatoes and banned in 1979; and Del Norte County, Calif., where it was
used on lily bulbs and banned in 1983. Additionally, new rules instituted
in the state of Wisconsin in 1987 resulted in a significant reduction of
aldicarb use on potatoes in Wisconsin.
R-110
(more)

-------
-4-
EPA is deferring a decision regarding the potential risks due to
dietary exposure to aldicarb from consumption of treated food commodities
until the final results have been evaluated from the national food survey
conducted by the registrant of aldicarb. At that time, EPA will determine
if further regulatory action will be necessary.
Because of its acute toxicity, aldicarb is formulated into granules
which are incorporated into the soil with a special implement. Soil
moisture releases the aldicarb, which is then absorbed by the plant and
translocated to the stems and leaves. Under current label requirements,
applicators are required to wear long-sleeved shirts and long trousers.
Approximately 75 species of insects and 40 species of nematodes are
controlled by the use of aldicd.b. An estimated 5.2 to 5.7 million pounds
of aldicarb active ingredient are used in the United States annually.
Rhone-Poulenc is the sole producer and registrant of aldicarb, which was
first registered in 1970.
EPA initiated a Special Review of aldicarb in 1984 t ^ed on evidence
that the pesticide posed a risk to public health from dietary exppsure to
drinking water from groundwater wells contaminated with aldicarb. Under
the Special Review process, the risks of using a pesticide are carefully
examined and a determination is made whether such risks are unreasonable
in the light of the benefits of the product.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, tl.2
agency is responsible for conducting pre-market reviews of the health and
safety of pesticides before they can be registered for use. This involves
weighing the risks of using the pesticide against its economic and social
benefits.
If at any time after a pesticide is registered, new evidence casts
doubt on its safety, EPA conducts further risk/benefit evaluations to see
if regulatory measures to reduce any unreasonable risks should be initiated.
As in the case of aldicarb, the registrant is given an opportunity to
refute the evidence of risk. In addition, any evidence regarding the
benefits of the pesticide from the registrant, applicators and other
interested parties will be considered by the EPA Administrator in determining
the most appropriate regulatory action.
The options available to the Administrator are to continue registration,
to restrict further the use of aldicarb or equivalent action or to cancel
the registration.
All public comments on today's proposed actions on aldicarb should be
made within 60 days to: Program Management and Support Division (TS-757C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
R-110
t * #

-------
l-nned Slates
fnvironmental Protection
Agency
Office u'
Public /.fair* A 197;
Waahington DC /04S0
Environmental News
EPA PROPOSES NEW
WORKER-PROTECTION
STANDARDS FOR
AGRICULTURAL
PESTICIDES
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988
To decrease further the occupational exposure of
workers to agricultural pesticides, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency is proposing extensive additions
and revisions to its current requirements that protect
workers from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide
exposure.
These proposed revisions will expand the
scope of the standards to include not only workers
performing hand-labor operations in fields treated
with pesticides but also workers in forests, nurseries,
and greenhouses where pesticides are used, as well as
workers who mix, load and apply pesticides in these
locations. Flaggers and those who clean and repair
contaminated application equipment also are included.
Persons not covered by the proposed action are
those associated with use of pesticides for treatment
of livestock, weed control on rights of way, direct
injection, post-liar vest treatment, seed treatment
and pesticide research.
"We have become increasingly concerned about the
adequacy of our present regulations to protect
agricultural workers from occupational exposure to
pesticides, " said Dr. Jack Moore, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
"The proposed worker-protection standards will improve
the health and safety of agricultural workers on
farms, and in forests, nurseries and greenhouses.
R—115
(more)

-------
-2-
Among the new proposed requirements to protect workers are the
following:
- Employers must post for workers' information the location of the
nearest emergency medical facility. If pesticide poisoning is
suspected, workers must be provided with transportation to a medical
facility. Available information about the suspected pesticide or
circumstances of the suspected poisoning must also be provided to
the worker and medical personnel.
-	Early re-entry workers and handlers (handling is defined as mixing,
loading, applying, flagging, equipment cleaning and repairing and
disposal) must wear personal protective equipment (PPE) as specified
by pesticide labels. An extra protective suit must be available to
handlers and early re-entry workers in case of a spill or other
contamination. The PPE must be clean and in working condition and
may not be worn or taken home if contaminated. Contaminated PPE
must be laundered separately from other clothing. Handling of
pesticides that require chemical-resistant PPE is prohibited
when conditions are such that heat stress is likely.
-	All handlers and early re-entry workers must be trained according to
specified minimum requirements.
-	Re-entry intervals, in addition to current re-entry interval®, would b«
set at 48 hours for organophosphates and n-methyl carbamate* in
toxicity category I (most acutely toxic); and 24 hours for
organophosphates and N-methyl carbamates in toxicity category II and
all other products in toxicity category I (toxicity categories are
determined by the oral or dermal route of acute toxicity). Re-entry
intervals for all other pesticides will be until the sprays have
dried, dusts have settled and vapors have dispersed.
-	Soap, disposable towels and a quantity of water sufficient for washing
of hands and face must be available to workers handling pesticides or
where pesticides have been used during the growing season.
-	If the pesticide is a serious eye irritant, an eye-wash dispenser
must be available to handlers and early re-entry workers.
-	If the pesticids pceduct has the skull and crossbones on the label,
(highly toiic) visuaj. or voice contact must be made with the handler
at least •v*ry two hours. Handlers of highly toxic fumigants in
greenhouses want be under constant observation.
-	No worker say be in the treated area during application unless involve
in the application.
-	Before any pesticide application, workers who will be working in the
treated area or in a neighboring area must be notified orally of the
treatment, in the language understood by the worker, on the day of
application. Workers must also be notified of any treated areas
still under a re-entry interval. Warning signs must be posted
at points of entry to the treated area for those pesticides with
re-entry intervals of greater than 48 hours.
R-115
(more)

-------
-3-
- Commercial handlers of pesticides will be required to be monitored
for cholinesterase inhibition, if they are exposed to organophosphate
pesticides on three consecutive days or on a total of six days during
a 21-day period (cholinesterase inhibitor pesticides act by interfering
with the normal transmission of nerve impulses). Monitoring must be
supervised by a licensed physician, and employers must follow the
recommendations of the physician concerning removal from and return to
exposure. Records of organophosphate handling also must be maintained
for two years and made available to state and federal enforcement
officials on request.
Pesticide producers are not required to print the regulations on the
product labels in their entirety, but must incorporate the regulations by
means of a reference statement. In addition, all product labels must have
a statement prohibiting application in a way that will contaminate workers;
must contain the signal words "caution," "danger" or "warning" in Spanish
as well as English for toxicity category I or II products; must identify
products with organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate active ingredients; must
identify all fumigants and require continuous visual contact with the
applicator during application; must have a statement requiring visual or
voice contact once every two hours with handlers working alone who are
applying products having the skull-and-crossbones symbol on the label; and
must include appropriate PPE and re-entry requirements.
EPA originally promulgated farm-worker-protection standards in 1974
under the Pederal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. New data on
pesticide toxicity, agricultural-worker exposure and pesticide incidents,
as well as a need for a clearer delineation of responsibilities and liability,
are the bases for EPA's determination that a revision of the standards is
necessary. Regulatory negotiations over the revisions began in 1985.
A committee of 25 members representing industry, user groups, farm workers,
state officials and federal agencies was formed. The committee
met several times in late 1985 and early 1986 to discuss working drafts of
the revisions. Some representatives withdrew in 1986 without a committee
consensus. EPA completed the final development of the proposed regulations.
The agency will hold *a series of public meetings on the worker-
protection standards soon after the proposal is published. The first
meeting will be held in Washington, D.C., with subsequent meetings held in
one or more major agricultural areas of each EPA region.
Public consents on the proposed regulations should be submitted to
EPA within 90 days and addressed to the Document Control Officer (TS-757C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 236,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va. 22202.
R—115
« * t

-------
Unned States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
<>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988
EPA TO DEVELOP
PROGRAM TO ENSURE
REGULATION OF
OIL AND GAS
WASTES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
concluded that federal hazardous waste regulation of
oil and gas drilling and production wastes is not
necessary and is impractical. The agency will develop
a three-pronged approach to ensure that current federal
and state authorities adequately address oil and gas
wastes.
In a recommendation to Congress, in the form of
a "regulatory determination," EPA found that existing
state regulations and federal regulations under the
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are generally
adequate to control the management of oil and gas wastes.
Certain state and federal regulatory gaps do exist,
however, and enforcement of existing regulations in
some states is inadequate.
As a result, the agency plans a three-pronged
approach to fill the gaps in existing state and federal
regulatory programs by:
-	developing regulations for states under the
non-hazardous authorities provided by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
and improving existing federal regulatory
programs under the Clean Water Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act for surface-
water discharges and underground injection?
-	working with the states to encourage changes
in their regulations and enforcement to
improve their programs where needed;
R-l 16
(more)

-------
- 2 -
- working with Congress to develop any
additional statutory authority that may
be required.
Congress specifically exempted oil and gas wastes from RCRA regulation,
pending completion o£ a study and today's regulatory determination. EPA's
study of oil and gas wastes was issued in December as a Report to Congress.
Congress asked EPA in the study to consider health and environmental impacts
of current management practices, economic impacts of any additional regula-
tory controls on ~¦he industry and the adequacy of current regulatory
author i t ies .
Dr. J. Winston Porter, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, said, "We found that current federal and state
programs are generally adequate to ensure proper disposal of oil and gas
wastes, if vigorously enforced. We will take all necessary steps to improve
the application and enforcement of current regulations and to identify and
fill gaps in state and federal programs."
EPA found that imposition of hazardous waste regulations for all oil
and gas wastes could subject billions of barrels of waste to regulation,
causing a severe economic impact on the industry and on oil production in
the United States. Economic models used by the agency to project impacts
indicated potential domestic production declines ranging from 1.4 to 12
percent, with a corresponding annual direct cost passed on to consumers of
S0.7-S4.5 billion. In addition, stripper operations (generally wells
producing 10 or fewer barrels of oil per day during the declining phase of
their production cycle) are sometimes economically marginal and are highly
sensitive to small fluctuations in market prices and cannot easily absorb
additional costs for waste management.
The hazardous waste authority under RCRA does not provide the agency
with the flexibility to consider costs when applying hazardous waste
requirements to oil and gas wastes. Consequently, EPA does not have the
authority to craft a hazardous waste regulatory program to reduce or eliminate
serious economic impacts on the industry in light of Congress' concern for
the protection of the nation's current and future energy supplies.
As a result, EPA concluded that it would be more efficient and appro-
priate to fill regulatory gaps by strengthening regulations for surface-
tfater discharge and underground injection and by developing regulations
under RCRA's more flexible non-hazardous authorities. This tailored
approach would enable the agency to apply all necessary requirements to
the management of these wastes, while ensuring that economic impacts are
minimized and reducing disruption of existing state and federal control
programs.
EPA also believes that full-scale hazardous waste controls are
impractical for oil and gas wastes because of the difficulty in regulating
the nearly 800,000 crude oil and natural gas generating sites across the
country, compared with just over 100,000 generators currently in the hazardous
waste system. In addition, the agency found that such regulation could
R-116
(more)

-------
-3-
severely strain existing hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal
capacity and significantly increase the permitting burden for state and
federal hazardous waste programs.
Nearly 8.4 million barrels of oil and 44 billion cubic feet of natural
gas are produced in the United States daily, primarily in Texas and Alaska.
Stripper wells, small, independent operations located throughout the
country, produce 14 percent of total U.S. production. These stripper
wells account for nearly 70 percent of the total number of wells in this
count ry.
The largest volume of waste associated with oil and gas production
is produced water, which is generated from the oil wells during production.
It contains water and other constituents. Produced water is generally
iisposed of in pits at the site, down disposal wells or by surface discharge.
EPA estimates that 21.6 billion barrels total volume were produced in 1985.
Drilling muds and fluids are the second most voluminous waste generated
by the oil and gas industry. Drilling muds are combinations of chemicals
and other fluids used to facilitate well drilling. These are also disposed
of in pits. EPA estimates a total volume of greater than 360 million
barrels was produced in 1985.
Other wastes associated with oil and gas production, such as additional
fluids and sludges, make up a very small percentage of the total volume
of wastes.
The toxic constituents of oil and gas wastes include the hydrocarbons
benzene and phenanthrene. Inorganic constituents include lead, arsenic,
barium, antimony, chlorides and sodium.
EPA. found that improperly managed wastes can cause damage to human health
and the environment through surface-water and groundwater contamination.
However, the agency found that the majority of damage cases it documented
occurred as a result of violations of current regulations.
As part of the regulatory determination, the agency also recommended
that no additional regulations be developed for the geothermal energy
industry.
The regulatory determination will be published in the Federal Register
within the next two weeks.
R-116
# # #

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental News
EPA PROPOSES
FOUR APPROACHES
FOR CONTROLLING
BENZENE EMISSIONS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Lee M. Thomas today proposed four alternative approaches
for controlling benzene emissions from sources in the
chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining and iron and
steel industries. The widely varying alternatives, on
which the agency encourages and expects considerable
public comment, are each designed to limit human
exposure to emissions of the high-volume-production
chemical that is associated with leukemia in adults.
The proposal is being made under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.
"Today's proposal deals with regulating benzene,"
Thomas said, "but the implications of this decision
are far broader. Th ->y will determine in large measure
what level of risk we as a society are willing to
accept in terms of regulating all hazardous air
pollutants."
The proposal of alternative policy approaches is
designed to elicit the maximum public comment over
various approaches to protection of public health and
to frame a debate that will encompass such pertinent
regulatory issues as acceptable health risks, appro-
priate criteria for the ample margin of safety, techno-
logical feasibility of controls, costs and other factors.
The final selected approach may be one of the
four described specifically or a variation. EPA also
intends to use the final approach as the framework for
future hazardous-air-pollutant-control decisions.
(more)
R-128

-------
-2-
"This proposal lays out four different approaches for controlling
benzene emissions from many sources," Thomas said. "The public-health
issues inherent in any decision dealing with hazardous air pollutants are
extremely complex, and I strongly encourage a thorough public debate on the
merits of the various approaches we have outlined here."
Each alternative policy approach in today's proposal offers a unique
"acceptable-risk" decision. Each approach attempts to answer in a different
way several ^"itical questions. First, what measure or measures of risk
should be given weight in the acceptable-risk decision? Second, are there
specific levels of individual or population risk that are acceptable?
Third, should the same levels be set and the same measures apply for all
hazardous-air-pollutant decisions? Lastly, how should uncertainty in risk
estimation be considered?
Exposure to Benzene
EPA estimates that about half of the American population is exposed to
some cancer risk from the industr:" 1 sources of benzene covered under
today's proposal. The risk is less than one chance in a million for the
vast majority of that exposed population. The cancer risks from the sources
under consideration account for approximately three f tal cancers per year
nationwide. (For reference, the American Cancer Socit. y predicts that
494,000 Americans will die of cancer in 1988). For the sources under consi-
deration, the maximum individual lifetime risk, assuming 70 years of contin-
uous exposure at the highest-modeled average annual concentrations, ranges
from six chances in 1,000 to two chances in 100,000, depending on the
specific source of the emissions.
A Two-Step Court Decision
Today's announcement is EPA's first proposal of a hazardous-air-pollutant
standard since the landmark ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
last year on vinyl chloride. The court mandated a two-step process for
regulating hazardous air pollutants in which the EPA Administrator must
first establish a "safe" or "acceptable" level of risk based on health con-
siderations before setting an "ample margin of safety" in which he may then
take into account costs and technological feasibility.
In an April 5 memorandum, Thomas outlined his thinking on how the
appeals court's ruling on vinyl chloride would be applied in the benzene
rule-making process. The memo drew critical comments from some Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee members and environmentalists.
Thomas decided that this decision was at the center of a critical policy
issue and that it should be framed to examine carefully a broad array of
regulatory approaches that offer varying levels of "acceptability" to both
the hypothetically most-exposed individual and the population at large.
Estimating Risk
The risk to the most exposed individual, or maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk, is the probability of contracting cancer following a lifetime
exposure (24 hours per day for 70 years) to benzene at the maximum modeled
R-128
(more)

-------
-3-
long-term ambient-benzene concentration. Estimates of maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk are usually expressed as a probability represented in
scientific notation as a negative exponent of 10. A risk o£ contracting
cancer of one chance in 10,000 is written as 1 a 10"^, one chance in 1
million as 1 x 10~°, etc.
The population-exposure risk, expressed as an annual cancer incidence,
is defined as the number of excess cancer cases expected annually in the
exposed population residing in the vicinity (usually 20 to 50 kilometers,
or 12 to 31 miles) of the industrial sources of benzene. This measure con-
siders that people living at different distances and directions from the
sources are exposed to different risks and adds these risks and numbers of
people.
Central to the issue of standard setting for hazardous air pollutants is
acceptability of risks. The EPA Administrator must make a determination of
what risks are acceptable considering real-life factors such as risks
encountered in everyday life, which range from one chance in 10 to less
than one in 10 million. Everyday risks include those from natural background
radiation (at sea level, lifetime cancer risks are in the range of one
chance in 1,000, with risks higher as altitude increases), and from naturally
occurring radon in homes (which can be as high as one chance in 10). Risks
of death from accidents, natural disasters and rare diseases range from one
chance in 10,000 (tripping and falling) to one chance in 10 million (rabies).
The Four Approaches For Determining "Acceptable Risk"
The first approach, or "case-by-case approach," considers for a given
pollutant all risk information and measures such as maximum individual
risk, risk distribution and incidence, as well as estimation limitations
and uncertainties in determining acceptable risk. In decisions on acceptable
risk under this approach, the Administrator would prefer to see risks in the
range of 10"^ or less. However, a higher maximum individual risk, e.g.,
10~3, may be acceptable, under certain circumstances, depending on the
overall distribution of the population at different risk levels, overall
potential for increased incidence of disease and other risk considerations.
For example, if the exposed population were extremely sparse and the number
of people most exposed were small, less stringent risk figures could be
considered. The case-by-case approach captures the qualitative as well as
quantitative information in the risk assessment by recognizing the differ-
ences in the quality of the underlying assumptions.
The three remaining approaches are single-parameter approaches that
take risk numbers at face value for the acceptable-risk decision and consider
the weight of evidence in the second, or ample margin-of-safety, step.
The second, or "incidence-based approach," only considers the total
number of cancer incidences per year in making the acceptable-risk
decision. The agency proposes to consider one cancer case per year as
acceptable in the acceptable-risk decision. One case per year is proposed
because it is small in relation to the millions of persons exposed to benzene
R-128
(more)

-------
-4~
and in relation to me incidence associated with risks from numerous every-
day act ivities. Anything greater than one case per year would be considered
unacceptable, and regulatory action would bo indicated.
The third approach, or "1 x 10~4 or less maximum individual-risk
approach," considers the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as the
only parameter in determining acceptable risk. In this approach, a maximum
risk of 10~4, or one chance in 10,000, is defined as acceptable. In other
words, if the most exposed individual is determined to be, for example, at
a 10-3 risk level, it would be considered unacceptable.
The fourth and under most circumstances most stringent approach, is
the "1 x 10~6 or less maximum individual-risk approach." In this case,
acceptable risk is defined as a maximum individual risk of one chance in
one million or lower. Under this approach, a risk to an individual of 10~5f
for example, would be considered unacceptable.
"Ample Margin of Safety"
and impacts of the Four Approaches for Benzene
After making the acceptable-risk decision, the EPA Administrator is then
required to make the ample-margin-of-safety decision. This second step,
mandated by the vinyl-chloride ruling, is basically the same for each of the
four alternative approaches. It takes into consideration health-risk
measures as well as technical feasibility, cost, estimation uncertainties
and economic impacts.
"In terms of setting an ample margin of safety," Thomas said, "one
question is should we opt for additional controls that may be expensive but
only buy society little additional reduction?"
Today's benzene proposal applies the four alternative approaches to
each of five benzene source categories which the agency previously
considered for possible control.
One source category, maleic-anhydride process vents, originally
proposed for control in 1980 and then later withdrawn, no longer uses
benzene, so no federal action is warranted.
Of the remaining source categories, the first, ethylbenzene/styrene
(EB/S) process vents, originally proposed for control in 1980 and also
later withdrawn, is estimated to emit about 155 megagrams (170 tons) from
the 13 plants manufacturing one or both of the chemicals. The agency
estimates that under the first three approaches there may be no cost to
industry because the baseline or existing risk meets the acceptable-risk
criteria and represents an ample margin of safety. The fourth approach
(10~®) in this case could result in an impact that may close as many as six
to eight of the 13 plants. Under this approach, the cancer incidence would
be reduced from one cancer every 250 years (0.004 annual) to one case every
1,400 years (0.0007 annual).
R-128
(more)

-------
-5-
The second source category, benzene storage vessels, was proposed in
1981 and withdrawn in 1984. At that time, there were 126 petroleum
refineries, chemical plants and bulk storage terminals with benzene storage
vessels. Total air emissions are estimated to be between 620 and 1,290
megagrams (680 and 1,420 tons) per year. Application of the first three
approaches would be expected to result in a requirement for controls costing
an estimated $100,000 annually. The population risk would be reduced from
one cancer case every 10 years (0.1 annual) to about one case every 25
years (0.04 annual). Thus, there would be an estimated 1.5 fewer excess
fatal cancers attributable to this source category every 25 years. The
fourth approach would be expected to have a severe economic impact on the
industry and would result in approximately one fewer fatal cancer every 10
years (0.1 annual).
The third source category, benzene equipment leaks, is currently regula-
ted by EPA's 1984 rules. At that time, the agency estimated there were 131
facilities in the United States handling process streams that contain
benzene. The 1984 regulations were estimated to reduce benzene emissions
from equipment leaks by 69 percent (from 7,900 megagrams [8,700 tons] per
year to 2,500 megagrams [2,750 tons] per year).
The first two approaches when applied to equipment leaks result in
no additional controls since the baseline risk is considered acceptable.
Under the third approach, EPA estimates that" annual costs of at least $50
million would result from the application of the maximum feasible technology.
However, EPA's best judgement based on 1984 emission estimates is that as
many as 100 of the 131 facilities cannot achieve the emission standard
without closing. These closings would result in a direct loss of approxi-
mately 30,000 jobs. The fourth approach would probably result in closure
of all facilities to meet a level of control that would ensure a risk level
of 10~6 or less. Direct job losses would probably exceed 35,000 and other
job losses in associated industries could also be expected. The population
incidence of leukemia from this source category would be reduced from one
case every five years (0.2 annual) to one case every 1,400 years (0.0007
annual).
The final source category under consideration is coke-by-product-recovery
plants. In the coke-by-product-recovery process, various components of the
gases emitted from coke-oven batteries (usually co-located with iron- and
steel-making facilities) are separated and recovered to obtain products
such as crude tar, napthalene, light oils, benzene mixtures and refined
benzene. Nationwide baseline benzene emissions from 44 plants assumed to be
operating at full capacity were estimated after the 1984 proposal at 26,000
megagrams (28,600 tons) per year.
Applying the first approach to this source, while the baseline risk
would be considered acceptable, emission-control equipment and work
practices could improve the margin of safety at an industry cost of about
$16 million per year. This would result in reducing the population incidence
from three fatal cancers per year to one every five years (0.2 annual), a
93-percent reduction. The second approach would result in the same level
R-128
(more)

-------
-6-
of control and impacts. The third approach would result in at least $26
million in annual costs for controls plus approximately four plant closures
and eight other plants operating at reduced production. It is estimated
that there may be a 40-percent loss of coke-production capacity under this
approach and that as many as 3,000 workers may lose their jobs. The cancer
incidence would be reduced from an estimated three fatal cancers each year
to one every 14 years (0.07 annual). The fourth approach is not expected t<
be achievable even with the maximum feasible technology and thus is estimate
to result in a possible closure of all 44 plants and a direct loss of rough
7,000 jobs. Cancer incidence would be reduced under this approach fr—
three fatal cancers every year to one case every 2,500 years (0.0004
om
annual
Benzene Background
Benzene is a basic chemical produced in large quantities in this country
to manufacture a diverse variety of chemicals and products such as poly-
styrene, nylon and synthetic rubber. These derivatives are used in consumer
goods (toys, tires, packaging) and household goods (refrigerators, carpetinc
Benzene is common in indoor and outdoor air. Major sources include automo-
bile exhaust, automobile refueling operations, consumer products, cigarette
smoking and industrial emissions.
EPA has reviewed a limited number of measurements taken of benzene
concentrations in urban and rural areas of the United States and the data
suggest that the average background benzene concentration in urban areas
ranges from about 1.5 to six parts per billion and that the average back-
ground concentration in rural areas seems to be less than one part per
billion.
Since the turn of the century, the scientific and medical communities
have recognized benzene as a toxic substance capable of causing acute and
chronic effects. It was recognized as a potential human carcinogen
(leukemia) in the mid-1970s based on occupational studies of synthetic-
rubber, chemical and shoe workers. Other documented occupational effects
include impairment of the blood-forming system, immunotoxicity, chromosome
breakage and neurotoxicity. Results of animal studies support the leukemo-
genic potential of benzene and show reproductive and developmental toxicity
also.
EPA lis ted benzene as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of its carcinogenic properties. The
listing led to the development in 1980 and 1981 of proposed standards for
benzene emissions from maleic-anhydride process vents, EB/S process vents,
benzene storage vessels and benzene equipment leaks. After public comment,
EPA finalized standards in 1984 for benzene equipment leaks, but withdrew
its proposals for maleic-anhydride process vents, EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels. The withdrawal was based on the conclusion that
both the benzene health risks to the public from these three source cate-
gories and the potential reductions in health risks achievable with avail-
able control techniques were too small to warrant federal regulatory action
under section 112. Also on that date, EPA proposed a standard for benzene
emissions from coke-by-product-recovery plants.
R-128	(more)

-------
-7-
Shortly thereafter, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environ-
mental organization, filed suit with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of EPA's three withdrawals
and the final standard for the benzene equipment leaks.
In 1987, the court ruled in the vinyl-chloride case, and EPA requested a
voluntary remand in the enzene case to reconsider its 1984 rule makings.
In a December 1987 order, the court approved the voluntary remand and estab-
lished a schedule for proposed and final rules. The schedule was subse-
quently modified for a proposal date of July 20, 1988. The agency also
decided to reconsider its proposed standard for benzene emissions from
coke-by-product-recovery plants in light of the vinyl-chloride decision and
to publish a supplemental proposal.
In today's rule-making notice, EPA indicates that the decision-making
process described in the vinyl-chloride ruling is unique to Section 112 of
the Clean Air Act.
Today's proposal should appear in the Federal Register within the next
two weeks. A 60-day public-comment period will follow publication. A
public hearing is being planned for Sept. 1 in Washington, D.C.
# # #
R-128

-------
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release	August 2, 1988
The President today announced his intention to	Lawrence
J. Jensen to be an Assistant Administrator (General Counsel) of
the Environmental Protection Agency. He would succeed Francis S.
Blake.
Mr. Jensen is currently Acting General Counsel for the
F.nvironmen fcal P**dfc«<5fcion Agoncy in Washington, D.C, Prior to
this, he was an Assistant Administrator (Water Programs) at EPA,
1935-1988. He was an Associate Solicitor at the Department of
the Interior, 1981-1985; and an Associate in Jones, Waldo,
liolbrook and McDonough in Salt Lake City, Utah, 1979-1981. From
1076-1979, he was a trial attorney in the Civil Division at the
Department of vTustice, 1976-1979 .
Mr. Jensen was graduated from the University o£ Ut6h (B.A., 1973)
and Brigham Young University (J.D., 1976). He was born January
17, 1950 in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is married, has three
children and resides in Woodbridge, Virginia.
* # *

-------
united States
Environ menial Protection
Agency
Ot»:Ce Df
Public Affairs iA-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA	Note to Correspondents
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1988
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas has appointed Dr. John
A. Moore to serve as Acting EPA Deputy Administratoi
effective Aug. 15 following the departure of A. James
Barnes to become Dean of the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Dr. Moore
has been Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and
Toxic Substances since 1983.
Victor J. Kimrn, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, will become Acting Assis-
tant Administrator for that office, and Susan Vogt, Deputy
Director of the Office of Toxic Substances, will take
over as Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Division
202-382-4355
R-126

-------
United Stam	Office -of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington OC 20480
oEPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1988
1987 MOTOR	Results of the U.S. Environmental Protection
VEHICLE SURVEY
SHOWS TAMPERING	Agency's 1987 Motor Vehicle Tampering Survey show signi-
REDUCTION
ficant reductions in catalytic-converter tampering and
fuel switching in areas that include visual checks for
these items in their vehicle-emi^sions-inspection
programs.
Many states and localities have adopted vehicle-
inspection programs to comply with certain Clean Air Act
requirements. Local programs include inspection and „
maintenance programs (I/M) which test tailpipe idle
emissions and anti-tampering programs (ATPs) where
the emission-control components are visually inspected
for evidence of tampering and fuel switching. Tam-
pering among vehicles not covered by either of these
programs was 32 percent, compared to 20, 18, and 16
percent for those vehicles covered by I/M-only, ATP-only,
or I/M plus ATP respectively.
Lee M. Thomas, EPA Administrator said, "These data
demonstrate the continued importance of state and local
anti-tampering inspection programs especially in areas
that fail to meet the national ozone and carbon monoxide
air-quality standards. The results also are encouraging
since they show that there can be significant and direct
benefits achieved by effectively implementing anti-
tampering programs."
There are currently 42 operating ATPs in 22 states
covering approximately 25 percent of the nation's light-
duty fleet. These programs range from roadside pull-over
inspections covering one percent of the fleet to annual
inspection programs covering the entire local fleet.
Model-year coverage and selection of emission-control <
devices for inspection vary depending upon local program
regulations.
R-132
(more)

-------
Sites were selected for the 1987 tampering survey based on the need
to evaluate control-program -'fL c .veness instead of the desire to method-
ically sample the U.S. vehicle poo lation. Fourteen of the 15 cities in
the 1987 survey, comprising 91 p< .jent of the survey sample, have an I/M
and/or ATP even though less than 40 percent of the vehicles nationwide
are subject to such programs. Even this heavily weighted survey sample
retains an overall tampering rate of 19 percent. Also, one-third of the
surveyed vehicles displayed some form of malfunction, possible tampering
or definite tampering of emission-control components.
Thomas added, "Tampering rates remain at an unacceptably high level.
Motor vehicles with tampered emission-control devices are a major environ-
mental problem and a prominent source of urban air pollution. Our efforts
to bring non-attainment areas into compliance are being hampered by the
high degree of tampering."
The survey also found that 14 percent of the unleaded vehicles not
covered by an I/M and/or ATP had been misfueled with leaded gasoline.
Fuel switching among vehicles in I/M-only, ATP-only and I/M + ATP areas
was nine, five and five percent respectively. Motorists who Use leaded
gasoline in a vehicle that requires unleaded gasoline actually end up
spending extra money, even though leaded gasoline may be slightly cheaper
at the pump. Fuel switching leads to more frequent repairs and tune-ups
and accelerates engine deterioration.
The most serious, persistent environmental problems associated with
emission-control-device tampering and fuel switching are ozone and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions. A major element of urban smog, ozone is formed
when volatile organic compounds from gasoline vapors, solvents and other
hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with sunlight and high
temperatures. Ozone can cause various adverse effects on the human body,
such as impaired pulmonary functions, symptomatic effects (such as cough,
shortness of breath and chest pain) and aggravation of pre-existing
respiratory disease. In addition to these health effects, ozone has been
shown to cause crop-yield reductions, forest injury and damage to materials
like rubber and dyes. The primary health concerns associated with CO are
cardiovascular effects, in particular, aggravation of angina symptoms, and
effects on the central nervous system. The agency's recently released
air-quality-trends data showed that ozone and CO non-attainment continues
to be one of the nation's major environmental problems.
Tampering and misfueling can cause dramatic increases in emissions of
HC, CO and NOx. Motor vehicle emissions in urban areas account for nearly
60 percent of the total CO and 40 percent of the airborne lead emitted into
the atmosphere annually. Studies show that removing a catalytic converter
or ruining it by using leaded instead of unleaded fuel can increase HC
emissions about 500 percent and CO emissions about 400 percent per vehicle.
R-132
(more)

-------
-3-
Tampering with -specific components of the emission-control system has
been identified as a problem since 1978, when EPA conducted its first
tampering survey. The 1987 report concluded that catalytic-converter
tampering is much lower on vehicles covered by converter-inspection programs
(two percent vs. 10 percent)/ and the effectiveness of inspection programs
is particularly noticeable among the oldest vehicles surveyed (vehicles
that are most likely to be tampered with).
EPA's 1987 survey found that air-pump systems were the most frequently
tampered with components (eight percent). Air-pump tampering ranged from
two percent in Charlotte, N.C., to 18 percent in Miami. Tampering with the
air-pump system can increase HC emissions up to 200 percent and CO emissions
up to 800 percent.
Since the 1968 model year, emission-control devices have been installed
on light-duty trucks and passenger cars. The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act made it illegal for any automobile dealer, or repair or service
facility to disconnect or tamper with emission-control devices. EPA
enforcement teams inspect car dealers, automobile repair faciities,
muffler shops and other facilities that may remove or tamper with emission-
control equipment. A maximum civil penalty of $10,000 per vehicle can be
levied against new car dealers and manufacturers. Commerical repair
facilities and fleet operators are subject to a maximum penalty of $2,500.
R-132
I * I

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
v>EPA Environmental News
EPA SETS
PENALTIES
FOR VEHICLE
TAMPERING
VIOLATIONS
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1988
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today
said it is proposing $475,000 in penalties against a
group of muffler shops, automobile repair facilities
and new car dealers for multiple violations of the
Clean Air Act tampering prohibition.
The agency said it is charging 36 operators of
43 facilities for almost 400 violations involving the
use of improper replacement, or after-market, catalytic
converters, a major component of automobile emission-
control systems.
Most of the violations involve installation of
"two-way" converters on vehicles that require "three-way"
converters. A "two-way" converter controls hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions. A "three-way" converter
controls nitrogen oxides emissions in addition to hydro-
carbons and carbon monoxide. Other cases involve instal-
lation of converters that had not been tested in
accordance with EPA's after-market catalytic-converter
guidelines.
EPA's after-market converter enforcement policy, in
effect since August 1986, established a test procedure,
acceptance standards and installation requirements. The
agency considers the installation of an after-market
converter which does not conform to the policy requirement
after January 1988 a violation of the Clean Air Act.
EPA also found cases where after-market converters
had been installed on vehicles still under a manu-
facturer's five-year/50,000-mile emission-control
warranty. These vehicles require original-equipment
converters if a replacement is needed.
R-133
(more)

-------
-2
Factory-installed converters are designed to last the lifetime of a
motor vehicle, provided the vehicle is properly maintained. A new replace-
ment converter may be necessary, however, if the original has been damaged,
removed or becomes inoperative from the use of leaded fuel or the vehicle
fails a state or local emissions inspection. Vehicles with malfunctioning
or missing converters emit up to eight times the level of harmful pollutants
as vehicles with properly operating converters.
Don Clay, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
said, "The activities of the facilities cited in these notices undermine
our efforts to improve air quality. EPA's policies are intended to provide
reliable converters at an affordable price for consumers who may need a
replacement catalytic converter".
Installing the wrong converter significantly reduces the control of
harmful pollutants emitted into the air. Motor vehicle exhaust emissions
are the primary cause of ozone or smog in urban areas. Currently 68 areas
violate the national ozone emission standard. Ozone causes lung and eye
irritation, which leads to headaches, eye discomfort and visual problems.
EPA said the parties receiving Notices of Violation will have an
opportunity to settle the cases with the agency. If a settlement cannot
be reached, the cases will be referred to the Department of Justice for
prosecution in court.
R-133
* * *

-------