Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Research Articles

Social Battles on Environmental Risks

Like quantitative risk assessment a few years ago, risk communication now has become a favorite new tool for environmental management. The three methodologies—risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management—are often yoked together—or even confused with one another. This is not only because former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Ruckelshaus sponsored all three with his usual flair. In addition, risk communication is seen as the critical link between risk assessment and risk management—until 1986 or so, in fact, it was seen as the missing link, rescued in the nick of time from the backwaters of cognitive psychology and assigned the formidable task of engineering public consent. According to this analysis, risk assessment tells decision-makers how dangerous each hazard actually is, and thus guides their decisions about what ought to be done. But more often than not, unfortunately, the public prefers decision-makers to do something else entirely, and expresses its preference vi...

EPA 1990 Budget

Lee M. Thomas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, announced that President Reagan has proposed a total fiscal budget of $4.9 billion for EPA, representing a 9% increase from 1989. The request includes $1.83 billion for operating programs, $1.75 billion for the Superfund program, $100 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program, $1.2 billion for the Construction Grants program, and $421.5 million for research and development.EPA's major shift of emphasis for 1990 will be an increased focus on long‐term research, to complement their traditionally shorterterm regulatory demands. This will allow the agency to anticipate and address emerging environmental problems that require a longer‐term perspective, especially the effects of global climate change. The policy will also allow EPA to prevent pollution at its source, rather than concentrating primarily on cleanup efforts, as has been done in the past. Superfund is a high priority for 1990, as is the LUST progam.

New wetlands plan

“Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda,” a report by the National Wetlands Policy Forum, was released November 15 by New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean, chair of the Forum. The group has outlined recommendations to halt and hopefully to reverse the deterioration of our wetlands resources. The report is a start toward solving the nation's wetland problems.Other members of the Forum included co‐chairman Governor Carroll Campbell (S.Dak.), Governor Booth Gardner (Wash.), Conservation Foundation president William K. Reilly, National Wildlife Federation president Jay D. Hair, and ARCO senior vice president Willard T. Chamberlain. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee M. Thomas requested the year‐long study by the Forum.

EPA Proposes Four Approacahes for Regulation of Benzene Emissions

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee M. Thomas has taken a new tack for regulating air exposure to benzene, one that has made few friends for him in the environmental activist community. Last month he proposed four alternative approaches for regulating benzene emissions from sources in chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and the iron and steel industries. The approaches vary widely, both in the amount of risk they presume from benzene exposure and cost, and the agency is seeking considerable public comment on which way to proceed. It's a thorny problem, EPA has found, to set a standard that protects public health but doesn't result in wholesale shutdowns of production facilities. Hazardous chemical air pollutants are regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has been able to set standards for only 24 hazardous chemicals, despite promises that it would do more. A lawsuit against EPA over regulation of vinyl chloride resulted in a significant ...

EPA action on lead in water draws criticism

Calling it major rule as far as the drinking water program is concerned, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee M. Thomas last week announced a set of requirements he claims will g...

EPA seeks views on benzene health risk

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee M. Thomas wants to find out what level of risk we as a society are willing to accept in terms of regulating all hazardous air pollutants. So contrary to its normal procedures, EPA is proposing four alternative approaches for controlling benzene emissions from sources in the chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and iron and steel industries. The agency estimates that about half the U.S. population is exposed to some cancer risk from these sources of benzene. It further estimates that these sources emit about 33,000 tons of benzene annually, less than half the total annual emissions of the chemical, accounting for approximately three fatal cancers per year nationwide. The agency has been told by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that it can consider only health risks in determining a safe emission level for a hazardous air pollutant. EPA then can consider cost and feasibility in establishing ...

Assessment, communication, and management of environmental risks.

I am delighted to be able to address this conference, drawing upon my experiences at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some have called it the “finest environmental protection agency in the world.” A theme I have heard repeatedly from environmental leaders in other countries is that what the EPA does in this country largely dictates what happens in many other parts of the world. It strikes me as ironic that an agency with so much prestige abroad has trouble here at home convincing our own people of the wisdom of its actions. Of course, its image has changed over time. I remember speaking to the Economic Club in Detroit in 1970 to some 1,100 businessmen; I was introduced by the Executive Vice President of General Motors as “the greatest friend of American industry since Karl Marx.” I know that many of you here in your hearts probably lust after the job of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. If it’s ever offered to you, I have one piece of advice: don’t take it unless it’s offered by a Republican president! As I have now discovered for the second time, if you’re the EPA Administrator in a Republican ad-ministration and you leave before you’re indicted, everybody tells you what a good job you did, proving you can succeed in any job if only you set your goals low enough!

U.S.‐Soviet climate research: More, better

The draft of an agreement for cooperative U.S.‐Soviet climate research contains a number of proposed projects that should lead to unprecedented knowledge of the worldwide atmospheric distribution of trace gases and their effect on climate change. Activities named in the document include the shared measurement of Antarctica's ozone hole, a joint experiment to investigate the relationship between aerosols and ozone in the Arctic stratosphere, and a program to measure biogenic methane produced in permafrost areas of the United States and the Soviet Union.The protocol, signed in preliminary form November 2, 1987, by representatives of both countries, is the latest update of a bilateral agreement in place since 1972. Ultimate approval of the protocol should come in the next few months, in the form of a final signing by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Thomas and the head of the equivalent ministry in the Soviet Union, Yuri Izrael.

Intergovernmental Conflict on Environmental Policy: the Attitudinal Connection

VER the past few years, the federal government has delegated considerable authority over environmental protection to the states. This practice, begun during the Nixon administration, has accelerated under President Reagan. During Ann Burford's tenure as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, for example, state program responsibilities grew from 33 percent of possible assumptions of responsibility to 66 percent (Stanfield 1984). Yet the states complain that they are still saddled with too many federal regulations and too much federal control. These complaints are becoming increasingly bitter as the federal government cuts back on funding for environmental programs. A growing number of scholars sympathize with the states. Indeed, many students of intergovernmental relations argue that the states should have more autonomy, not less (Elazar 1984; Beam 1983; Kettl 1983). Several arguments can be made in favor of greater state discretion. First, state governments today are in excellent institutional shape. Governors are stronger, state legislatures are more professional, and state bureaucracies are better organized. In Elazar's words (1984: 188), Institutional change in the states since 1960 has been substantial, principally directed to bringing state government into line with the managerial revolution. There is, of course, more to government than institutional machinery. However, improvements in the quality of personnel appear to have paralleled improvements in government institutions. Second, state governments are exposed to a much broader array of interests than they were some years ago. The most dramatic changes have occurred in state administration, long held to be captured by special interests. Over the past decade, public representation in state administrative decision making has been institutionalized in many policy domains, especially in the regulatory arena (Gormley 1986). The public is now represented in public utility commission hearings, in nursing home regulatory decisions, and on occupational licensing boards. The public is also represented in state environmental proceedings in a variety of ways (Heberlein 1976; Godschalk and Stiftel 1981; Rosener 1982).

The Interaction of Science, Policy, and the Law in Agency Use of Risk Assessments for the Regulation of Carcinogens

The National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Administrator Ruckelshaus have both urged that rigorous risk assessment be incorporated into federal agency procedures for the regulation of toxics and carcinogens. Ruckelshaus has made considerable efforts to upgrade the quality of science used in federal agency rulemakings and to assure that "our science analysis be rigorous and the quality of our data be high." In spite of these admirable goals, the current state of risk assessment and risk management in the federal agencies appears to be a tangle of inconsistency. Not only do different agencies use different standards for acceptable health risks, but regulations to control cancer risk may vary by as much as 1000 times even within EPA itself. This article discusses the practical problems of incorporating scientific risk assessments into agency rulemakings and the complex policy issues involved. The first major analysis of current agency use of risk assessment has just been completed by a blue-ribbon panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board ("SAB"). The issues raised in the SAB radionuclides review cut across all environmental laws premised on an assessment of risk and suggest several critical procedural steps that should be immediately helpful to all agencies currently struggling with the difficult problems of incorporating risk assessments into the bases for their regulations of toxins and carcinogens.

Industry Examines EPA's Risk Approach to Regulating Chemicals

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus has committed the agency to the risk assessment /risk management method in regulating existing chemicals, and chemical companies are anxious to find out just where they stand. Thus the Chemical Manufacturers Association convened a seminar on risk management early this month to help industry representatives form a better understanding of how the agency is using this technique in regulatory actions. What they heard was not the most encouraging news. An EPA representive said that the agency is getting more involved in reviewing existing chemicals, that is, the substances on the chemical inventory required by the Toxic Substances Control Act. An environmental spokesman warned that risk assessment cannot be purely scientific, that it must be recognized as being at least partially subjective. There also were discussions of problems that have arisen over proper TSCA jurisdiction and public participation in solving toxic chemical control issues....

EPA-funded PCB lest burns are likely success

Incineration is clearly one of the most effective ways of disposing of hazardous waste, says Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch. It is also one of the cheapest ways. This is especially true for once widely used polychlorinated biphenyls, oily man-made substances banned for most uses since 1979. If combustion parameters are made too stringent and test burns are mandated for each incinerator coming on-line, however, costs can soar. In this cost-conscious Administration, EPA has taken economics to heart. In an attempt to set safe but not too strict parameters and to establish a data base that would eliminate the need for test burns at each new incinerator facility, EPA has funded PCB test burns at Los Alamos National Laboratory's elaborate experimental incinerator. This facility, originally designed to destroy radioactive wastes, has since been modified to accept liquids such as PCBs. Los Alamos scientists, headed by Larry A. Stretz, burned highly concentrated PCB-containing wast...

Drilling Fluid Disposal

Summary A maze of U.S. regulations and regulatory agencies coupled with uncertainty in interpretation of environmental data and an evolving system of disposal engineering will require industry action to monitor the area and derive a solid engineering basis for disposal of spent drilling fluid. A set of disposal methods with approximate costs is presented to serve as an initial guide for disposal. Introduction In the past 10 years, regulatory practice for waste disposal has changed radically because of the imposition of environmental legislation at the federal level; the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Toxic Substance Control Ant (TSCA) all bear on this new industrial problem. The drilling industry has been exempted temporarily from direct application of part of this regulatory action by the 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments. This exemption may end in Oct. 1982, at which time the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator is to have determined whether hazardous waste classification is appropriate for any drilling fluids. Within 6 months, Congress would have to pass additional legislation to place the recommendations into appropriate actions. In spite of the federal moratorium on regulatory control, another phase of the RCRA is intended to transfer federal management of the hazardous waste program to state agencies. Following EPA approval, program to state agencies. Following EPA approval, the states will assume prime responsibility for RCRA management and enforcement. This transfer process and the degree to which it already has been accomplished has been reviewed in Ref. 1. This review includes a list of the states whose RCRA programs have been approved by EPA. Once its state plan is approved, each state becomes eligible for federal money that EPA has allocated to manage and implement RCRA. This amounts to $30 million in fiscal 1981; EPA has requested $41.7 million for fiscal 1982 for this state program. The state agencies, thus, are assuming the regulatory and enforcement procedures initiated by EPA and will have considerable autonomy in selection of EPA's guidelines for enforcement. Variations in state programs undoubtedly will complicate drilling operations, although local agencies will understand the local situations better than federal rule makers. This paper reviews the background of waste management for drilling fluid disposal. It presents a brief outline of suggested disposal methods, their approximate costs, rig safety and fluid management suggestions, and a suggestion to build an API data base on state agency waste management as it applies to drilling fluid disposal. Disposal methods considered are (1) fluid ejection, (2) pit and solids encapsulation, (3) injection into safe formations, (4) removal to disposal sites off location, (5) separation into clean solids and clean fluid, (6) incineration, (7) microorganism processing, (8) distillation, liquid extraction, and chemical fixation, and (9) traditional solids control. Discussion Laws Forming Basis of Regulatory Actions Federal. Federal laws include the CWA, RCRA, and TSCA. Miscellaneous State and Local Agency Laws. Currently, disposal of drilling fluids has been exempted from the direct application of the federal RCRA rules by the 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments Some quotes from this amendment may help explain a continuing obligation of regulatory control that essentially has been transferred from the EPA to state agencies for enforcement. Sec. 7 of the 1980 amendment states, "Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal energy shall be subject only to existing State or Federal regulatory programs in lieu of subtitle C until at least 24 months after the date of enactment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 and after promulgation of the regulations in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph." paragraph." JPT P. 2377

Pesticide Regulation: Economic, Biological, and Federal Viewpoints

Summary:The purpose of this symposium was to create an awareness of pesticide regulation research and not to discuss the positive and negative aspects of regulation. In this respect three topics of interest were discussed; federal, biological, and economic issues of regulation.Pesticide usage has been regulated in some form by the Federal Government since the 1930s. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1972 gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explicit authority to regulate these pesticides. The primary criterion for decision making under the statute is “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which is defined in FIFRA as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”Once it is determined a pesticide does have adverse effects, then it enters the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR) process. The RPAR process determines the risks, costs, and benefits associated with the suspect chemical. This process is a coordinated effort between EPA, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the states. When the analysis is completed, the EPA administrator weighs the risks and benefits and determines whether regulatory action is required. Legal mitigation may then follow.Government regulation affects the discovery and development of pesticides and redirects research programs and production practices. Extensive regulation may encumber the research and development programs of chemical companies, increase the cost of chemicals reaching the market place, and decrease the number available to the producer, forcing him to revert to older or less effective chemicals. Both industry and producers must adapt to a constantly changing environment.On the other hand, regulating the use of chemicals may extend the life of a chemical because pest populations will be less apt to build up genetic resistance. Research programs may be redirected into areas of alternative pest control measures such as biological control and host plant resistance. This ultimately leads to integrated pest management strategies. Inherent in this redirection is the need for researchers and producers alike to understand the basic interactions of animals and plants which would spawn new non-chemical control measures and prompt more judicious use of chemical controls.EPA has tended to define benefits in a cost sense. In the economic analysis of pesticide regulation (primarily cancelling the registration of the pesticide) to date, benefits are synonymous with changes in production cost (per acre) for the affected producer and the industry (by commodity) as a whole. For this reason, the two methods of analysis have been partial budgeting and budgeting. There are two serious drawbacks in these approaches. Both problems originate from the short-run nature of the approaches. No supply response is considered in the analyses. This implies no consumer price effects and ignores the relevance of the concept of economic threshold in pesticide usage. Secondly, there has been little effort directed at regionalizing the producer impacts of the regulatory act. These problems must be overcome to perform adequate analysis. This requires increased research in the area pesticide productivity for supply response and regionalizing economic supply utilization, and price data.

A little direction, please!

One would have to presume that Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell E. Train can't wait for this election year to be over, so that the federal windmill will slow down enough to legitimately consider some of the bills and proposed legislation before it. More than half a decade ago, toxic substances legislation was proposed in Congress and it looked like this year, finally, some legislation would be passed and implemented within the industry. Now, it seems the odds for passage have changed drastically. Contact with the Administration within the past few days (see page 5) indicates that it has withdrawn its support of the legislation and is opposed to its enactment. The Senate version of toxic substances legislation was passed earlier this year, but the House version just came out of committee and was scheduled for floor action on Aug. 23. This House version, especially with a proposed amendment by Rep. Don Fuqua (D.-Fla.) to ...

Tunnel Vision in Pesticide Control

Peripheral blindness to the secondary effects of its regulations is a frequent peculiar characteristic of government. An outstanding example of this phenomenon is the current situation triggered by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus' decision of June 14, 1972, to cancel all DDT registrations except those for public health and quarantine uses, and for export. The order goes into effect after Dec 31, 1972. This regulation, which effectively abolishes US agricultural use of the organochlorine DDT for all except a few minor crops (onions, sweet potatoes, and green peppers, if need for the pesticide can be proved at hearings) is a culmination of social and political pressures that have represented DDT as the chief chemical villain in the modern environmentalist movement. This it almost certainly is not. But much worse, the organophosphate insecticides, which will usually now be substituted for DDT, may prove to be the real villains. It

Ruckelshaus on Accountability

In an address to the American Chemlical Society on 13 Septemeber, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus said that "Decisions such as the fate of DDT are not decisions solely within the purview of the scientist to make in his laboratory. Rather they are basic societal decisions about what kind of a life people want and about what risks they are willing to accept to achieve it." He went on to discuss in the following passage his own conception of the accountability of himself and of scientists to the public: