Emergency Planning And Community Right-to-Know Act Research Articles

Federal environmental and occupational toxicology regulations and reporting requirements: a practical approach to what the medical toxicologist needs to know, part 2.

Toxicologists are often called upon to assist in environmental, industrial, occupational and public health assessments. Accordingly, medical toxicologists may find it prudent to be aware of applicable federal toxicological regulations and reporting requirements and of the roles of relevant federal agencies. These regulations are numerous, complex, and have evolved and expanded over time, making it difficult for toxicologists to sustain a current knowledge base. This article reviews the pertinent federal toxicological reporting requirements with regards to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Department of Transportation, and information about the National Response Center. We reference internet-based government resources and offer direct links to applicable websites in an attempt to offer rapid and current sources of practical information. The format of the article is a series of hypothetical scenarios followed by commentary. Discussions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act are beyond the scope of this paper. For those desiring a more in depth discussion of the relevant federal environmental laws and statutes, and applicable case law, the reader is directed to resources such as the Environmental Law Handbook, the websites of individual laws found at www.epa.gov and the decisions of individual courts of appeal. It is our hope that this article provides not only useful practical information for the practicing toxicologist, but also serves as a key reference for Medical Toxicology core content on environmental laws and regulations.

Federal Environmental and Occupational Toxicology Regulations and Reporting Requirements: A Practical Approach to What the Medical Toxicologist Needs to Know, Part 1

Toxicologists are often called upon to assist in environmental, industrial, occupational and public health assessments. Accordingly, medical toxicologists may find it prudent to be aware of applicable federal toxicological regulations and reporting requirements and of the roles of relevant federal agencies. These regulations are numerous, complex, and have evolved and expanded over time, making it difficult for toxicologists to sustain a current knowledge base. This article reviews the pertinent federal toxicological reporting requirements with regard to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Department of Transportation, and information about the National Response Center. We reference internet-based government resources and offer direct links to applicable websites in an attempt to offer rapid and current sources of practical information. The format of the article is a series of hypothetical scenarios followed by commentary. Discussions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act are beyond the scope of this paper. For those desiring a more in-depth discussion of the relevant federal environmental laws and statutes and applicable case law, the reader is directed to resources such as the Environmental Law Handbook, the websites of individual laws found at www.epa.gov and the decisions of individual courts of appeal. It is our hope that this article provides not only useful practical information for the practicing toxicologist but also serves as a key reference for medical toxicology core content on environmental laws and regulations.

Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North America: A meta-analysis1

Literature on NH3 and H2S emissions from swine production facilities in North America was reviewed, and a meta-analysis was conducted on measured emissions data from swine houses and manure storage facilities as well as concentration data in the vicinity of swine production facilities. Results from more than 80 studies were compiled with results from the 11 swine sites in the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). Data across studies were analyzed statistically using the MIXED procedures of SAS. The median emission rates from swine houses across various production stages and manure handling systems were 2.78 and 0.09 kg/yr per pig for NH3 and H2S, respectively. The median emission rates from swine storage facilities were 2.08 and 0.20 kg/yr per pig for NH3 and H2S, respectively. The size of swine farm that may trigger the need to report NH3 emissions under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) is 3,410 pigs on the basis of the median NH3 emission rate (4.86 kg/yr per pig), but the threshold can be as low as 992 pigs on the basis of the 90th-percentile emission rates (16.71 kg/yr per pig). Swine hoop houses had significantly higher NH3 emission rate (14.80 kg/yr per pig) than other manure-handling systems (P < 0.01), whereas deep-pit houses had the highest H2S emission rate (16.03 kg/yr per pig, P = 0.03). Farrowing houses had the highest H2S emission rate (2.50 kg/yr per pig), followed by gestation houses, and finishing houses had the lowest H2S emission rate (P < 0.01). Regression models for NH3 and H2S emission rates were developed for finishing houses with deep pits, recharge pits, and lagoons. The NH3 emission rates increased with increasing air temperature, but effects of air temperature on H2S emission rates were not significant. The recharge interval of manure pits significantly affected H2S but not NH3 emission rates. The H2S emission rates were also influenced by the size of the operation. Although NH3 and H2S concentrations at the edge of swine houses or lagoons were often higher than corresponding acute or intermediate minimum risk levels (MRL), they decreased quickly to less than corresponding chronic or intermediate MRL as distances from emission sources increased. At the distances 30 to 1,185 m from emission sources, the average ambient concentrations for NH3 and H2S were 46 ± 46 µg/m(3) and 4.3 ± 8.6 µg/m(3) respectively.

Chemical Hazardous Sites and Residential Prices: Determinants of Impact

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires reporting of potential chemical hazardous sites to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA discloses some sites on the Internet while others are not. I investigate whether Internet disclosure makes a difference on the impact a hazardous site has on nearby housing prices. I also investigate the relevance of EPA-hazard classifications to understand the residential market reaction to nearby chemical hazardous sites. Data from Lubbock, Texas confirm that housing values near registered chemical hazards are lower, ceteris paribus; however, Internet-listed hazardous sites do not have a bigger impact on housing prices than do hazards not listed on the Internet. But more importantly, hazard classifications other than EPA classification better define house price behavior.

Availability of Information about Airborne Hazardous Releases from Animal Feeding Operations

IntroductionAir from animal feeding operations (AFOs) has been shown to transport numerous contaminants of public health concern. While federal statutes like the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) generally require that facilities report hazardous releases, AFOs have been exempted from most of these requirements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We assessed the availability of information about AFO airborne hazardous releases following these exemptions.MethodsWe submitted public records requests to 7 states overlapping with or adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay watershed for reports of hazardous releases made by AFOs under EPCRA. From the records received, we calculated the proportion of AFOs in each state for which ≥1 reports were available. We also determined the availability of specific types of information required under EPCRA. The numbers of AFOs permitted under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or analogous state laws, as determined from permitting databases obtained from states, were used as denominators.ResultsWe received both EPCRA reports and permitting databases from 4 of 7 states. Across these 4 states, the mean proportion of AFOs for which ≥1 EPCRA reports were available was 15% (range: 2-33%). The mean proportions of AFOs for which the name or identity of the substance released, ≥1 estimates of quantity released, and information about nearby population density and sensitive populations were available were 15% (range: 2-33%), 8% (range: 0-22%), and 14% (range: 2-8%), respectively.DiscussionThese results suggest that information about the airborne hazardous releases of a large majority of AFOs is not available under federal law in the states that we investigated. While the results cannot be attributed to specific factors by this method, attention to multiple factors, including revision of the EPA’s exemptions, may increase the availability of information relevant to the health of populations living or working near AFOs.

Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North America: a meta-analysis (2013)

Ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions from swine production facilities receive considerable attention due to human health and environmental implications. Accurate quantification of farm emissions is essential to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. The objectives of this study were to provide a review of the literature on NH3 and H2S emissions from swine production facilities in North America with a meta-analysis that integrates results of independent studies, including measured emissions data from both swine houses and manure storage facilities as well as concentration data in the vicinity of swine production facilities. Results from more than 80 studies were identified through a thorough literature search, and the data were compiled together with results from the 11 swine sites in the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). Data across studies were analyzed statistically using the MIXED procedures of SAS. Median emissions rates from swine houses were 2.78 and 0.09 kg/year per pig for NH3 and H2S, respectively. Median emissions rates from swine storage facilities were 2.08 and 0.20 kg/year per pig for NH3 and H2S, respectively. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) require reporting of NH3 and H2S emissions that exceed 100 lb/d. The size that may trigger the need for a farm to report NH3 emissions is 3,410 pigs based on median NH3 emissions rates in the literature, but the threshold can be as low as 992 pigs based on 90th-percentile emissions rates. Swine hoop houses had significantly higher NH3 emission rates than other manure-handling systems (P < 0.01), whereas deep pit houses had the highest H2S emission rates (P = 0.03). Farrowing houses had the highest H2S emission rates, followed by gestation houses, and finishing houses had lowest H2S emission rates (P < 0.01). Regression models for NH3 and H2S emission rates were developed for finishing houses with deep pits, recharge pits, and lagoons. The NH3 emission rates increased with increasing air temperature, but effects of air temperature on H2S emission rates were not significant. The recharge interval of manure pits significantly affected H2S but not NH3 emission rates. The H2S emission rates were also influenced by the size of the operation. Although NH3 and H2S concentrations at the edge of swine houses or lagoons were often higher than corresponding acute or intermediate minimum risk levels (MRLs), they decreased quickly to be less than corresponding chronic or intermediate MRLs as distances from emission sources increase. At distances 30 to 1,185 m from emission sources, the average ambient concentrations for NH3 and H2S were 66 ± 66 ppb and 3.1 ± 6.2 ppb, respectively.; Swine Day, Manhattan, KS, November 21, 2013

Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective

ABSTRACT The technology to recover natural gas depends on undisclosed types and amounts of toxic chemicals. A list of 944 products containing 632 chemicals used during natural gas operations was compiled. Literature searches were conducted to determine potential health effects of the 353 chemicals identified by Chemical Service (CAS) numbers. More than 75% of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Approximately 40–50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations. These results indicate that many chemicals used during the fracturing and drilling stages of gas operations may have long-term health effects that are not immediately expressed. In addition, an example was provided of waste evaporation pit residuals that contained numerous chemicals on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) lists of hazardous substances. The discussion highlights the difficulty of developing effective water quality monitoring programs. To protect public health we recommend full disclosure of the contents of all products, extensive air and water monitoring, coordinated environmental/human health studies, and regulation of fracturing under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act.

Is there no justice?

Minority communities, indigenous areas, and low-income neighborhoods, all of which have historically borne unequal burdens of environmental hazards, were the focus of recommendations in a recent iteration of the original report from the 1990s Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Therein, environmental and civil rights advocates recommended extensive policy changes and statutory/regulatory implementation to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Department of Justice. Regrettably, these communities and peoples – lacking both the resources and the power to resist unwanted modification of nearby air, water, and land – have been subject for many decades to what amounts to discrimination, characterized as institutionalized racism. The almost universal “not-in-my-backyard” reaction to undesirable land uses has resulted in a disproportionate number of landfills and waste-handling facilities being sited in low-income communities. Many social-welfare groups have been active in attacking injustices in environmental practices, policies, and laws. For instance, in 1991 the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drafted and adopted 17 principles of environmental justice in Environmental Justice in the 21st Century (www.ejrc.cau.edu/ejinthe21century.htm), a defining document for the growing grassroots-level environmental justice movement. In 2002, “Summit II” produced Environmental Justice Timeline – Milestones (www.ejrc.cau.edu/summit2/%20EJTimeline.pdf), which summarized the progress made since the first summit: “Over the past two decades, environmental justice and environmental racism have become household words. Out of the small and seemingly isolated environmental struggles emerged a potent grassroots community-driven movement”. The environmental justice movement in the US clearly has roots in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Around 1970, the US Public Health Service acknowledged that lead poisoning – primarily from lead-based paint – was disproportionately affecting African-American and Hispanic children. Recognition of such issues matured over the next decade and paralleled the general “public awakening” to environmental dangers and individual health risks in the 1980s. More specifically, however, the awareness of community-level environmental injustice in the US may in fact derive from an unlikely source: the United Church of Christ. In 1982, the Church questioned the location – as selected by the State of North Carolina in 1979 – of a landfill, one containing some 60 000 tons of soil contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls that had been applied to unpaved roads for dust control in rural Shocco Township, NC. Shocco's population is about 75% African-American and ranks 97th out of 100 counties in North Carolina in terms of income. Demonstrators protesting the state's actions regarding the landfill received national media coverage, and more than 500 people were ultimately arrested for civil disobedience. Environmental groups and the United Church of Christ harrassed state and federal agencies, leading to an extensive analysis of the site – which eventually resulted in the site's decontamination and closure about 21 years later. Then-Governor Michael Easley described the closing as “a watershed event for the many people who came together and worked diligently to identify and carry through a solution”. The Shocco protests also gave rise to several seminal publications and, in 1990, sociologist Robert D Bullard published the first text on environmental justice, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. The guiding principles of the civil rights movement have many parallels in the environmental justice movement: (1) Ecological unity of all peoples and non-human species; (2) Ethical and responsible use of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things; (3) Universal protection from hazardous and radioactive wastes, which threaten the fundamental rights to clean air, land, water, and food; (4) The rights of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment; (5) Opposition to environmentally destructive operations – whether random or systematic – of governments, multinational corporations, and other entities. Eventually, in 1986, the US Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). This substantive law – requiring the dissemination of information to persons previously uninformed about environmental risks – was designed to educate people about local emergencies relating to dangers from chemical storage, use, and release in their midst. In 1992, the EPA established the Office of Environmental Justice, and Congress also passed the policy-based Environmental Justice Act, which has since gone through several iterations. In 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order aimed solely at issues pertaining to environmental justice, minorities, and children. However, despite the Civil Rights Acts and later EPCRA strictures, other substantive legal solutions to the injustices in the workplace and neighborhood have not been dealt with comprehensively – rather, case-by-case lawsuits, siting challenges, and rallying points have been the force behind the movement.

Reporting air emissions from animal production activities in the United States

Major releases of airborne ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from the decomposition of animal waste have the American public concerned about the health of persons near farms. Emissions of these hazardous substances are regulated by the US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Moreover, federal regulatory provisions delineate thresholds for reporting hazardous pollutants being released into the air. In 2008, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a reporting exemption under which all farms were exempted from reporting air emissions under CERCLA and small farms were exempted under EPCRA. The US EPA's exemption poses questions about whether the rule is contrary to congressional mandates. Environmental and industry groups have challenged this exemption in federal circuit court, and the judiciary will need to decide whether the agency had authority to adopt the rule. To accord protection to humans from hazardous airborne emissions from farms producing livestock, state agencies may want to adopt scientifically-justified ambient air quality standards.

Florida Agricultural Handbook of Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

Revised! Circular 1139, a multi-part handbook by Michael T. Olexa and Ian Goldfarb, helps Floridians recognize which agricultural and household activities may involve solid and hazardous wastes. It also provides an introduction to the agencies and statutes that govern solid and hazardous waste disposal. Published by the UF Department of Food and Resource Economics, November 2008. Ask IFAS: Florida Agricultural Handbook of Solid and Hazardous Waste (2008) (ufl.edu)

Ammonia Emissions from Broiler Houses

Air emissions will be one of the greatest challenges facing the poultry industry in the future. Federal regulations as applied to animal agriculture will be further defined as additional baseline data are obtained. Ammonia emissions monitoring requires accurate ventilation estimates, ammonia detection, and trained personnel. There are wide variations in ammonia emissions among houses, ages of birds, and flocks. Ammonia emission levels per house occasionally exceed the threshold of 45 kg /d (100 lb/d) set by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In the future poultry producers may need to address ammonia emissions when adopting best management practices for their operations.

RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE EVALUATION OF IMPACTS FROM POWER STATION STACK EMISSIONS

In May 1997, the USA Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated final rules that require oil and coalburning electric power plants to report chemical releases under the national Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), established by Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986.

New plants

In compliance with the provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, Chester County, Pennsylvania has collected information about all reported chemical releases to the environment. This paper presents an analysis of the patterns of these releases, including their composition, type, location, frequency, time and level of emergency response, over the last 12 years (1987–1999). Hydrocarbon fuels are the most frequently spilled compounds, but several extremely hazardous chemicals including sulfuric acid, chlorine, and ammonia have also been released to the environment. The patterns of hazardous materials releases in Chester County are similar to those reported in other databases at all levels: local, state, federal and international.

Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds in Asphalt and in Corresponding Leachate Water

The environmental impact of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in asphalt (bitumen) materials is related to their availability for environmental transport and biouptake, rather than their total concentrations. This study examines six Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) paving asphalts and four commercial roofing asphalts. Three cleanup procedures for the neat asphalt samples are evaluated. This study reports on analyses for 29 PACs, including the EPA 16 priority pollutant PAHs and additional Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins. These require reporting by the U.S. EPA under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313. The analytical protocol for analysis of the higher molecular weight PACs by GC/MS is reported, with inclusion of GC/MS/MS verification of some of the detectable compounds. Additionally, each asphalt was taken through a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure following U.S. EPA method SW846-1311. Results of the paving and roofing asphalts and their corresponding leachate waters are presented in this study.

Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds in Asphalt and in Corresponding Leachate Water

The environmental impact of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in asphalt (bitumen) materials is related to their availability for environmental transport and biouptake, rather than their total concentrations. This study examines six Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) paving asphalts and four commercial roofing asphalts. Three cleanup procedures for the neat asphalt samples are evaluated. This study reports on analyses for 29 PACs, including the EPA 16 priority pollutant PAHs and additional Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins. These require reporting by the U.S. EPA under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313. The analytical protocol for analysis of the higher molecular weight PACs by GC/MS is reported, with inclusion of GC/MS/MS verification of some of the detectable compounds. Additionally, each asphalt was taken through a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure following U.S. EPA method SW846-1311. Results of the paving and roofing asphalts and their corresponding leachate waters are presented in this study.

A 12-year history of hazardous materials incidents in Chester County, Pennsylvania

In compliance with the provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, Chester County, Pennsylvania has collected information about all reported chemical releases to the environment. This paper presents an analysis of the patterns of these releases, including their composition, type, location, frequency, time and level of emergency response, over the last 12 years (1987–1999). Hydrocarbon fuels are the most frequently spilled compounds, but several extremely hazardous chemicals including sulfuric acid, chlorine, and ammonia have also been released to the environment. The patterns of hazardous materials releases in Chester County are similar to those reported in other databases at all levels: local, state, federal and international.

EPCRA: Toxic release reporting requirements and reductions for the department of defense

Department of Defense (DOD) installations are required by Executive Order 13148 to comply with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), achieve reductions in usage and releases of toxic chemicals, and implement other programs, such as environmental management systems and audits. EPCRA section 313 compliance requires each DOD installation to evaluate more than 600 chemicals for possible annual reporting to EPA and state regulators. Achieving these goals at the installation level is further complicated by EPA's ongoing modifications to the EPCRA requirements, and the differences between DOD and EPA guidance for the specific compliance actions that must be taken. In addition to describing the EPCRA requirements, available DOD guidance, and key compliance issues of importance to military installations, this article recommends approaches to resolving DOD/EPA guidance differences, and provides insight into the importance of the EPCRA data.

Current technical and regulatory developments

This column summarizes three recent developments in the environmental regulatory arena. First, revisions to the Risk Management Program Rule address confidential business information, classification of regulated processes, and additional mandatory and optional data elements. Second, the Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Proposed Rule looks at lowering the reporting thresholds of certain PBTs and adding other PBT chemicals to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Common Sense Initiative (CSI) charter expired in February 1999 and its impact represents a core move toward common sense at all levels of the regulatory process.

Improving the U.S. EPA toxic release inventory database for environmental health research

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act (EPCRA) in response to the tragic death of thousands of people in Bhopal, India, following the accidental release of the toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide facility. As a component of EPCRA, certain manufacturers are required to report annually the total mass (pounds per year, 1b/yr) of toxic chemicals released into the environment (air, water, land, or underground injection), treated on‐site, or shipped off‐site for further waste treatment. This information is compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into a publicly accessible database known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI database is designed to encourage pollution prevention and waste reduction by increasing public access to and knowledge of environmental chemical releases. EPCRA has been generally considered by industry, government, and community representatives as one of the most successful environmental laws in U.S. history. Over the past few years, EPA has initiated a three‐phased expansion to EPCRA reporting requirements that will enhance the overall usefulness of the TRI database. The focus of this article is to discuss these changes and highlight several current uses of the TRI database in environmental health research.

Florida Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation Handbook: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was passed in 1986 to improve emergency response to accidental releases of toxic and/or hazardous chemicals into the environment. EPCRA primarily serves a planning purpose. It required governors to set up State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs). Those commissions then set up Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). This is EDIS document FE448, a publication of the Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, UF/IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published December 2003.&#x0D; https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe448