A Review of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency: Environmental

Research Outlook FY 1976 Through 1980

August 1976

NTIS order #PB80-258191
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

CONGRESSIONAL BOARD

Representative Olin E. Teague, Texas, Chairman

Senator Clifford P. Case, New Jersey, Vice Chairman

SE NATE HOUSE

Edward M. Kennedy Morris K. Udall

Massachusetts Arlzona

Ernest F. Hollings George E. Brown, Jr.

SOout Carolina California

Hubert H. Humphrey Charles A. Mosher

Minnesota Ohio

Richard S. Schweiker Marvin L. Esch

Pennsylvania Michigan

Ted Stevens Marjorie S. Holt

Alaska Maryland

Emilio Q. Daddario, ex officio

Milton Katz, Chairman

Director, International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School

Thomas C. Ayers

President and Chairman

of the Board

Commonwealth Edison Company

Kenneth E. Boulding

Professor of Economics

Institute of Behavioral Science

University of Colorado

Eugene G. Fubini

Fubini Consultants, Ltd.

Levi (J. M.) Leathers

Executive Vice President

Dow Chemical USA

Wassily Leontief

Department of Economics

New York University

George E. Mueller

President and Chairman of the Board

System Development Corporation

Gerard Pie]

Publisher, Scientific American

John F. Redmond, Retired

Shell Oil Company

John C. Sawhill

Acting President

New York University

Chauncey Starr

President, Electric Power

Research Institute

lack K. Williams

President, Texas A&M University

ii
Members

John Gibbons, Chariman

University of Tennessee

Cleve A. Goring

Dow Chemical Company

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Daniel V. De Simone, Deputy Director

OTA REVIEW PANEL PARTICIPANTS

Panel l-Control and Abatement Technologies

John Haaland

Pillsbury Company

Brian Ketcham

Citizens for Clean Air

Al Ian Sass

occidental Research Corporation

Members

Richard L. Perrine, Chairman

University of California

a t Los Angeles

Burt Dinman

ALCOA

Bruce A. Egan

Environmental Research &

Technology Corporation

Murray Felsher

National Aeronautics &

Space Administration

Benjamin Ferris

Harvard School of Public Health

Albert J. Fritsch

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Members

Robert L. Sansom, Chairman

Energy and Environmental

Analysis, Inc.

A. Karim Ahmed

Natural Resources Defense

Council

Hayden Boyd

Motor Vehicle Manufacturing

Assoc.

Richard Briceland

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

W. David Corm

University of California, Los

Angeles

William R. Meiners

Research Planning & Management

Assoc., Inc.

Arthur Purcell

Technical Information Project

Charles Hamilton

United States Steel Research

Robert Scott

EXXON Research & Engineering Co.

Alex Weir, Jr.

Southern California Edison

Panel n-Effects and Processes

David Klein

University of Alaska

John T. McGinnis

Battelle Columbus Laboratories

Robert F. McGregor

Wright Water Engineers, Inc.

Larry T. Papay

Southern California Edison

Marilyn Stokes

Colorado Open Space Council

Calvin K. Sudweeks

Utah State Division of Health

Walt Westman

University of California at Los

Angeles

Panel Ill-overview

John Gibbons

University of Tennessee

Willis Harman

Stanford Research Institute

Robert H. Harris

Environmental Defense Fund

J. Davitt McAteer

United Mine Workers

J. L. McClintok

Weyerhauser Company

John Holmes

California Air Resources Board

Richard L, Perrine

University of California, Los Angeles

Howard Willett

Peabody Engineering Systems

Kurt Yaeger

Electric Power Research Institute

Consultants

John J. Ford

Quarry Hill

John G. Holmes

Energy and Environmental

Analysis, Inc.

Mark D. Levine

Stanford Research Institute

Stuart G. Younkin

Campbell Soup Company

H. Michael Utidjian

Stanford Research Institute

Consultants

Francis Berlandi

Environmental Research

and Technology Corporation

Buford R. Holt

Stanford Research Institute

Wil Lepkowski

Independent Consultant

Stephen Miller

Energy and Environmental

Analysis, Inc.

William Thomas

American Bar Foundation

Charles A. Whitehurst

Louisiana State University

Lawrence F. Williams

Oregon Environmental Council

Consultants

Dean E. Abrahamson

University of Minnesota

Joe E. Armstrong

Independent Consultant

Gerald R. Williams

Stanford Research Institute

. . .

111
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Committee on Science and Technology

U. S. House of Representatives

Washington, D. C. 20515

Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Office of Technology Assessment, we are pleased to

forward a report: A Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Environmental Research Outlook, FY 1976 through 1980.

The report concludes OTA’s review of the first EPA five-year research

Plan presented to Congress in February 1976. It presents and discusses

issues identified by three panels convened to assist in the review and

analysis of the Plan. The report is being made available to the

Committee in accordance with Public Law 92-484.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

iv
Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman of the Board

Off ice of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The enclosed report, “A Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Outlook, FY 1976 through 1980”, presents OTA’s

analysis of EPA’s five-year research Plan.

This study was conducted at the request of the House Committee on Science

and Technology on behalf of the Chairman of its Subcommittee on the

Environment and the Atmosphere. As you know, early study results were

presented in a preliminary briefing for the requesting committee during

its consideration of the EPA R&D Authorization Bill for FY 1977. This

report presents our final results to Congress.

I am especially grateful to EPA Administrator, Russell E. Train and

Assistant Administrator, Wilson K. Talley, for EPA’s cooperation in the

conduct of this study. Thanks also are due to the Deputy Assistant

Administrators of the Office of Research and Development for their help.

Inevitably, a review of the kind reported here gives the appearance of

emphasizing deficiencies. However, the context in which I hope this

report will be read should be one of appreciation and understanding for

the difficulty of planning a comprehensive five-year research program for

the first time and, in the larger sense, EPA’s commendable accomplishments

to date. Our review is intended to serve as a supportive and constructive

base to enhance the dialogue between EPA and Congress.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

Director

Enclosure

v
Introduction The Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) is pleased to present its review of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) report, entitled “Environmental

Research Outlook, FY 1976–1980,” which

was presented to Congress in February

1976.

The EPA Research and Development

Authorization bill for fiscal year 1976 requires that the Administrator of EPA annually submit to Congress a comprehensive 5-year plan for environmenta l

research, development, and demonstration. On December 9, 1975, Chairman Olin

E. Teague and Congressman George E.

Brown of the House Committee on Science

and Technology requested OTA to review

the first EPA 5-Year Research Plan; the request was subsequently approved by

OTA’s Congressional Board. Congressman

Brown, who chairs the Subcommittee on

the Environment and the Atmosphere of

the Committee on Science and Technology, further requested that OTA complete its review in time to brief the subcommittee in February 1976, during its

consideration of the EPA Research and

Development Authorization bill for fiscal

year 1977.

To assist in this review, OTA convened

three panels in late January and early

February 1976. The members were drawn

from a wide range of disciplines and

points of view. Scientists, engineers,

physicians, biologists, lawyers, ecologists,

administrators, economists, and other

concerned citizens were called upon from

industry, academia, Federal and State

governments, research institutes, consulting firms, and public interest groups.

Panel I addressed EPA’s research plans

for Control and Abatement Technologies,

while Panel II considered the plans for

research on Effects and Processes. Panel

III, the Overview Panel, reviewed the Plan

as a whole; it identified crosscut issues and

vii
Introduction

Figure 1. OTA Review of the EPA 5-Year Research Plan

JAN. 19

I

Control and

Abatement Technologies I

● Identify Issues

. Formulate Questions

● Write Issue Papers

>

JAN. 26

Summary Effects and

Processes

● Refine Issues

and Questions ● Identify Issues

● Edit Papers . Formulate Questions

. Identify Gaps . Write Issue Papers

I

FEB. 2

FEB. 9

FEB. 16

FEB. 23

1

OVERVIEW Summary

● Refine Issues

1 . Identify Issues and Questions

. Formulate Questions . Edit Papers

. Write Issue Papers ● Identify Gaps

Summary

. Refine Issues

and Questions

. Edit Papers

. Fill Gaps

● Write Summary

Prepare Briefing

for House Science

and Technology

Brief Committee

4

organized the material for further analysis

and presentation. Figure 1 depicts the process by which the 5-Year Plan was

reviewed and evaluated.

The panelists had diverse views on environmental issues. This report does not

necessarily reflect the opinions held by individual panel members; rather, it is a

synthesis of their statement of the issues.

. . . Vlll

Time constraints required that OTA’s

organization and conduct of the review be

compressed and intense. It was necessary

in this limited study to deal with the

salient features of the Plan rather than undertake a detailed analysis.

To augment this inquiry, the OTA

panels interviewed key staff members

from the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, the Energy Research and Development

Administration, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Commission on

Natural Resources.

Invariably, a review of the kind reported

here begins by identifying perceived

shortcomings of the document under

review. Thus, the review alone may appear somewhat negative. To provide a

balanced perspective and greater appreciation for what motivates EPA’s research, an

article is appended (see appendix A), entitled “The Research Mission” by Dr.

Wilson K. Talley, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, which appeared in the October 1975

edition of the EPA ]ounal.

This report consists of six chapters

covering significant issues identified by

the panels. The first chapter addresses the

question of the role of long-range

research. The remaining chapters deal

with specific aspects of the EPA Plan; in

each of these chapters a short introductory

statement highlighting identified issues is

followed by papers addressing each issue.

Each issue paper includes a summary,

further questions on the issue, and background statements.

EPA was established in December 1970

by Executive order under Reorganization

Plan No. 3. The purpose of forming EPA

was to unify the disparate environmental

agencies engaged in pollution control scattered throughout the Federal Government.

EPA inherited 15 separate programs from

several Federal agencies addressing air,

water, and noise pollution, solid waste

management, pesticides, water supply,

radiation, and toxic substances.

Introduction

EPA’s regulatory mission is supported

by the Office of Research and Development (ORD). ORD’s research programs

derive from nine major environmental

statutes and EPA directives appearing in

various appropriation reports. While EPA

has the line responsibility for setting and

enforcing standards, many other Federal

agencies also conduct environmental R&D

programs. For example, EPA coordinates

an interagency environmental-energy

program with 18 other Federal agencies.

Appendix B of this report details the

statutory and administrative background

of EPA.

This project was conducted by Dr.

Robert Daly, project director; Dr. Audrey

Buyrn, executive secretary for the Panel on

Effects and Processes; Mr. Patrick

Gaganidze, executive secretary of the

Panel on Control and Abatement Technologies; Dr. Hend Gorchev, American

Political Science Association Fellow; Dr.

Richard Rowberg, planning adviser; Dr.

Charles Wolf, American Association for

the Advancement of Science Fellow; Ms.

Lisa Jacobson; Ms. Ogechee Koffler; Ms.

Linda Parker; Ms. Patricia Poulton; and

Ms. Joanne Seder. General support for this

project was provided by Mr. Edward

Edelson, Mr. David Sheridan, and Mr.

Peter Miller.

The project was organized and performed within OTA’s Energy Assessment

Program, directed by Mr. Lionel Johns.

Special thanks are due to OTA’s Energy

Advisory Committee and the Technology

Assessment Advisory Council for their

helpful comments in reviewing this study.

The project staff is grateful to Mr. Frank R.

Hammill, Jr., counsel, House Science and

Technology Committee, for his assistance.

ix
Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER I. THE PRINCIPAL FINDING.

CHAPTER II.

Issues List . .

Introduction

Issue Papers

CHAPTER III.

Issues List . .

Introduction

Issue Papers

CHAPTER IV.

Issues List . .

Introduction

Issue Papers

CHAPTER V.

Issues List . .

Introduction

Issue Papers

CHAPTER VI.

Issues List . .

Introduction

Issue Papers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE PLAN

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTROL AND ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH

.

.

●

✎

✎

✎

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TRANSPORT, FATE, AND MONITORING

RESEARCH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

RESEARCH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A—“THE RESEARCH MISSION,” REPRODUCED

Page

vii

1

7

11

13

15

27

29

31

49

51

53

73

75

77

89

91

93

ARTICLE BY DR. WILSON K. TALLEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .105

APPENDIX B—STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE

BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..110

GLOSSARY OF TERMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in presenting to Congress for

the first time a 5-Year Plan for Environmental Research and Development activities, has taken an important step toward expanding the public dialog necessary to identify and establish national environmental goals. Shortcomings in the

initial EPA R&D Plan serve notice of potential issues which must be resolved if

EPA is to continue to effectively and authoritatively perform its mission of protecting environmental quality for both present and future generations. Foremost

among the shortcomings in the R&D Plan is EPA’s failure to indicate a commitment to long-range research and, as a corollary, an excessive focus on short-term

R&D issues related directly to the enforcement and/or achievement of EPA’s current regulations. Accordingly, the Plan emphasizes the development and

demonstration of control technologies. In many cases, however, the larger

problems involve social, economic, and institutional patterns which not only impede technical solutions but which require nontechnical approaches. To develop

effective overall environmental management strategies will require more

systematic and sustained socioeconomic research efforts than those specified in

the Plan. An added R&D emphasis on long-range environmental concerns and a

more responsive role to its line responsibility as coordinator of Federal environmental R&D would do much to enhance EPA’s effectiveness and credibility.

In February 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented a 158-page

document to Congress setting forth its plans

for research and development over the next 5

years. The Plan, proposing a comprehensive

5-year environmental research agenda for

congressional review, provides a unique opportunity to develop a dialog between Congress and EPA that goes beyond the usual considerations of plans and programs for the upcoming fiscal year. Congressional interest in

forward research planning by EPA, including

the request for this OTA analysis, is an indication of the increasing importance to the

legislative process of Federal endeavors in environmental research and development.

The desire on the part of the Congress to

ask questions and seek better answers, on

which judgments can be based, has led to

these inquiries:

●

●

●

●

Is the Plan realistic and well-conceived

and can EPA carry it out?

Does it present a well-balanced program

that will permit the Agency to meet

legislative goals of environmental

quality?

Will it lead to the scientific data necessary

to support sound national policy?

Does it provide mechanisms to integrate

Federal environmental research and

development programs?

1
Executive Summary

When EPA was created in December 1970,

there were 40 organizationally separate and

diverse laboratories that had to be integrated

into a unified research and development

program. Considerable progress has been

made in this difficult task of integrating disparate organizations and diverse skills to meet

EPA’s complex and demanding research and

regulatory responsibilities. These responsibilities are mandated by nine major environmental statutes as well as directives in reports

accompanying congressional appropriations

for EPA.

The Principal Finding

The EPA 5-Year Plan does not indicate a

clearly defined commitment to long-range environmental research. Where the Plan does

address long-range activities, it discusses the

development of techniques rather than considering which long-range issues are important. Yet, such broad long-range concerns

must be at the heart of an effective environmental research planning process. Examples

of the questions that should be addressed are:

. Can control technologies reduce pollution fast enough to keep pace with

economic growth?

. Can major shifts in economic activities,

such as new industries, be made compatible with environmental quality?

. What balance should be struck between

research on pollutants affecting people

today and those that could affect future

generations-through genetic mutations

or gradual changes in the environment?

This absence of specific long range issues to

guide the research planned by the Office of

Research and Development (ORD) will be frequently referred to in the chapters that follow.

ORD’s focus on the short-term prevents it

from exercising national scientific leadership

in environmental research. The short-term

emphasis also makes it difficult for ORD to

conduct useful policy analyses addressing

long-range environmental concerns.

In addition to supporting EPA’s short-term

regulatory needs, the absence of long-range

environmental research commitments may

well be caused by factors not under ORD or

EPA control. How ORD is constrained by factors such as the following requires exploration:

●

●

●

●

Research serves a support function in

EPA;

Environmental concerns appear to be increasingly tempered and modified by

concerns over energy and the economy;

EPA’s research resources are diminishing; and

Civil Service Commission constraints

make it difficult to alter the mix of skills

of the professional staff to match emerging issues.

General Appraisal of the Plan

With the exception of plans for energy-environmental research, the ORD Plan fails to

recognize the function of EPA in coordinating

Federal environmental programs. At present,

there appears to be no coherent integration of

Federal environmental research programs.

Because of EPA’s line responsibility in setting

and enforcing standards, ORD is the logical

leader in determining the goals and priorities

of environmental research conducted by

Federal agencies. ORD’s scientific resources

must provide a strong basis for EPA’s

regulatory function. ORD’s research program

is properly responsive to EPA’s regulatory

needs; however, it ought not be unduly

limited by short-term regulatory considerations.

The document prepared by EPA lacks the

essential characteristics of a plan. It does not

clearly delineate program priorities nor does

it relate priorities to overall program goals.

The planning process is vague and no

guidelines are offered for future updates of the

Plan. It is difficult to discern a rationale for the

strategic thrusts suggested in the budget. For

example, the Plan offers no basis for the dominant expenditure on developing control technology over the 5-year period.

2
—

Control and Abatement Technology

Research

EPA’s efforts in the development of control

and abatement technologies appear to favor

demonstration over exploratory research

projects. EPA’s efforts in this area need to be

planned with due regard for the Energy

Research and Development Administration’s

(ERDA) specific mandate to develop environmentally sound energy technologies and for

the efforts of private companies with the

capability and economic incentive to continue

control technology development. To the extent that EPA is both regulator and developer,

it could be put in the position of promoting its

own technology.

The EPA Research Plan fails to address the

tasks of identifying and controlling pollution

from new industrial technologies or from

changes in raw material usages, new requirements in industrial energy or large-scale use

of waste, biomass, solar and geothermal

energy sources. Research into the economic

and institutional problems of operating complex secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment plants requires more attention than is

given in the EPA Plan.

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Much of the work planned in researching

the transport, fate, and monitoring of pollutants seems fragmented. Research into the

complex of processes that link emissions from

a source and their effect on the biosphere has

not been assigned a high enough priority to

support the scientific basis of the regulatory

process. The ORD Plan does not offer a

program to develop a centrally coordinated

and technically strong monitoring capability

to unify the fragmented responsibilities that

now exist in ORD. Nor does it reveal an adequate screening program to detect toxic

materials; it is the absence of such a capability

Executive Summary

that has contributed to the current “pollutant

of the month” syndrome.

Although analyses of global processes of

chemical transport and transformation of

pollutants may seem to have little apparent

relevance to the Agency’s immediate regulatory needs, EPA should insure that no gaps

exist in data about atmospheric and oceanic

processes of transport of pollutants through

the biosphere. Moreover, it would be useful to

undertake studies and to develop a taxonomy

of ecosystems not covered by generalized

ORD studies. Such long-range studies may

lead to regulations which reflect regional

variations in environmental sensitivity.

Health and Ecological Effects Research

Long-term studies into the health effects of

chronic, low-level exposure to pollutants are

needed to strengthen the basis for standards.

Because of the present commitment of EPA to

respond to near-term exigencies, it has not

been able to develop a strong long-term health

research capability. Nonetheless, it is within

the scope of ORD’s research program to

develop a system for discovering previously

undetected pollutants in the environment and

assessing their relative potential for harm.

The ORD 5-Year Plan does not describe

how health research will be coordinated or

how results will be shared with other Federal

agencies.

Because some contractor and university

research groups depend on EPA for continued

financial support, there is a danger that EPA’s

declared regulatory policies may affect the objectivity of contractor scientists.

Although EPA is mandated to perform and

coordinate research on noise, such research is

not discussed in the Plan. The ORD Plan

makes only a brief reference to indoor air

quality and neglects consideration of environmental management techniques for its improvement.

3
.

Executive Summary

Socioeconomic Research

Despite repeated references to socioeconomic research in the Plan, neither the

document itself nor interviews with ORD

officials indicate that there will be a systematic

and sustained research effort in this area.

ORD places the highest priority on technological solutions to environmental

problems, although in many cases the most

important and difficult problems are institutional—namely, the implementation and enforcement of environmental standards. Effective strategies of environmental management,

combining both technological and nontechnical approaches, require greater contributions

from socioeconomic research than appear in

the Plan. Attention is lacking in the Research

Plan to the development and application of

socioeconomic research methods responsive

to these needs. The organizational structure

and commitment of resources suggested in the

Plan to develop and use socioeconomic

research methods appear inadequate.
I. The Principal Finding

I. The Principal Finding

Long-Range Research

As individuals, EPA’s scientists are

qualified and dedicated to producing highquality research. As an organization,

however, EPA’s Office of Research and

Development (ORD) lacks a clearly defined

commitment to research addressing longrange environmental concerns; it appears to

be preoccupied with the day-to-day demands

of the regulatory process. Short-term research

in support of the regulatory process is necessary, to be sure; but this should not preclude a

strong commitment by ORD to long-range

research.

Where long-range research is mentioned in

the Plan, in most cases the development of

techniques is addressed rather than a clear

definition of what long-range issues are considered important. The following illustrative

questions exemplify the considerations that

should govern the planning of an effective

long-range strategy:

9

●

●

●

It

Can control techniques reduce pollution

at a rate adequate to keep pace with environmental goals when, simultaneously,

economic growth continues?

How are global and regional ecosystems

reducing, or amplifying, the adverse

effects of human pollutants?

What role could lifestyle changes, as opposed to strict “hardware” control solutions, play in the achievement of environmental quality?

Can major shifts in the economy, such as

might be brought about by energy shortages, be made compatible with environmental quality?

may take years to illuminate these questions and some of them may not be answerable categorically or conclusively, But they

must be addressed in a systematic, missionoriented manner. The knowledge gained from

pursuing research on long-range environmental issues is essential to the regulatory and

legislative processes.

This is not to say knowledge gained on the

long-range scientific, technical, social, and

economic issues guarantees that a regulatory

strategy or a legislative approach will

necessarily be effective. If comprehensive information is available to all interested parties,

however, the decisionmaking process has a

chance, at the very least, of surviving the major pitfalls of misinformation and erroneous

assumptions.

To serve the decisionmaking process,

research must become policy oriented. That is,

research should explore the alternative

strategies open to decisionmakers and attempt

to determine their relative social, economic,

and environmental costs and benefits. Consistent with its neglect of long-range research,

the ORD Plan offers little that can be identified as policy analysis organized and planned to support the environmental policymaking process.

ORD’s preoccupation with the short term

prevents it from exercising national scientific

leadership and becoming a forum for scientific

knowledge reflecting the broadest input from

the scientific community and the public. For

example, when environmental debates stem

from scientific questions, such as the effects of

sulfates or pesticides, ORD should assess the

state of knowledge on the subject and provide

a rational and objective basis for discussions.

Specific instances suggesting ORD’s

emphasis on the short term can be found

throughout the Plan. While the Plan appropriately emphasizes research to achieve

environmentally acceptable use of coal in the

short term, it does not include long-range

projects to assess the environmental implica7
.—-

The Principal Finding

tions of large-scale use of waste, biomass,

solar and geothermal energy sources. Nor

does the Plan discuss long-range research of

problems associated with new industrial technologies or changes in industrial energy and

raw material sources. Similarly, long-range

studies of the health effects of chronic, lowlevel exposure to pollutants are absent. The

Plan fails to discuss socioeconomic research

on long-range environmental management

strategies combining both technological and

nontechnological approaches to environmental problems.

The Other Side of the Coin

Dr. Wilson Talley, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development,

states this view of the role that research plays

within EPA:

First and foremost is the full recognition

that research serves a support function

within the agency. Our strategy, specific objectives and priorities should not and cannot stand as entities in and of themselves.

Rather, they must derive from those of the

Agency in the accomplishment of its total

legislative mandate.1

Dr. Talley also points out that, although

ORD performs mission-oriented research, as

opposed to basic research, providing the best

scientific data and anticipating future

problems is an integral part of ORD’s research

program.

Thus, the lack of a well-defined commitment to research addressing long-range environmental concerns may reflect the dedication of this Office to its primary job of

supporting the regulatory role of EPA. Indeed,

ORD was strongly

Berliner Committee

of Sciences, whose

that: “The present

.—

urged to do this by the

of the National Academy

principal conclusion was

Office of Research and

Development planning and management

system fails to meet the needs of the Agency. ”2

This exhortation by the National Academy of

Sciences was a key factor in determining the

mid-1975 reorganization of ORD.

It could be argued, in addition, that with

environmental concerns apparently ebbing in

the face of energy and economic problems, it

is not surprising to find EPA spending its

shrinking R&D dollars on supporting its most

immediate and direct means of effecting environmental regulation. Moreover, some

legislative mandates do require EPA to

demonstrate the availability of control technology to meet EPA’s environmental standards. The role of the regulatory agency and

pressing legislative needs may create an atmosphere unsympathetic to the uncertainties

of long-range comprehensive research planning. Therefore, because resources available to

ORD are constrained, its natural tendency is

to concentrate on well-defined Agency requirements and to support regulatory needs

as they occur.

For the short term, the EPA 5-Year

Research Plan represents an impressive compendium of environmental research

problems. It is apparent that ORD has

thoroughly identified research needs to support EPA’s immediate regulatory role. The

difficulty for the short term, therefore, appears to be not so much what environmental

research must be done, but how to do it. This

may partly explain the deficiencies in EPA’s

Plan.

ZLetter report to Russell E. Train, Administrator, EPA, from

the Review Committee on the Management of EPA’s R&D Acl“The Research Mission, ” Dr. Wilson Talley, EPA )ournul, tivities, National Research Council/National Academy of

Oct. 1975. See app. A. Sciences, Aug. 27, 1974.

8
II. General Appraisal of the Plan

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

II. General Appraisal of the Plan

ISSUES LIST

THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The first ORD 5-Year Plan is inadequate as a planning document.

THE PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 ..0....16

The deficiencies of the ORD 5-Year Plan stem from an undeveloped planning process.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

A strategic thrust to identify, develop, and demonstrate industrial control technology appears to dominate ORD’s 5-year budget.

THE REORGANIZATION OF ORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The first 5-Year Plan does not adequately reflect how the mid-1975 ORD

reorganization improves management and planning.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Plan does not indicate how or whether the public and industry were

consulted in formulating the 5-Year Research Plan.

EPA’S LEADERSHIP AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION . . . . . . . . 21

At present, there appears to be no coherent integration of Federal environmental research and development programs. EPA/ORD has not

provided any proposed method of achieving such coordination in their

5-Year Plan.

MAINTAINING QUALITY RESEARCH

ORD's involvement in short-term

regulatory responsibilities or in the

resources needed for establishing a

regulatory function.

PLANNING FOR THE UNEXPECTED.

IN EPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

urgencies arising out of EPA’s

handling of emergencies diverts

strong scientific basis for EPA’s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

It appears that ORD frequently cannot respond effectively to crises

because the need for R&D was not foreseen or funds to support anticipatory R&D were not available.

11
II General Appraisal of the Plan

INTRODUCTION

The development of a comprehensive 5-

year planning process in environmental

research is a difficult and complex undertaking, and may require substantial dedication of

ORD planning skills over the next few years.

A number of issues addressing ORD’s planning, budgeting, and organization as well as

issues addressing the role of ORD and its

research are presented in this chapter.

Planning, Budgeting, and Organization

The ORD 5-Year Research Plan fails to inform Congress of the thrust, relevance, adequacy, and utility of the proposed research

program. Clear statements relating program

goals and priorities cannot easily be found nor

are they evident from numerous research activities projected over the 5-year period. (Issue

1)

The deficiencies of the Plan stem from an

incomplete planning process. The Plan, for example, does not fully examine alternative

research approaches or resource allocations.

The planning process is not discussed nor is

the process to modify the Plan over a period of

time suggested. (Issue 2)

A strategic thrust to identify, develop, and

demonstrate industrial control technology appears to dominate ORD’s 5-year budget. With

the exception of a temporary rise in funding in

the Industrial Processes Program needed to

meet 1985 water-quality goals, the ORD 5-

year budget projection indicates little change

in long-term relative priorities of established

research programs. (Issue 3)

The ORD 5-Year Plan was designed to support an organizational structure which was

first established in 1970. In mid-1975,

however, ORD was reorganized to improve

staff morale and to achieve greater efficiency.

The Plan, which was developed shortly after

the reorganization, does not reflect the

benefits of the new organizational structure.

Additionally, it is difficult to relate budgeted

responsibilities and the processes of planning,

managing, and implementing the research activities with the new organization. Furthermore, the role and function of the 15 laboratories in the implementation of the planned

research are inadequately described. (Issue 4)

The Plan does not indicate how, or whether,

the public was involved in the development of

the Plan. Such input could aid ORD as it attempts to develop priorities and define

problems of public concern. (Issue 5)

The Role of ORD and Its Research

With the exception of plans for energy-environmental research, the ORD Plan fails to

recognize the function of EPA in coordinating

Federal environmental programs. At present,

there appears to be no coherent integration of

Federal environmental research programs.

Since EPA has the line responsiblity for setting

and enforcing standards, ORD should provide

the required leadership in determining the environmental research goals and priorities

among governmental agencies conducting environmental research. (Issue 6)

For the work performed by ORD to have

high quality and proper content, ORD’s

program plans should not be unduly biased

by short-term regulatory needs. To avoid

misuse or misinterpretation of scientific data

in regulatory actions, ORD should be responsible for the scientific credibility of new

regulations. (Issue 7)

Environmental crises requiring immediate

action by EPA appear to be occurring with increasing frequency. While one cannot predict

the nature and time of environmental crises,

an exploratory research program that attempts to anticipate problems would add a

worthwhile dimension to ORD’s program.

(issue 8)

13
II. General Appraisal of the Plan

ISSUES

THE PLAN

Issue 1

The first ORD 5-Year Plan is inadequate as

a planning document.

Summary

Although the Plan identifies issues and attempts to assign priorities to research elements, it generally fails to inform Congress of

the thrust, relevance, adequacy, and utility of

the proposed research program, and of the interrelationships between the proposed ORD

research program and non-EPA environmental research activities.

While ORD’s research Plan lists numerous

research projects for the 5-year period, it does

not clearly delineate program priorities; nor

does it relate these priorities to overall

program goals. It is impossible to determine

what would be lost if some program components were dropped, or what would be gained

if new program components and funding

were added.

Questions

1. What are the major

for 1977? For 1980? How

since 1975?

research priorities

have they changed

2. How is the Plan to be used as a working

document in EPA? Outside EPA?

Background

The EPA’s first 5-Year Research Plan does

not provide the data necessary to conduct a

review in a reasonably expeditious fashion. As

a plan, the document is not sufficiertt,

A plan develops strategies to achieve stated

objectives with known priorities. Alternative

strategies which achieve objectives within internal and external constraints are evaluated.

A plan analyzes the allocation of human,

capital, and financial resources in the pursuit

of objectives. It also relates resources with the

size and content of the endeavor. A research

plan sets forth an organization and schedule

for interrelated sequences of parallel and

serial tasks. Statements such as, “Plans in the

future call for . . . ,“ followed by a list of projects without priority or apparent interrelationship, are not amenable to analysis. Such

statements do not inform; they lead to supposition about the intents of the program.

Thus, there is no apparent rationale for determining whether the Plan presents a balanced

research program with respect to:

●

●

●

●

hardware versus management control

options,

exploratory research into innovative concepts versus demonstration of available

technologies,

regulatory-supporting research versus

problem-solving research,

development of control and abatement

technology versus establishin g

dose/response characteristics.

While the Plan describes research programs

as ‘‘mission-oriented, with emphasis on

timely outputs, neither of these attributes appears to be developed in the Plan,

In a sound plan there is internal consistency,

within each major program and, further, goals

and plans in major program areas are interrelated within the framework of clearly articulated national environmental goals.

A plan must provide information which

allows Congress to monitor and assess the

progress and accomplishments of ORD and to

compare planned versus achieved results over

time.

15
—

General Appraisal of the Plan

Because of the complexity of environmental

research, the fragmentation of this work

among various governmental agencies, and

the competition for limited resources, a comprehensive ORD research plan is essential.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Issue 2

The deficiencies of the ORD 5-Year Plan

stem from an undeveloped planning process.

Summary

The Plan does not reflect a sufficient attempt to assess priorities, to examine the merit

and costs of alternate research approaches, to

quantify trade-offs or to allocate limited

resources according to systematically devised

research strategies. The planning process is

not discussed nor is the process to modify the

Plan over a period of time suggested.

Questions

1.

ORD

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

How was the development of a 5-Year

Research Plan affected by:

the public perception of immediate environmental hazards?

legislative mandates?

challenges to Agency regulations by industry or environmental groups?

existing ORD facilities and staff skills?

2. How were priorities and funding levels

determined?

3, What trade-off studies were conducted?

4. To what extent were others involved in

the planning process, e.g.:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

1(-)

EPA divisions?

Federal agencies?

State and local governments?

Peer scientists?

Industry?

(f) Private institutions? and

(g) The public?

5. Describe the process to update the 1977

5-Year Plan?

6. How were previous research results incorporated into the Plan?

Background

The following discussion summarizes the

panels’ understanding of the steps taken in

developing the first Plan; it is offered to raise

questions that may assist in improving the

ORD planning process.

The planning procedure followed by ORD

has been characterized by one observer as a

“middle up-middle down” approach. This

process involved soliciting candidate research

topics from various headquarters and field

offices within EPA; aggregating these tasks

into programs within the four ORD project

offices; developing a draft 5-year plan around

these programs; soliciting comments on this

draft throughout the Agency; assigning dollar

and staff resources to the various programs;

and publishing the final plan.

There are certain factors which influenced

how this planning process proceeded and how

decisions were made:

Each of the individual pollution control

program offices (air, water, etc.) is so

completely absorbed with the day-to-day

urgency of their tasks as to preclude significant guidance on long-term research

programs which need to be carried out to

improve pollution control.

There were apparently no attempts to fit

overall Agency strategy into the ORD

Plan. Top management review was given

to the budget implications of the 5-Year

Plan, but substantive review to assure the

consistency of the research plan (the

programs, priorities, and distribution of

funding) from an Agencywide perspective does not appear to have been considered.
● There were no explicit guidelines or criteria used for assigning research

priorities evident in the planning process.

● There appears to be general acceptance

within the ORD senior management staff

that (a) the primary ORD mission is to

provide the scientific and technical base

needed to support the regulatory, standard-setting function of the Agency, and,

(b) R&D activities should consist almost

exclusively of directed research, i.e.,

research designed to accomplish some

specific regulatory goal with no apparent

role for basic science activities.

● No attempt was made to develop alternative, broad research programs around

different R&D strategies. There were no

systematic analyses that explored

different approaches for accomplishing

the ORD mission or that defined alternate program options in terms of

research accomplishments.

● The planning process did not lead to

development of a set of discrete alternate

program research packages, i.e., alternate

research programs containing identified

levels of effort, priorities, and budgets for

different mixes of basic research work,

control technology, technical support

work, socioeconomic work, health

effects, etc.

● There was no external peer review of the

5-Year Plan.

● Ultimate decisions about the structure of

the 5-year research program, the research

projects included in the Plan, and the

priorities and resources assigned to these

activities were essentially made on the

basis of subjective judgments by ORD

personnel. Clearly, both external and internal pressures played important roles

in these subjective judgments. External

pressures included legislative mandates,

perceived areas of public concern, outside challenges to Agency regulations

and standard-setting procedures. Internal pressures included lack of flexibility

General Appraisal of the Plan

caused by the organization of existing

facilities, a staff trained in selected disciplines, established patterns of laboratory interests, and ongoing projects.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Issue 3

A strategy to identify, develop, and

demonstrate industrial control technology appears to dominate ORD’s 5-year budget.

Summary

Figure 2 depicts ORD’s projected allocation

of resources for each program area. Although

the Plan discusses each program area, it is

difficult to discern research directions or

budget emphases from those program aggregations of research projects which are presented. For example, the large energy program

encompasses efforts similar to those pursued

in other program areas. A possible alternate

breakdown of ORD’s projected allocation of

resources is presented in figure 3 .

Subprograms were rearranged to form three

new research categories replacing three of the

ORD programs. Two ORD programs were

unchanged. The new research categories are a

first attempt at combining similar research

from different programs. Table 2 compares the

aggregation of the subprograms for the two

ways of breaking down ORD’s projected

resource needs.

Figure 31 suggests the dominance of ORD’s

activity in industrial control technology.

While it is true that this alternate breakdown

may be disputed with added data on the distribution of funds within subprograms and

added information on subprogram content, it

is not an unreasonable interpretation of the 5-

Year Plan.

1 A table entitled “Planned ORD Funding by Subprogram

Area” which appeared in a draft copy of the 5-Year Plan, dated

Nov. 14, 1975, was used to construct the plots of figure 3 (the

1977 figures had to be adjusted).
——

General Appraisal of the Plan

Energy/Environment

1975 1976 1977

With the exception of the temporary rise in

funding in the Industrial Processes Program

needed to meet 1985 water-quality goals, the

ORD 5-year budget projection indicates little

change in the long-term priorities of

established research programs.

Questions

1. Approximately what percentage of

ORD’s budget will be spent on identifying,

developing, and demonstrating control technology over the 5-year period?

2. It appears that EPA must aggressively

pursue the control technology area. What considerations led to this strategy?

18

1978 1979 1980

Background

Figure 2 shows that the funds for all

programs decrease slightly from 1976 to 1977.

Ignoring the passthrough of energy funds, this

is the first time that EPA’s research budget is

decreasing. When inflation is included, the

decrease in 1976 dollars in the nonenergy base

R&D is approximately $16 million.

ORD is projecting a temporary increase in

the Industrial Processes Program to encourage

development of appropriate control technology to meet 1985 water-quality goals. The

Plan also offers two options for allocations of
General Appraisal of the Plan

Figure 3. Projected ORD Resource Needs Alternate Breakdown

Total ORD Budget

Millions

350

of Dollars

300

250

200

150

I 00

50

0

1375 1976 1977

funds to the program areas under the constraint that the annual budget for the years

1977 to 1980 will remain at the 1977 level. One

option is an attempt to achieve the 1985

water-quality goals at the expense of other

programs, while the other essentially maintains the 1977 distribution of funds.

THE REORGANIZATION OF ORD

Issue 4

The first ORD 5-Year Plan does not ade1978 1979 1980

quately reflect how the mid-1975 reorganization improves management and planning.

Summary

Although the 5-Year Plan assigns planning

and implementation responsibilities for the

subprograms among the four offices of ORD,

it is difficult to relate the new organizational

structure to the processes of planning, managing, and implementing the research activities

and budgeted responsibilities. In addition, the

role and function of the 15 laboratories in the

implementation of the planned research are

inadequately described.

19
General Appraisal of the Plan

Table 1. ORD and Alternate Subprogram Aggregation

ORD Subprogram Aggregation Alternate Subprogram Aggregation

Health and Ecological Effects Program Health and Ecological Effects Category

● Health Effects ● Health Effects

● Ecological Processes and Effects ● Ecological Processes and Effects

● Transport and Fate of Pollutants ● Health and Ecological Effects/Energy

(1/3 of total)

Industrial Processes Program Characterization, Transport and Fate of

Pollutants Category

● Mineral, Processing and Manufacturing • Transport and Fate of Pollutants

● Renewable Resources ● Health and Ecological Effects/Energy

(2/3 of total)

Energy/Environment Program Industrial Pollution Control Category

● Conservation-Utilization Technology ● Renewable Resources

Assessments/Energy Ž Conservation-Utilization Technology

Assessments/Energy

Public Sector Activities program Public Sector Activities Program

● Waste Management ● Waste Management

• Water Supply ● Water Supply

• Environmental Management ● Environmental Management

Monitoring and Technical Support Program Monitoring and Technical Support Program

• Monitoring Techniques and Equipment ● Monitoring Techniques and Equipment

Development Development

● Quality Assurance • Quality Assurance

● Technical Support ● Technical Support

Questions

1. Assuming that the mid-1975 reorganization had little effect on ongoing research, at

the time, what impact has the current fouroffice structure of ORD had on changing the

direction of research programs?

2. Since very few of the scientific personnel

in the Environmental Research Laboratories

have been assigned to different laboratories, to

what extent can it be shown that the research

programs of the laboratories have been consolidated ?

3. How did the laboratories contribute to

the planning process? How will they contribute in the future?

20

Background

When EPA was established in 1970, the

Office of Research and Monitoring (now

ORD) inherited 40 separate field installations.

These field installations were reduced in number and three large units (National Environmental Research Centers) were established: In

Cincinnati, Ohio; Research Triangle Park,

N. C.; and Corvallis, Oreg. Later, a fourth was

established in Las Vegas, Nev.

Several independent studies of the ORD

management structure in 1974 concluded that

no clear lines of responsibilities existed between the laboratories and headquarters, that

the excessively complicated management
structure at headquarters, greatly increased

unnecessary and duplicative paperwork.

Morale among the researchers was low, in

part because of the absence of a long-term

program to achieve specific goals to guide the

research effort.

In response to these critiques, the management structure of ORD was reorganized in

mid- 1975. The reorganization established four

offices with in ORD reporting directly to the

Assistant Administrator. The National Environmental Research Laboratories were

reorganized so that each laboratory had four

or fewer programs with a director of the

program reporting to the corresponding office

in ORD. A small number of employees at

headquarters were reassigned to the laboratories and others who had management or administrative duties vis-a-vis the laboratories

have now apparently been given responsibilities for performing reviews, analyses,

and studies to fulfill headquarters’ needs. The

Washington Environmental Research Center,

primarily engaged in socioeconomic analysis,

was disbanded and its researchers were scattered among the programs within ORD.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Issue 5

The Plan does not indicate how or whether

the public and industry were consulted in formulating the 5-Year Research Plan.

Summary

Numerous local and regional environmental public interest groups and private industrial research programs offer a largely untapped potential for new insights into

research approaches. Their contributions

could help achieve a balance among research

priorities, focus appropriate attention on

regional problems, and bring to light developing industrial expertise.

Questions

1. What provisions exist for the public and

industry to review and comment on

EPA/ORD research plans?

75-387 0-76 -3

General Appraisal of the Plan

Background

Consultations with the interested public

and industry could enrich the research planning process and make research goals and

priorities more enduring and responsive.

Local public interest organizations and industrial plant personnel may have highly

developed expertise or insights into environmental problems of national concern. Unless

these organizations have forceful national

forums, their valuable contributions may go

unrecognized and unheeded.

EPA’S LEADERSHIP AND

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Issue 6

At present, there appears to be no coherent

integration of Federal environmental research

and development programs except in the

energy area. In their 5-Year Plan, EPA/ORD

has not provided any proposed method of

achieving such coordination.

Summary

The ORD Plan fails to recognize and delineate the actual function of EPA in coordinating

Federal environmental programs, including

programs related to research and development. Though mention is made that such a

role exists, the Plan proposes no method to

achieve it. The Executive initiative which created EPA and the numerous subsequent

legislative acts mandating environmental

programs seem clearly to place this responsibility with EPA.

Because there are numerous Government

agencies conducting environmental research,

leadership in determining the environmental

research goals and priorities among these

agencies is essential; ORD is the logical center

for such leadership.

Questions

1. What should the EPA/ORD role be in the

planning, implementation, and evaluation of

Federal environmental R&D programs?

21
General Appraisal of the Plan

2. How will ORD coordinate their environmental R&D programs and demonstration

projects with other Federal agencies?

3. How does ORD obtain knowledge about

the progress of the various environmental

R&D programs and projects carried out by

other Federal agencies?

4. To what extent does the ORD evaluate

the effectiveness of environmental programs

under the direction of other Federal agencies.

5. What potential conflicts and misunderstandings with other agencies would be anticipated if EPA expanded its lead-agency role in

environmental research?

6. Is there a need for more explicit congressional authority to EPA/ORD to coordinate,

monitor, and evaluate all Federal environmental R&D programs? Why?

7. Currently, ORD monitors and evaluates

those environmental R&D programs in which

EPA has the lead responsibility of transferring

funds to other Federal agencies. How can this

procedure be improved to provide more effective coordination?

8. To what extent should a portion of

ORD’s role within EPA be insulated from the

Agency’s short-term program needs in order

to free ORD to better integrate Federal environmental R&D programs?

9. Is there a national clearinghouse that

disseminates information about ongoing

Federal environmental R&D projects? To

what extent should ORD be involved in providing such a service?

Background

The creation of EPA as a major Federal line

agency (based on Reorganization Plan No. 3,

Dec. 4, 1970) was an attempt by the executive

branch to consolidate environmentally related

programs of the Federal Government into a

single administrative unit. EPA inherited 15

separate programs from several Federal agencies: Federal Water Quality Administration

(Interior), National Air Pollution Control Administration (HEW), Bureau of Water Hygiene (HEW), Bureau of Solid Waste Manage22

ment (HEW), Bureau of Radiological Health

(HEW), Pesticide Standards and Research (Interior, HEW), Pesticides Registration

(Agriculture), Federal Radiation Council

(AEC), and Studies of Ecological Systems

(CEQ), Executive Office of the President.

At the same time, a number of Federal environmental R&D programs were retained or

expanded in existing Federal agencies. According to the 5-Year ORD Plan, EPA

research interacts with the following Federal

agencies:

Department of Commerce-(National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Bureau of Standards)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of the Interior-- (Fish and Wildlife

Service, Geological Survey,

Land Management)

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Energy Research and Development

tion

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Department of Defense-- (Army

Engineers)

Bureau of

AdministraCorps of

National Science Foundation- (Research Applied to National Needs, National Center

for Atmospheric Research)

Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare —(National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental

Health Services, National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health, Food

and Drug Administration)

Department of Transportation

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Council on Environmental Quality

Tennessee Valley Authority

As mentioned in the 5-Year Plan, EPA is

directly responsible for administering a 5-

year energy R&D program with 18 other

Federal agencies.

It is apparent that there are areas of

cooperation and formal interaction between
General Appraisal of the Plan

EPA and other Federal agencies. However, it

is not clear from the 5-Year Plan how

EPA/ORD plans to implement their administrative charge, nor how they plan to

coordinate and evaluate the many R&D

programs and individual projects. The Plan

mentions the program areas without indicating how the specific projects under each

program will be planned, carried out and

monitored for performance. There is no discussion of whether duplication or undesired

overlap of R&D functions exists and whether

or not redundancy in R&D projects is planned so as to reinforce and complement a

research objective.

Thus, the Plan seems to assume that

Federal environmental R&D programs will

proceed as funds become available, without

real need for overall comprehensive planning.

MAINTAINING QUALITY

RESEARCH IN EPA

Issue 7

ORD’s involvement in short-term urgencies arising out of EPA’s regulatory responsibilities or in the handling of emergencies

diverts resources needed for establishing a

strong scientific basis for EPA’s regulatory

function.

Summary

ORD serves as a primary source of scientific information used by EPA in developing

and assessing environmental regulations.

For the work performed by ORD to have

high scientific quality, ORD’s program plans

should not be unduly biased by short-term

regulatory needs. To avoid misuse or misinterpretation of scientific data in regulatory

actions, ORD should review the scientific

credibility of new regulations prior to their

issuance. The Plan does not address the issue

of how ORD insures the research program’s

integrity. It does, however, provide some

evidence of potential overemphasis in support of EPA’s regulatory function, particularly in the development of control

systems.

Questions

1. How are the needs of regulatory

programs considered in the ORD Plan? What

program elements are not stimulated by

regulatory needs?

2. How are the goals of research programs

in control technology determined?

3. How does EPA identify and conduct

research programs intended to look beyond

existing or pending regulatory requirements?

4. At what point in control system

development do research program personnel

transfer responsibility to the regulatory

branches?

5. How are ORD research staff assigned to

“firefighting” activities?

6. How are inputs from the ORD to the

EPA regulation review process made?

Background

When a regulatory agency conducts its

own research to evaluate and support regulations that it must enforce, there is a danger

that a strong regulatory orientation will permeate the research program. If this occurs,

the efficiency, content, and quality of the

research being performed may be seriously

degraded. It is a matter of special concern

when the research program is not only supposed to establish regulatory support data

but also promote the development of basic

science in the affected areas.

Scientific research staff are an important

base of expertise for any operating regulatory program. The accessibility of research

personnel, however, must be carefully

managed to prevent their overinvolvement

in the legal, procedural, and political activities of regulatory operations.
General Appraisal of the Plan

Such problems appear to be occurring in

two kinds of situations faced by EPA:

● The handling of unanticipated environmental emergencies,

● The broader problem of regulatory

program responsibility spillover, when

operational responsibilities of the agency

regulatory arms are carried out by ORD.

The first problem often characterized as the

“pollutant-of-the-month syndrome” has been

and will continue to be an unavoidable and

important role for ORD experts as long as the

problem persists. They must be accessible to

quickly and accurately evaluate a situation

and give regulatory responses to emergency

environmental problems. The Agency,

however, should provide assurances that

these kinds of activities do not degrade R&D

efforts.

The second problem typically involves the

case of new legislative mandates requiring

standard -setting activities under stringent

time constraints. Under these conditions,

regulatory program offices are likely to

become overloaded and tend to shift some of

the regulatory activities into the R&D

program offices. Specifying control requirements and developing Control Regulations

Support Documents cannot be added tasks of

research personnel without jeopardizing

research programs.

Although ORD personnel should be protected from excessive work in regulation

development or formulation, their participation in scientific regulation review should be

maintained and formalized. When a regulation is promulgated, the Administrator and

the public must have an understanding of the

scientific basis for the regulations, of the data

base’s adequacy, and of the extent to which

scientific knowledge has been simplified in

developing a manageable regulatory procedure.

At present, EPA uses a steering committee

and a working-group mechanism to develop

interagency review of al 1 regulations. Under

this procedure, the Assistant Administrator of

ORD has the opportunity to concur or not to

concur. This procedure, in cases of significant

scientific impact, may be inadequate. The

multitude of regulations can easily turn this

procedure into a rubberstamp exercise. At

best, an official scientific reading of the issue

from ORD cannot always be assured. ORD

should be accountable to the Administrator

and the public for the scientific quality of

regulations.

PLANNING FOR THE

UNEXPECTED

Issue 8.

It appears that ORD frequently cannot respond effectively to crises because the need for

R&D was not forseen or funds to support anticipatory R&D were not available.

Summary

Environmental crises demanding immediate action by EPA appear to be occurring with

increasing frequency. These events require

some planning for a prompt and adequate

response that anticipates problems. Development of such a capability requires appropriate

exploratory research

Questions

1. How does EPA/ORD anticipate future

environmental issues to provide timely data

for the regulatory or legislative processes?

2. What methodology does EPA/ORD use

to establish R&D priorities and programs in

the exploratory area?

3. What constrains ORD from pursuing exploratory research to anticipate environmental problems?

Background

Inevitably, significant social, technological,

and resource changes will affect the environment. While one cannot predict the nature and

time of environmental crises, an exploratory

research program that attempts to anticipate

problems would add a worthwhile dimension

to ORD’s program.

24
III. Control and Abatement

Technology Research

III. Control and Abatement Technology Research

ISSUES LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

BALANCE BETWEEN EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The PIan neglects exploratory research while emphasizing the

demonstration of control systems that are readily applicable to cope with

mandated emissions standards.

ENERGY EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . 32

The projects listed in the Energy Extraction and Processing Technology

subprogram appear to relate poorly to the program objectives and funding estimates. The projects do not seem to be planned with a sufficient

awareness of existing control technology and research activities outside

EPA.

DEMONSTRATION OF FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . 34

The commercial availability of flue-gas desulfurization technology indicates a need to reevaluate the ORD development program in this area.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL IN OFFSHORE PETROLEUM OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The proposed Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry program to

develop environmental-control technology for offshore oil and gas production apparently does not recognize existing industry achievements

and programs.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH REGARD TO EPA

RESEARCH ON ENVIRONMENTAL-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. . . . . 36

The Plan does not adequately define ORD’s role in developing and

demonstrating environmental-control technology which may subsequently form the basis for promulgation of EPA emissions standards.

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION ABATEMENT RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The EPA and ERDA mobile source emission abatement research plans

and the DOT and EPA transportation research plans appear to ignore

several significant research areas.

SMALL PARTICLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

The Plan gives little attention to research on the monitoring, characterization, and control of small particles (those less than 3 microns in

diameter). Small particles have been recognized as a health problem of

consequence. More thorough definition is needed of ORD plans, timetables, and methods of approach for developing technology to deal with

small particles.
Control and

8.

9.

10.

Abatement Technology Research

FUTURE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS .. .40

The ORD Plan for Minerals, Processing, and Manufacturing fails to discuss research directly aimed at the identification and control of prospective pollution problems associated with new industrial technologies or

changes in industrial energy and raw material sources.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

The direction of EPA’s research on solid waste management alternatives

cannot be determined from its Plan.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR EFFECTIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

The research ORD is conducting on wastewater treatment and community systems for wastewater and sludge management is not being

fully used in achieving the legislative mandates imposed on EPA.
III. Control and Abatement Technology Research

INTRODUCTION

During the past 10 years, Federal environmental control efforts have been complemented by new initiatives in the private sector. These initiatives have included the

development of major new industries in such

areas as environmental monitoring, pollution

control, and industrial process modification.

With the growth of these new capabilities,

alternatives and supplements to publicly

funded control efforts have been created.

Evaluation of the control technology elements

of the ORD 5-Year Plan raises issues regarding the balance, substance, suitability, and

utility of the planned research program.

Research Balance

EPA efforts planned in the development of

control technologies appear to favor large

demonstration projects as opposed to striking

a balance with exploratory research projects.

At this time, greater benefit may possibly

result if ORD conducted more exploratory

research projects and less large demonstration

projects. (Issue 1)

Research Suitability

In general, the Extraction and Processing

Technology subprogram relates poorly to

program objectives and funding estimates.

There may be unproductive overlap between

ORD’s planned efforts and those of other

Federal agencies. (Issue 2)

In the area of flue-gas desulfurization

(FGD), the ORD Plan projects significant expenditures to develop technology based on

“throwaway” processes. Because such technology is now commercially available, further

efforts on first-generation FGD systems appear unnecessary. If it is the intention of EPA

to work on second-generation technology

which recovers sulfur products, then the

Agency should present the information required to justify that course of action. It is

necessary to demonstrate: first, that sludge

disposal poses serious environmental

problems; and second, that there are insufficient incentives for private industry in this

area. (Issue 3)

ORD seeks to develop environmental-control technology for offshore oil and gas production. The extensive efforts of both private

industry and Government agencies such as

the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Coast

Guard appear to have not been adequately

recognized. The ORD program in this area

may duplicate current work outside EPA.

(Issue 4)

The EPA, through ORD, conducts extensive

research which can be used as the basis for

promulgation of EPA standards and regulations. So long as EPA performs the dual role of

developer and regulator, some may claim that

EPA promotes its own control technology versus other approaches to compliance with its

standards. (Issue 5)

Research Substance

Mobile source emissions are a significant

source of environmental pollution. Several

agencies, including EPA, ERDA, as well as the

Department of Transportation, work in this

area. While EPA’s automotive engine technology program has been transferred to

ERDA, gaps still exist in the basic data and

management methodologies and they need to

be filled in order for EPA to reduce transportation emissions as mandated. (Issue 6).

A problem which is receiving increased attention concerns small particle control technology. Such particles, those less than 3

microns in diameter, are now recognized as a

substantial health problem. The ORD Plan underemphasizes the need to develop control

and monitoring technology in this area.

(Issue 7)
Control and Abatement Technology Research

The ORD Plan for Minerals, Processing, and

Manufacturing focuses on creating a data base

for air and water standards established by

law. However, the Plan fails to discuss

research associated with the identification and

control of pollution from new industrial technologies, changes in raw material usage, or

new requirements in industrial energy.

(Issue 8)

The ORD Plan does not indicate the direction of its solid waste management research

program. Also not discussed are coordination

and balancing of various alternatives and the

meshing with ERDA’s energy recovery

program. (Issue 9)

Technology Transfer

Useful technology has been developed by

ORD for secondary and tertiary wastewater

treatment and for community-systems

wastewater and sludge management. Because

the required technology has high operating

costs relative to original capitalization and

Federal funding concentrates on capital costs,

not operating costs, it is important that available R&D information be translated into practice in communities across the Nation. ORD

needs to commit additional resources to

researching the economic and institutional

problems of secondary and tertiary

wastewater management as well as the nonstructural approaches to wastewater treatment practices. (Issue 10)

30
III. Control and Abatement Technology Research

ISSUES

BALANCE BETWEEN

EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

AND DEMONSTRATION OF

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Issue 1

The Plan neglects exploratory research

while emphasizing the demonstration of control systems that are readily applicable to cope

with mandated emissions standards.

Summary

The EPA has an extensive mandate to identify, develop and, where necessary, to

demonstrate control technology which is applicable to air and water pollutant emission

standards. While a number of demonstration

projects have been funded, insufficient

resources are devoted to exploratory or fundamental research into control principles or

novel control approaches. These areas should

receive greater attention if effective and

economic control options are to be developed

to meet the long-term needs of the Nation.

Such efforts should be detailed in the Plan.

Questions

1. How does EPA identify exploratory

research opportunities?

2. What has been EPA’s experience in

funding exploratory research? What have

past efforts yielded?

3. What portion of EPA’s budget is earmarked for exploratory control methods

research? What expenditure level would be

sufficient to meet long-term national needs

in this respect?

4. What exploratory research is EPA conducting to identify pollution control technologies which consume less energy than present systems?

5. What exploratory pollution control

research is being carried out by other agencies? How is it coordinated with EPA’s

research ?

Background

Regulatory requirements have affected the

allocation of research resources among exploratory, developmental, applied, and

demonstration projects in ORD’s control

systems research. Emphasis has been placed

on identifying, demonstrating, and refining

existing technological options. This is an appropriate emphasis in the control program.

However, it has been developed in the Plan to

the virtual exclusion of exploratory work essential to long-term development of environmental controls in new technology areas.

The Plan indicates that several demonstration plants are being funded, but it reveals

scant information on planned exploratory or

fundamental research. The funds allocated for

just one of these plants could support a

variety of exploratory projects. For example,

the chemical form in which nitrogen exists in

coal, oil, or shale oil is not well enough understood. If it were, a method for removal of the

nitrogen might be conceived, thereby reducing or eliminating NOx emissions from combustion of those fuels.

EPA-funded research into new methods of

physical coal cleaning has led to the identification of promising techniques for removing inorganic sulfur from coal. The research in the

physical coal-cleaning area appears to have

undergone a logical transition from an

analysis phase, in which fruitful areas of control technology were identified, to an exploratory phase, in which a significant number of exploratory projects were carried out,

and finally to a technology-developed phase.

Such an approach may constitute an appropriate model for other areas of control technology research.

31
Control and Abatement Technology Research

In sum, increased support for exploratory

research is warranted.

ENERGY EXTRACTION AND

PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

Issue 2

The projects listed in the Energy Extraction

and Processing Technology subprogram appear to relate poorly to the program objectives

and funding estimates. The projects do not

seem to be planned with a sufficient awareness of existing control technology and

research activities outside EPA.

Summary

Since coal is expected to play a major role in

satisfying the Nation’s energy needs, it is appropriate that the ORD Plan emphasize

research to achieve environmentally acceptable use of this resource. The Plan also

acknowledges a significant potential for

energy recovery from waste, biomass, solar

and geothermal sources but does not include

projects to enable ORD to assess the environmental implications of large-scale use of these

energy sources. ORD does not explain how

projects to produce new technology to

desulfurize oil will represent an improvement

over existing technology.

In general, there may be duplication of

effort in this area of research between ORD

and other Federal agencies as well as an inability to accomplish significant progress at

the proposed funding level because of the

large number of tasks identified.

Questions

1. What projects have been formulated to

assess the environmental implications of

large-scale use of new energy sources such as

biomass, solar and geothermal?

2. What is the relationship between EPA,

ERDA, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines

programs in developing environmentally acceptable new technologies for mining and use

of coal and the work proposed by ORD?

32

3. The Federal Government has devoted

substantial effort for many years to support

R&D in the area of acid drainage control from

coal mines, and control techniques are now

available. Why does the Plan suggest more

research in this area?

4. In view of existing commercial processes

for desulfurizing oil, what is ORD’s justification for developing control technology in this

area ?

Background

To meet national energy needs, techniques

must be developed to permit increased coal

use in an environmentally acceptable manner

and encourage the commercialization of alternative energy sources. In recognition of this,

the ORD Plan defines a large number of broad

programs aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of coal use. Since increased use of

coal can impact quickly and significantly on

our energy needs, this emphasis is proper.

However, the Plan ignores environmental

research into other potential energy sources.

Although a project is proposed to develop a

data base for oil shale mining, definitive projects aimed at assessing the environmental implications of large-scale use of other energy

resources —such as geothermal, waste,

biomass, solar, and wind-are absent. These

energy resources, although further from commercialization, should be studied now

because environmental constraints may influence the course of their utilization. For example, the problems of hydrogen sulfide

evolution during the processing of geothermal

brines and the difficulties of disposing of these

mineral-laden liquors could seriously delay

use of this resource unless solutions are

found.

The Bureau of Mines proposes to spend in

excess of $250 million over the next 5 years to

develop new coal-mining systems with

enhanced productivity and improved environmental performance. The ORD Plan does

not indicate how or if ORD and the Bureau of

Mines will cooperate on this large program.

A variety of Federal and State agencies for

many years have supported research in the

area of acid mine drainage control. As a result

Control and Abatement Technology Research

of this work, the causes of the problem are

now well understood and a variety of control

systems have been tested and commercially

demonstrated. In light of these accomplishments, the need for further work by ORD in

mine drainage control is questionable.

The petroleum industry currently uses

catalytic hydrogenation processes to reduce

the sulfur content of refined products. These

processes can also be used in the treatment of

liquids from oil shale, tar sands, and coal. In

view of the present availability of technology

for desulfurizing oil, ORD has not presented

adequate justification for the further development in the control technology area.

Finally, it is difficult to understand how

significant progress can be accomplished in

the large number of projects which have

been defined and targeted for completion by

1980. The proposed annual budget of $15 to

$30 million appears to be seriously inadequate. The program would have more credibility if it contained an explanation of

priorities among the research tasks along with

expected timetables and milestones for their

achievement.

DEMONSTRATION OF

FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION

TECHNOLOGY

Issue 3

The commercial availability of flue-gas

desulfurization (FGD) technology indicates a

need to reevaluate the ORD development

program in this area.

Summary

There appears to be little justification for

ORD to continue spending large sums of

money on FGD systems based on so-called

“throwaway” processes, because these

systems are commercially available. Although

continued research is needed on secondgeneration FGD systems designed to recover

sulfur products, ORD has not established a

justification that the Federal Government

should do it.

Questions

1. What is the justification for ORD funding “throwaway” FGD systems when they are

already commercially available?

2. What conflicts of interest

EPA is both the regulator as

developer of FGD technology?

exist when

well as the

3. Do adequate incentives currently exist

for private industry to develop secondgeneration, regenerable FGD systems? If not,

how will ORD funding in this area significantly hasten the introduction of advanced

systems that recover sulfur products?

Background

Over the past 5 years, ORD has funded a

n umber of flue-gas desulfurization

demonstrations, The primary emphasis has

been placed on the so-called “throwaway”

processes using lime or limestone as the absorbing alkali. Although some have criticized

EPA’s role in the development of FGD technology, it is generally acknowledged that the

demonstration projects and symposia supported by EPA have advanced the state of the

art and hastened commercialization of the

technology. Today there are about a dozen

FGD manufacturers who have expertise in

designing workable lime/limestone systems.

Since the “throwaway” flue-gas desulfurization system is now commercial, there seems

little reason for continued ORD involvement.

The ORD Plan states that “R&D efforts will

focus on remaining problems such as upgrading operating performance and reliability,

minimizing costs, waste product disposal

problems and treatment, and byproduct

recovery.” These activities are properly carried out by manufacturers, to improve the

competitive advantages of their product. As

such, the justification for the three test

systems at Shawnee—the Louisville Gas &

Electric test program, the pilot and prototype

double alkali FGD program, and Bakco FGD

systems—is weak at best.
Control and Abatement Technology Research

The development of second-generation

FGD systems designed to recover sulfur products raises somewhat different questions.

There are many areas of the country,

especially urban areas, where it is impractical

to dispose of the calcium-sulfur sludges

resulting from the operation of “throwaway”

FGD systems. If EPA can make a case that industries manufacturing FGD systems lack incentives and/or resources to develop the

sulfur recovery technology, then a basis

would be established for ORD work in this

area.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

IN OFFSHORE PETROLEUM

OPERATIONS

Issue 4

The proposed Office of Energy, Minerals,

and Industry program to develop environmental control technology for offshore oil and

gas production apparently does not recognize

existing industry programs and technologies.

Summary

The EPA/ORD Office of Energy, Minerals,

and Industry (OEMI) proposes to develop and

demonstrate control technologies to minimize

adverse environmental effects from the installation and operation of offshore oil and gas

production facilities, including platforms,

pipelines, and other transportation systems,

and onshore terminal facilities. The Plan does

not specify definitive goals for R&D in

offshore pollution-control technology.

Further, the program statements convey the

impression that ORD may be pressed into an

area where their expertise is undeveloped

compared to that already developed by the

private sector in response to regulations. If

this is true, then EPA’s entry into a hardware

development program related to the offshore

oil and gas extraction industry may be questionable. Federal involvement already exists

through agencies such as the U.S. Geological

Survey and the U.S. Coast Guard. The EPA

program may be more usefully directed

toward biological and geological research in

the coastal and marine environment. EPA can

also provide the needed coordination of

Federal activities in the offshore area.

Questions

1. Has OEMI thoroughly investigated the

available technology in the offshore pollutioncontrol industry?

2. What environmental control technology

research for offshore operations is being carried out in other Federal and State agencies?

3. How does EPA intend to identify

research opportunities in the offshore area, or

have they already done so? Are these efforts

coordinated with efforts in the U.S. Coast

Guard, Department of the Interior, etc. ?

4. What effect will EPA’s entry into the

offshore control systems development area

have on private-sector work in the same area?

Background

The offshore petroleum industry is into its

third decade of development. Recently, private industry has emphasized the safe and

efficient extraction of oil and gas. The efforts

of industry in developing control technology,

not only in preventing oilspills, but also in the

areas of leak-detection systems, underwater .

completion devices, automated drilling procedures, general-support equipment development, waste management priorities, and

pipeline construction need to be reflected in

an ORD evaluation of the state of the art when

initiating hardware development in the

offshore area. Since hostile environments may

present different problems, a Federal exploratory control technology program for

offshore development of oil and gas in hostile

environments may be necessary,

The social-environmental impact of

offshore development upon onshore communities is being studied in Louisiana,

Delaware, New Jersey, Texas, California, and

other coastal regions. Yet, more research remains to be done. There are also many areas of

biological and geological research in the

35
Control and Abatement Technology Research

coastal and marine environment which need

further attention. These are activities in which

EPA should be involved. The proper EPA role

in the control of offshore petroleum operations should include coordination of Federal

activities.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WITH REGARD TO EPA RESEARCH ON

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY

Issue 5

The Plan does not adequately define ORD’s

role in developing and demonstrating environmental-control technology which may

subsequently form the basis for promulgation

of EPA emissions standards.

Summary

As was the case with the now defunct

Atomic Energy Commission, any agency of

the Government which both develops a technology and regulates its use may come under

suspicion of favoring, promoting, and enforcing the use of the technology which was

developed internally. Suspicion in this respect

may never be completely eliminated, and it is

necessary, therefore, to examine the benefits

and liabilities which arise from EPA’s current

dual role.

Questions

1. Should a regulatory agency develop control technologies that it will eventually regulate or use as a regulatory tool?

2. What mechanisms are provided by EPA

to insure that the Agency does not bias its

decisions in favor of internally developed control options?

3. What objective mechanisms are used in

the control system research program to

reassess and, if necessary, modify or abandon

research projects which do not measure up to

the quality of work being done outside of

EPA?

4. What criteria does EPA use to identify,

justify, or terminate major development and

demonstration projects? How does research

done outside of the Agency influence these

decisions?

Background

The concerns raised here center on the circumstances under which control technology

development is appropriate, the criteria for

project review (initiation, continuation, or

termination) and the general ability of EPA

to assess and use in regulatory actions its

own technological developments in an u n -

biased manner, The potential for conflict of interest is great. It is unfortunate that the Plan

never addressed these issues. The following is

a summary of the arguments for and against

control technology development by EPA.

Pros

EPA’s research on control technologies is a

critical element of the entire emission control

program and provides the Agency with a

means of accelerating pollution-control

efforts, eliminating undue costs to control

technology users, and developing a strong information base for regulatory action.

In particular, EPA’s control technology

research program is essential to development

and demonstration of control options which

industry has no incentive to develop or is unwilling to develop. EPA’s control development program may also in certain instances be

able to do research more economically than

industrial sectors that are too small, diverse,

and dispersed to fund research individually or

have not organized to develop a unified

research effort.

In many cases, EPA’s regulatory action depends upon demonstrable technological

feasibility y. Without a control research

program to insure this requirement, EPA

would have no means of assessing technology

improvements.

36
Control and Abatement Technology Research

Generally, EPA’s control research program

gives the Agency access to key scientific fields,

This provides the Agency with the necessary

scientific knowledge to develop sound

regulatory requirements and to observe the

value and quality of control development

work going on outside of Government.

Con

As long as EPA is both developing and

regulating environmental control technologies, there will always be potential for the

misuse of data and biasing of decisions toward

the control methods and information

developed within the Agency.

Historically, the Atomic Energy Commission came under severe criticism for being

simultaneous y the advocate and the regulator

of atomic energy technologies. Although

EPA’s situation is somewhat different (EPA is

an advocate of protective measures), EPA’s

regulation and control requirements can still

cause significant socioeconomic effects and

even environmental harm.

So long as EPA serves as developer and

regulator, it may be suspected of promoting its

own technologies, ignoring reasonable alternatives and discounting any secondary or environmental effects of “i n-house’ technologies.

EPA’s entry into the control system

development area can also distort private

markets for the same types of controls. When

contract research is funded by EPA, one or

more developers will be funded, putting other

developers at a disadvantage. In addition,

once EPA has entered into a control development effort of its own, many private

developers assume a wait-and-see position

and reduce their own efforts.

A third problem is that Government

programs of this kind develop their own momentum, making worthwhile modification,

redirection, or termination of control development projects difficult to carry out. For example, in areas such as flue-gas desulfurization

development, the prime goal has been

achieved, but the Agency appears to be unnecessarily continuing refinement research

75-387 0 -76-4

which may be more properly left to the private sector.

MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION

ABATEMENT RESEARCH

Issue 6

The EPA and ERDA mobile source emission

abatement research plans and the DOT and

EPA transportation research plans appear to

ignore several significant research areas.

Summary

EPA’s automotive engine technology

program has been transferred to ERDA.

Nevertheless, automobile and heavy-duty -

vehicle emissions control requires added support not provided for in either ERDA or EPA

plans. In particular, the fundamental body of

analysis needed to design effective and

economical transportation plans is not being

provided, thereby leaving little chance—to

either default on the existing emissions control strategy or to implement costly, disruptive, and largely ineffective plans. In addition,

there is a paucity of basic information needed

to compare the cost and effectiveness of pollution controls for trucks, cars, and buses, or

other mobile sources with those for stationary

sources.

Questions

1. What coordination exists between EPA

and other Federal- and State-level agencies on

control of mobile source emissions?

2. What has EPA done to develop

methodologies and information needed to

design and implement less costly and more

effective transportation control plans? What

coordination is provided with DOT?

3. What methods are used to compare control options for new vehicles with transportation controls, control of other mobile sources,

and control of stationary sources?

4. What research and analysis is planned to

provide design incentives for manufacturers

37
-.

Control and Abatement Technology Research

to develop fundamentally less polluting

engines as opposed to costly modifications to

existing designs?

Background

In the ORD Plan the research effort in

mobile source control is limited to some test

procedure and emissions characterization

work and some study of transportation

management. ERDA’s current research plan

calls for demonstration of high-efficiency,

low-emission alternatives to the internal combustion engine, such as the diesel, the Sterling,

and the gas turbine. DOT is also involved in

some transportation research related to env iron mental protection. Yet, gaps remain in the

basic data and methodologies needed to fulfill

EPA’s mandate to reduce transportation emiss ions.

Transportation plans were promulgated for

a number of metropolitan areas in the early

1970’s. Hastily assembled under tight time

and budget constraints and without adequate

data and analysis, the plans included proposals to limit automobile travel as well as to

retrofit pollution controls to older vehicles

and to reduce evaporation of hydrocarbons

from stationary sources. Because of the apparent disruption of economic activity and

lifestyle implied by these plans, they met with

widespread opposition which tended to undermine public and political support for

clean-air goals. While the original plans may

be moribund, the desirability of plans for airquality improvement remains. EPA could

develop the facts and analytical techniques for

a more systematic estimate of the probable

economic, social, and environmental conseAir, noise, and eye pollution emanate from situations depicted in this photograph

of rush-hour traffic on the Southwest Freeway, Houston, Texas.

3 8
quences of alternative strategies. Then,

perhaps more effective and less costly plans

with better chances of acceptance could be

designed. However, a research mission of this

kind is not evident in the Plan.

Among the considerations in establishing

an air pollution control program is that pollutants emitted by automobiles are also emitted

by stationary sources to varying degrees.

While controls must be applied uniformly to

vehicles because of their mobility and

widespread distribution, controls for stationary sources can be tailored for a particular

location--depending on overall pollution load

and atmospheric conditions.

In the case of NOX abatement, comparative

analysis of mobile and stationary controls is

needed. The 90-percent reduction of NOx

from automobiles which was mandated by the

1970 Clean Air Act Amendments has proven

much more difficult than Congress anticipated. Mass-producible catalyst systems with

the durability to pass EPA’s 50,000-mile test

have not been demonstrated and may be well

beyond the present state of the art. Moreover,

even total elimination of automobile NOx

would not suffice in some urban areas because

emissions from powerplants and other stationary sources contribute a significant and

growing part of the total. EPA’s analysis suggests that, while some control of automobile

NOx

. is cost effective, so too is substantial stationary source control. More work is needed,

however, to update the cost information, to

apply the analysis to different geographical

regions, and to account more accurately for

the temporal and geographic differences in

NOx

. emissions from various sources within

each region.

SMALL PARTICLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY

Issue 7

The development of monitoring and control

technology to reduce small particle emissions

Control and Abatement Technology Research

is given insufficient attention in the ORD

Plan.

Summary

The Plan gives little attention to research on

the monitoring, characterization, and control

of small particles (those less than 3 microns in

diameter). Small particles have been recognized as a health problem of consequence.

More thorough definition is needed of ORD

plans, timetables, and methods of approach

for developing technology to deal with small

particles.

Questions

1. What is EPA’s timetable for the

establishment of new source performance

standards or ambient air-quality standards for

small particles? How is ORD control technology research designed to support this

timetable?

2. What is the rationale by which ORD has

assigned a high priority to flue-gas

desulfurization projects and a lesser one to an

expanded research effort on small particle

monitoring and control?

3. What progress has ORD made in its recent research on monitoring, characterization,

and abatement of small particle emissions?

Background

The effective control of small particle emissions represents a classic dilemma for EPA.

The criteria document set ambient air-quality

standards for the total mass of airborne particles. At the time that the standard was set,

most authorities recognized that health

problems of particle emissions were caused

primarily by respirable particles, those that

enter and remain in the deep alveolar recesses

of the lung. Most of the respirable particles are

3 microns or less in diameter. The failure to

distinguish between coarse and fine particles

in the standard has been attributed to the lack

of suitable technology, both to monitor the

size distribution of particle emissions and to

effectively control emissions of fine particles.

Apparently, because the air-quality standards

were not set on the basis of size, incentives for

39
Control and Abatement Technology Research

ORD to emphasize small particles were less

than incentives to develop improved controls

for the criteria pollutants, for which legislative

mandates existed. As a result, the pace of

research and development related to small

particles has lagged behind the expectations of

many observers outside and within EPA.

Recent evidence suggests that the problem

may be more complicated than originally

thought. The composition of the small particle

emissions may be an important determinant

of their health effects. The major point,

however, is that considerable research needs

to be done on technologies to monitor, characterize, and control the emissions of fine particles in order to set an air-quality or new

source performance standard that industry

can comply with and EPA can enforce. To the

extent that large and costly demonstration

projects on criteria pollutants receive excessive attention by ORD, research on the

small particle problem will be inadequate.

ORD should define more precisely its goals,

timetables, and methods of approach to deal

with the small particle emission problem.

FUTURE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION

CONTROL REQUIREMENTS

Issue 8

The ORD Plan for Minerals, Processing, and

Manufacturing fails to discuss research

directly aimed at the identification and control

of prospective pollution problems associated

with new industrial technologies or changes

in industrial energy and raw material sources.

Summary

The ORD Plan for Minerals, Processing, and

Manufacturing focuses on establishing the

data base to support water and air emission

standards mandated by the associated laws.

There are no apparent efforts in the Plan for

identifying upcoming pollution control needs

resulting from changes in processing technologies, raw materials, and energy sources.

Changes in the price and availability of fuels

and raw materials are leading to increasing

use of lower grade ores as well as recyclable

materials and to development of new processes by industry. Research into the environmental impact of these changes would better

enable ORD to anticipate upcoming pollution

problems and to establish control research

priorities.

Questions

1. What is the level of EPA research into

the future market penetration of new industrial processes and changing patterns of

industrial fuel and raw material use?

2. What is the nature and extent of EPA’s

effort to discuss with industry the potential

conflicts between existing regulations, or controls under development, and new processing

technologies being developed?

3. What level of effort is put into projecting

trends in industrial pollution—based on shifts

in fuel, feedstock and mineral resource use,

and new processes? What level of effort is

devoted to evaluating new management or

hardware options for industrial pollution

control ?

Background

Industry is continually developing new

p recesses. Associated environmental

problems may accompany the eventual commercialization of some new processes, with a

resulting requirement for new control

measures. If EPA does not anticipate these

problems, unnecessary ecological or health

risks may result.

An investigative research program is

needed to assess the environment control

needs associated with future trends in industrial raw material and energy use. Changes

in industrial pollutants will result from shifts

in chemical feedstocks to heavier hydrocarbons and in mineral sources to low-grade ores

and recycled materials as well as the general

shift from gas to oil and oil to coal. EPA has a

responsibility to investigate trends and encourage development of control methods

(either by industry or, if appropriate, by EPA)

to reduce potential health and environmental
damage caused by new industrial processes

and practices.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Issue 9

The direction of

waste management

determined from its

Summary

EPA’s research on solid

alternatives cannot be

Plan.

The Nation faces massive problems in the

area of solid waste management. A variety of

efforts underway in EPA, ERDA, and the private sector is aimed at reducing solid waste

production, recovering usable materials and

energy from solid waste, and minimizing environmental effects of solid waste disposal.

The ORD Plan’s description of the proposed

solid waste management research effort lacks

substance. In particular, it fails to address significant issues regarding the research program

direction, coordination, and balance which are

indispensable to an understanding of EPA’s

intentions in this area.

Questions

1. What research is planned or in process

by ORD on the reduction of waste at its source

as a control alternative?

2. What economic assessment is being done

of material recycle and recovery projects?

How are salable products identified and

markets evaluated ?

3. How does the ORD Solid Waste Management Program coordinate with the EPA liquid

waste and air-quality regulatory programs

and with the ERDA and FEA energy-recovery

programs?

4. How does EPA cooperate with privatesector groups such as the food industry currently involved in research into waste generation reduction and solid waste recycle, reuse,

and energy recovery?

5. How will EPA’s effort be allocated beControl and Abatement Technology Research

tween high versus low technology solid waste

management systems?

6. How will EPA consider costs and

benefits in identifying and ranking solid waste

management research opportunities?

Background

Solid wastes—including consumer product

wastes and hazardous wastes—represent a

tremendous material depletion, environmental degradation, and public health problem.

Waste treatment and reduction require substantive program attention. The Office of Solid

Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) was

established by EPA to deal with the national

solid waste problem.

Working on an annual budget of approximately $20 million, OSWMP is engaged in a

variety of research and development as well as

demonstration efforts in areas which appear

to overlap those planned by its sister division

ORD. Moreover, within ERDA, there is still

another program of solid waste management

aimed at energy resource recovery. An appropriate division of labor among these entities should be specified.

The ORD Waste Management subprogram

is budgeted at a slightly lower level than the

OSWMP program. It is not clear how much of

the Waste Management budget is allocated to

consumer and hazardous wastes, and the Plan

gives no indication of how the OSWMP

program and ERDA programs compare to

ORD’s effort, how responsibilities have been

delegated, and how the three efforts will be

coordinated.

The Plan makes no reference to the vital

area of research directed at reduction of

wastes at the source through education/participation as well as technical means.

No mention is made of resolving the conflict

between high-technology “blackbox” approaches to waste management and 1ow-tech -

nology approaches which incorporate source

separation and waste reduction. Recycling of

materials for nonenergy uses is not discussed.

Solid waste represents an important energy

source and an opportunity for energy conser -

41
therefore, could substantially save energy and viable resources. ‘Although the EPA Plan adresources required to

materials (i.e., aluminum,

and could minimize their

pact.

produce certain dresses resource recovery in a general way, it

glass, copper, etc.) does not cope with the difficulties of establishenvironmental im - ing and maintaining markets for waste

byproducts, EPA’s Solid Waste program needs

42
Control and Abatement Technology Research

WEST COAST

Solid waste litter—Anza-Barego State Park, California.

to focus on research and development of waste management practices. For example, the

changes in the recycled materials at the recov - Plan indicates that EPA will fund, over the

ery plant that will improve their acceptance next 5 years, a major project in byproduct

by industry. recovery from potato processing. In fact, the

food-processing industry has for several years

Portions of the ORD Plan suggest a lack of been recovering animal feed materials from

knowledge about current industrial solid potato-processing wastes and has several

43
..—

Control and Abatement Technology Research

ongoing programs which are investigating

reduced generation of solid waste.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR

EFFECTIVE WASTEWATER

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Issue 10

The research ORD is conducting on

wastewater treatment and community

systems for wastewater and sludge management is not being fully used in achieving the

legislative mandates imposed on EPA.

Summary

Technology which has been developed for

secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment

and community wastewater and sludge

management is not being fully used because it

is costly to operate relative to original

capitalization. Federal cost sharing concentrates primarily on capital costs rather than

operating costs. To provide a better framework for congressional consideration of

various alternative strategies, ORD needs to

commit more resources to researching

economic and institutional problems in secondary and tertiary wastewater management

as well as nonstructural solutions to

wastewater treatment problems. Many of the

performance problems with existing systems

arise from improper operating procedures, insufficient instrumentation, and excess hydraulic loading caused by infiltration inflow

or combined sewer conditions. These facilities

can benefit from knowledge of treatment

methods and control needs, and improved

operation and repair of wastewater collection

systems to minimize peak hydraulic loadings.

Questions

1. What priority has ORD placed on R&D

aimed at improving existing waste treatment

plants, such as waste treatment lagoons or

older mechanical-type plants?

2. What priority has ORD given to financial and marketing research in wastewater and

sludge management techniques?

3. What part of ORD’s overall control

development program is aimed at improving

operating procedures? What control benefits

are to be derived through better training of

operating personnel?

4. Has ORD investigated the potential

value of maximizing control of infiltration inflow or flow with combined sewers utilizing

existing collection systems?

5. To what extent will EPA explore

strategies for wastewater source reduction

such as use of porous concrete, improved

street-sweeping techniques, and other

management strategies ?

Background

There are approximately 25,000 municipal

or joint municipal-industrial wastewater

treatment plants in the United States. Twenty

thousand of these plants are small and serve

population equivalents under 10,000 people.

About 70 percent of these wastewater treatment plants incorporate secondary treatment

facilties; i.e., wastewater lagoons, trickling

filters, or activated sludge plants. Recent EPA

studies show that more than two-thirds of

these secondary treatment plants are not

meeting either their design capabilities or the

minimum secondary standards as defined by

EPA in meeting the goals of Public Law

92-500. This means that approximately 50

percent of the wastewater treatment plants in

the United States could benefit from the improvement of existing capital facilities. The remaining 30 percent of wastewater treatment

plants have less than secondary treatment

plants. This 30 percent could benefit from the

construction of new wastewater process technologies without abandonment of existing

capital facilities.

Almost all the municipal or municipal-industrial wastewater treatment plants are

based on microbiological conversion of

waste and the subsequent settling of suspended solids. This is true for wastewater

lagoons, trickling filters, and activated

sludge plants. Most existing plants were

44
designed by rule of thumb or to comply with

an applicable building code, rather than for

opt i mum operation. Not surprisingly, a significant number of these older plants cannot

meet secondary treatment standards, Most of

these plants have inadequate or poorly

developed microbial cultures which produce

insufficient treatment or difficult-to-settle

solids. A better understanding of the causes

of poor microbial behavior and solids settling can lead to improved control measures

such as the addition of chemicals or procedural changes. However, the majority of

existing plants may be too small and their

personnel may not be sufficiently trained in

microbiology, chemistry, mechanics, or

electronics to insure attainment of the maximum benefits. Management schemes to proThe wastewater collection system is equal

i n importance to the treatment facilities.

Wastewater collection procedures can be adjusted to achieve integrated system effectiveness. Infiltration inflow control or flow

routing can be used to minimize peak hydraulic loading at wastewater treatment

plants. This type of control procedure

reduces the need for additional capital investments i n treatment capacity and maximizes the use of the capital investment in the

Control and Abatement Technology Research

collection system itself.

Another opportunity for improving the

effectiveness of existing facilities lies in the

improvement of storm sewer and combined

sewer operations. Research should be directed

at sewer operating procedures. Streets and

sewers, unless periodically cleaned, become

clogged with solid wastes during periods of

low flow, then drop this load on the treatment

system when the flow is increased suddenly,

as i n a storm. Nonstructural approaches, such

as intermittent sewer cleaning or flushing,

street sweeping, and in-system flow regulation, can maximize the capacity of sewers and

treatment facilities to handle and treat the

storm and combined sewer wastes.

For the 30 percent of treatment plants that

do not include secondary treatment facilities,

a broad base of technology already exists and

additional technology is advancing rapidly for

both advanced treatment per se and community systems management of wastewater

and sludge. Generally, the technology requires

a low capital investment relative to operating

costs. At the community level, sanitary

engineers have been slow in accepting these

new technologies. More economic research is

needed that analyzes the costs of various alternative strategies for wastewater management,

especially as they relate to health and environmental costs.
IV. Transport, Fate, and Monitoring

Research

IV. Transport, Fate,

and Monitoring Research

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ISSUES LIST

ABSENCE OF INTEGRATED MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY . . . . 53

Monitoring activities appear widely dispersed throughout ORD with no

comparability of methods, or quality assurance.

MONITORING SCREENING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The current monitoring program may not be capable of detecting certain toxic materials.

IN-STREAM BIOLOGICAL MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Current research monitoring efforts emphasize physical and chemical

monitoring technology and neglect in situ (in-stream) biological

monitoring methods whose use was mandated by Congress wherever

appropriate.

MEASUREMENT OF AMBlENT AIR QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

The EPA’s assessment of the hazards associated with the criteria pollutants other than CO are subject to question because the analytical

methods prescribed by EPA for measuring ambient air quality yield, in

many cases, only indices of air pollution levels rather than concentrations of the actual pollutants whose control is being sought.

STANDARDIZATION OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Improved measurement techniques and uniform analytical procedures

are needed.

SOURCE-EFFECT COUPLING MECHANISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

ORD may assign too low a priority to research into the complex of processes that link source emissions and their effect on the biosphere.

GLOBAL BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS . . . . . . 61

International sources of many pollutants will loom increasingly important as controls within the United States become more effective and as

industrialization increases in the rest of the world. Significant pollutants carried by wind or water must be evaluated and background levels

must be monitored in anticipation of ultimate international efforts to

coordinate controls.

49
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

8.

9.

10.

11.

SPECIFICITY OF RESEARCH AND REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Ecosystems should be characterized in sufficient detail to accommodate

regional variation in the potential impacts of pollution.

ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Is the involvement of EPA/ORD in Alaska sufficient to safeguard the

environmental quality of this large and diverse State?

WATER TREATMENT AND FATE OF EFFLUENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Expanded and redirected research into control of wastewater effluents

and treatment of drinking water supplies is needed.

RECREATIONAL WATER STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...68

Expanded research into the question of tolerable pathogenic concentrations in primary contact recreational waters is desirable.

50
IV. Transport, Fate,

and Monitoring Research

INTRODUCTION

Rational regulatory action for control of a

pollutant depends on an understanding of the

ways in which pollutants are transported

throughout an ecosystem and how they

change or combine with other substances to

become more or less troublesome.

Monitoring research is necessary to detect

and document the movement and transformation of pollutants. This broad field of study

combines two other large areas of EPA/ORD

research: the control of sources, on the one

hand, and the health of humans and

ecosystems, on the other hand.

Before discussing specific issues, a general

concern should be noted. A substantial portion of the research on the transport and fate

of pollutants and on ecological effects is contained with in the energy -related

subprograms. The importance of energy and

energy-environmental research is clearly

recognized and not at issue here. However,

the Office of Research and Development

(ORD) Plan does not adequately reflect the

close ties that should exist between administratively separate, but scientifically similar research. The fragmentation of these

efforts in the Plan hindered assessment of the

overall content and thrust of research on the

transport and fate of pollutants.

The review of the transport, fate, and

monitoring elements of the ORD 5-Year Plan

raises issues regarding monitoring and

measurement technologies, research initiatives, specific ecosystems, and water research.

Monitoring and Measurement

Technologies

The results of diverse studies within EPA

must eventually be combined to set standards

and to forge the control strategies to implement the standards. This requires a centrally

coordinated and technically strong monitoring effort beyond the apparently fragmented

responsibility existing within ORD. (Issue 1)

The ORD Research Plan suggests the absence of an adequate screening program to

detect toxic materials singly or in combination

in air and water. A broad monitoring-screening program will help avoid the “pollutant of

the month” syndrome. (Issue 2)

In the ORD research monitoring program,

physical and chemical techniques are

emphasized to the neglect of biological needs.

Neither biological monitoring research nor

guidelines to discharges on effective biological

monitoring are projected in the ORD Plan.

(Issue 3)

EPA’s methods to analyze air quality attempt to define air pollution levels and not

pollutant concentrations. Further research is

needed to develop analytical tools for the

measurement of specific hazards not currently

being researched. (Issue 4)

The variety and number of identified pollutant substances are steadily increasing. Accountability for analyzing these new substances is fragmented; new methodologies require extensive time for acceptance; and standards for technique acceptance are ill defined.

(Issue 5)

Research Initiatives

Rational control strategies require

knowledge extending beyond ambient levels

of pollutants and emissions and their precursors. It also is necessary to understand the

processes of dilution, transport, transformation, and removal that determine human and

ecosystem exposure. Complex interrelationships are involved; thus, the research cannot

be effectively performed in “bits and pieces.”

Since results strongly influence the develop51
—

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

ment and enforcement of regulations, such

research deserves high priority within

EPA/ORD. (Issue 6)

While pollution is often thought of in local

or regional terms, it is also a global problem.

To determine how global concentrations may

affect us, it is necessary to have a fuller understanding of the global movement of pollutants. For example, EPA does not allow the

sale of DDT in this country, yet significant

quantities could enter this country through atmospheric circulation. (Issue 7)

Specific Ecosystems

Regional environmental concerns in studies

of the transport, fate, and effects of pollutants

deserve stronger support. It may be helpful to

develop a taxonomy of ecosystems and, at

least, undertake studies of the most critical

ones that may not be covered by more

generalized ORD studies. (Issue 8) “

The ORD research Plan, while enumerating

the environmental studies being carried out

by several agencies in Alaska, does not indicate that EPA is coordinating efforts so the

State’s environmental research needs are

being thoroughly met. (Issue 9)

Water Research

Many basic questions relating to

wastewater treatment and protection of water

supplies remain unanswered. The EPA Plan

presents research approaches and

but they are not assigned priorities

the scale of effort or the perceived

of potential health risks. (Issue 10)

The ORD Plan to examine

programs,

in terms of

magnitude

tolerable

pathogenic concentration in primary-contact

recreational waters is too limited. The

program does not currently include research

on viruses and other parasites. Since Public

Law 92–500 stresses such research, the

program warrants expansion. (Issue 11)

52
IV Transport, Fate,

and Monitoring

ISSUES

ABSENCE OF INTEGRATED

MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY

Issue 1

Monitoring activities appear widely dispersed throughout ORD with no provision for

centralized responsibility for accuracy of data,

comparability of methods, or quality

assurance.

Summary

ORD’s Office of Monitoring and Technical

Support has responsibility for establishing

Federal reference methods used in pollutant

sampling and analysis, and for the engineering development of new systems. Other

offices are engaged in a wide variety of

programs in which monitoring of pollutant

levels play a central role, such a s

epidemiological studies of human health

effects, emissions inventories, air- and waterquality model development, and trend

analysis of ambient pollutant levels.

The results of such diverse studies must

eventually be combined to set standards and

to forge the control strategies to implement

the standards.

The ORD Plan contains no provision to insure that the procedures and methods used in

making these measurements will yield data

that are accurate and comparable. To the extent these results are not comparable, control

strategies cannot be designed with confidence

that allowable emission levels are neither

overly stringent nor too lax.

Questions

1. Under current priorities and organization, what level of effort and what mecha75-387 0-76- 5

nisms

Research

are directed toward coordination and

quality assurance in ORD’s monitoring activities?

2. Is this level of effort commensurate with

the critical nature of the problem?

3. How does the present organizational

structure provide a means, formal or informal, to insure that monitoring of activities and

quality assurance are well coordinated ORDwide? Agency wide?

4. How would the Agency respond to a

recommendation that the currently fragmented monitoring and quality assurance activities throughout the EPA be brought under

the direct control of a single, strong, properly

funded central office within ORD?

5. How would the Agency respond to an

alternate recommendation that a central

authority within ORD oversee and coordinate

these activities?

Background

The original organization of the Agency

(1970) established the monitoring function as

a major effort of the Agency’s Science Office.

Subsequent policy review of the monitoring

function in 1972 resulted in a new concept of

monitoring and assigned responsibility for

various aspects of monitoring to the individual program offices. The Office of Enforcement and General Counsel was given

responsibility for case preparation or compliance monitoring; i.e., monitoring which is

undertaken to gather technical evidence for a

specific case, hearing, or other form of litigation. The Offices of Air, Water, and

Categorical Programs were given responsibility for ambient monitoring; i.e.,

monitoring which seeks to establish longrange environmental baselines against which

changes can be measured.

53
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Air pollution: industrial gases belching from a steel plant in Houston, Texas

The Offices of Air, Water, and Categorical

Programs were also given responsibility for

monitoring specific sources in all media to

measure point discharges. The Office of

Research and Monitoring (ORM) was given

responsibility for research monitoring; i.e.,

monitoring required in basic research experiments. Research monitoring, as defined,

would be the smallest portion of the

monitoring activity and of the least direct

environmental importance.

An immediate result of this decision was

the reemphasis of monitoring within ORM

and renaming that office, ‘‘The Office of

Research and Development (ORD). ” Portions of the monitoring function left within

ORD, i.e., research monitoring, are further

dispersed throughout ORD, and are not controlled or coordinated by the Office of

Monitoring and Technical Support. There is

no center of cross-media monitoring expertise

within the Agency.

MONITORING SCREENING

PROGRAM

Issue 2

The current monitoring program may not

be capable of detecting certain toxic materials.

54
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Water pollution: industrial wastes pollute a salt marsh in Middleton, Rhode Island Regulations

require industry to obtain permits to discharge Into water supply outlets.

55
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Summary

A monitoring screening program to detect

undiscovered toxic materials in air and water

is needed. There are few Federal agencies

systematically testing a modest number of

samples of polluted air and water to detect the

myriad of toxic compounds which may be

found in them, and assigning priorities to

those needing most urgent attention. (An example is the National Cancer Institute

program to screen 500 compounds for carcinogenicity.)

A broad screening program would greatly

help EPA in identifying new pollutants of major concern. The program could be conducted

by EPA and coordinated with other Federal

agencies. At present, one of the major barriers

to this program is the difficulty in obtaining

information from industry on the nature and

quantity of toxic materials which they release.

Questions

1. What monitoring research program attempts to detect all toxic pollutants of major

concern present in the environment?

2. If such a program exists, how are its

findings and predictions communicated to the

ORD planners for appropriate action?

3. Is new legislation required to allow EPA

to conduct a major monitoring screening

program for toxic materials in the environment, and to obtain the necessary information

on the materials in discharges?

4. How does ORD plan to collect adequate

data in relatively clean areas to compare with

data from more polluted areas? Will such data

include information on whole ecosystems?

Background

A recent panel of the National Science

Foundation, headed by Dr. Norton Nelson, attempted to develop an early-warning system

for industrial organic toxic substances. The

panel’s program was based on the recognition

that there were not sufficient mechanisms for

anticipating the presence of potentially toxic

materials in the environment. The panel compiled a list of materials, in order of impor56

tance, needing further study. Its work,

however, fell short of the objective in part

because of difficulties in obtaining appropriate information on the nature and amounts of

major toxic materials used in industrial processes. EPA should take responsibility for an

ongoing monitoring/screening program of

toxic materials in the environment. The

various transformations which chemicals experience in ecosystems after release make it

important to anticipate what might form in

the air or water from these emissions. For example, monitoring for the byproducts of emitted sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides could

have been instituted long before they were if

appropriate chemical analysis of potential

transformations had been made. Such an anticipatory monitoring program needs to be carried out by the Federal Government, not just

by industry and municipalities.

The emphasis on performance standards

for technology leads inevitably to monitoring for the effectiveness of pollutant

removal at the source. While some monitoring of ambient levels of pollutants in air and

water is conducted by EPA, the effort is

small in relation to need. There is little indication how EPA will determine which potential pollutants in the environment, other

than those for which control levels have been

set, should be monitored. The proposed

study of viruses in aerosols from wastewater

irrigation is useful, but many other more

critical problems appear neglected. Particular

emphasis needs to be put on detecting and

measuring in the environment:

●

●

●

●

synthetic organic compounds of potential

toxic properties, for example, chlorinated

hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs ,

chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride,

other organics such as acrylamide,

heavy metals, especially mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and lead in air, soil, and

water, and

viruses and other pathogens in water.

EPA will devote considerable attention in

the future to remote sensing technology and

development of sophisticated automated
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

devices for measuring individual chemicals.

While these efforts are valuable, they may be

insufficient unless coupled with a strong

screening program to determine which pollutants are being formed or found in the environment other than already well-known

pollutants.

IN-STREAM BIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

Issue 3

Current research monitoring efforts

emphasize physical and chemical monitoring

technology and neglect in situ (in-stream)

biological monitoring methods whose use was

mandated by Congress wherever appropriate.

Summary

Questions

1. What emphasis has EPA given thus far

to in-stream biological monitoring of the

effects of pollutants on stream organisms?

2. Are guidelines available to dischargers

on how to conduct the in-stream biological

monitoring mandated by Congress? If not,

when will they be available?

Background

encouraged sampling for ambient levels of

single pollutants. In the case of toxic materials

w hich accum ulatc i n food chains (e.g., mercury, cadmium, copper, DDT), measuring the

levels of these materials in water or air gives

no accurate indication of the extent they exist

in tissues of organisms in the affected

ecosystem. The FWPCA mandates EPA to require of dischargers, wherever appropriate,

the monitoring of effects of their discharges on

aquatic life in receiving waters, “including accumulation of pollutants in tissue * * * [in]

organisms representative of appropriate levels

of the food chain * * *“ (Sees. 308 and 504).

EPA proposes to continue measurement of

effects of single pollutants in water using

single species in tanks. This technique does

not adequately reflect the likely response of an

organism in a multispecies setting to a mixture of compounds. Hence, this technique is of

limited value. The EPA proposes to increase

research on pollutants in multispecies settings

in the laboratory (microcosms), which,

though useful for testing of new chemicals

prior to full-scale production, does not address the need for in-stream biological

monitoring of effluents from existing factoDevelopment of biological indicator organisms, in both air and water, and signs of

ecosystem disturbance due to pollutant effects

also need considerable emphasis; it is not clear

from the Research Plan how much attention

this area will receive. There is, for example, no

indication that EPA is planning to characterize

the structure and function of ecosystems in

sufficient detail to develop indices or to

develop general guidelines for implementation of the initial steps taken by segments of

the Agency.

MEASUREMENT OF

AMBlENT AIR QUALITY

Issue 4

EPA’s assessment of the hazards associated

with the criteria pollutants other than CO are
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

subject to question because the analytical

methods currently prescribed by EPA for

measuring ambient air quality yield, in many

cases, only indices of air pollution levels

rather thn concentrations of the actual pollutants whose control is being sought.

Summary

The methods prescribed by EPA for

measuring criteria air pollutants are not, in all

cases, specific to the air pollutants whose concentrations are to be controlled. Additional

research is needed to develop analytical

methods that measure specific pollutants

whose health effects are thought to be detrimental and whose concentrations in ambient

air may need control. ORD has the capability

of doing this research and contributing to the

development of improved techniques.

Questions

1. Do the currently prescribed analytical

methods used to monitor concentrations of

hydrocarbons, SO2

, NOx, and suspended particles in ambient air really measure these

materials? If not, what do they measure? Are

better methods under development? If so,

what hope for progress is there?

2. Is it possible to measure sulfates

separately in current particle determinations? Are methods for measuring sulfates

and nitrates in the respirable size range

being developed?

3. All hydrocarbons are not equally reactive in photochemical smog formation. Can

the “reactive” species be measured as a

unique group?

Background

From the time that the first ambient airquality criteria documents were issued in

1969, there has been a serious question as to

the validity of the analytical techniques

recommended by EPA for measuring the concentrations of

bient air. The

EPA was the

procedure as a

58

the criteria pollutants in amfirst such case recognized by

use of the Jacobs-Hochheiser

measure of N02

, It was found

to be inaccurate and imprecise. Since that

time, all measurements of concentrations of

criteria pollutants in ambient air have been

challenged.

It is well recognized that the dose-response

relationships for health effects caused by N02

,

hydrocarbons, oxidants, S02

, and suspended

particles have not been unequivocally

established by the epidemiological data in the

public domain, This is attributable, in part, to

the fact that the determinations of the polluta nt conce nt ra t i ons were not accurately made

during the studies. As a consequence, the conclusions reached concerning the health effects

of the pollutants are vulnerable to question. It

is most important that additional research be

conducted to develop better methods for

measuring individual pollutants in ambient

air for future health-effect studies.

STANDARDIZATION OF

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

FOR MONITORING

Issue 5

Improved measurement techniques and

uniform analytical procedures are needed.

Summary

The variety and number of identified pollutant substances are steadily increasing. The

authorities responsible for maintaining and

developing analytical methods are spread

throughout EPA and other Federal agencies.

In some instances, analytical methods recommended by one agency are unacceptable to

another agency. The introduction of improved

methods is slow and cumbersome. The standards for techniques are ill defined. A review

process is needed to establish mutually acceptable present and future techniques for air,

water, and terrestrial measurements.

Questions

1. What is the role of the Office of Monitoring and Technical Support in promulgating

uniform analytical procedures?
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

The pollution generated by this incinerator in south Houston Texas

became so severe that citizen complaints and the cllosing of nearby schools forced

the local government to discontinue its operation in January 1974

The same incinerator after closlng July 1975

59
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

2. What is EPA’s method for staying

abreast of the rapid proliferation of procedures?

3. What priority is assigned to the coordination of physical -chemical-biological

measurements within the EPA and among

Federal, State, and local agencies?

4. Does the variety of recommended

analytical procedures between EPA, National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH), U.S. Geological Survey, and others

represent an unnecessary redundancy in the

measurement technology area ?

Background

A recent instance in which lack of reliable

analytical techniques frustrated efforts for

policy implementation is that of photochemical oxidant monitoring in southern California.

The Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District

was using a different technique for measuring

oxidants than was the State Air Resources

Board (ARB) or EPA, and was recording levels

of oxidant 20 to 30 percent lower than ARB

and EPA. Further testing established that the

Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District

technique, while less than perfect, was the

most trustworthy. In the meantime, however,

considerable confusion was generated among

the public agencies, industrial emitters, and

the public. A means of thoroughly checking

the validity of monitoring methods before

they are recommended in EPA regulations,

either as principal or alternative means of

monitoring, is needed.

Needed improved instrumentation is currently being introduced into the environmental market. However, the administrative procedures leading to acceptance of an improved

instrument or procedure are inordinately time

consuming, even after the technology has

been proven. Improved analytical methods

could be encouraged by establishing an effective, rapid review for a suggested improved

technique. This review should not emphasize

rapidity at the expense of quality.

SOURCE-EFFECT COUPLING

MECHANISMS

Issue 6

ORD may assign too low a priority to

research into the complex of processes that

link source emissions and their effect on the

biosphere.

Summary

The development of rational control

strategies to reduce pollutants to medically

safe and ecologically acceptable levels requires

understanding a complex web of processes.

Pollutants, or their precursors, are emitted by

sources and eventually affect the biosphere. In

between they undergo processes of dilution,

transport, chemical transformation, and

removal. Thus, any strategy aimed at maintaining safe levels must properly reflect these

processes of change as well as ambient pollutant levels. Further complications follow

because variable and uncontrollable natural

conditions in the environment modify the entire chain of events. Regulations also frequently require protection for “worst case”

conditions. Defining and achieving safe levels

requires a research program which includes—

●

●

complete, integrated, and well-funded

research into the transport and fate of

pollutants,

assembly of results of such research for

use in control strategy development.

Questions

1. Is knowledge of the transport and fate of

pollutants adequate to define with reasonable

certainty how a change in emission levels (for

example, automotive reactive hydrocarbons)

will influence subsequent achievement of

pollutant standards (for example, photochemical oxidant) ?

2. Is the proposed research program into

the transport and fate of pollutants strong

enough and focused so that deficiencies in

present knowledge will be systematically

eliminated ?

60
3. Will research into the transport and fate

of pollutants be related organizationally to

regulatory needs so that the flow of new information permits periodic reevaluation and adjustment of control programs?

Background

Control strategies are now being developed

and applied throughout the Nation in order to

reduce or eliminate adverse effects of air and

water pollutants. However, pollutants are exposed to an open lengthy, complex sequence

of processes which may modify them before

they reach sensitive elements of the biosphere.

Examples illustrating the importance of

modifying processes are readily available. In

air, formation of oxidant or photochemical

smog is a classic case. The conversion of

sulfur-containing combustion byproducts to

sulfuric acid and sulfates is another important

example. In both instances, control to avoid

adverse effects is an important need, yet is

difficult to achieve.

One approach to relating control requirements to emissions is based on the collection

of comprehensive empirical data. Then, as

emissions are reduced, the response of sensitive organisms can be observed. Controls can

be eased when it is seen that impacts are

reduced to acceptably low levels. Such a factual, direct basis for control may be an essential element of any strategy. But, unfortunate y, this approach demands vast

amounts of data unique to each air basin or

drainage. Also, some of the data obtained

would be inexact. Therefore, an alternative,

parallel approach is essential.

There is a common bond in the basic

physics and chemistry of dilution, transport,

transformation, and removal that intervene

between the emission of a pollutant to the

biosphere and its eventual deleterious effects

on human health and ecological systems. A

vigorous research program into this area

could produce results with general applicability, and thus make best use of limited

resources. Such a program is essential because

current control decisions are evolving in an

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

atmosphere of uncertainty. Better evidence is

needed for making the difficult choices ahead.

GLOBAL BACKGROUND

POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS

Issue 7

International sources of many pollutants

will become increasingly important as controls within the United States become more

effective and as industrialization increases in

the rest of the world. Significant pollutants

carried by wind or water must be evaluated

and background levels must be monitored in

anticipation of ultimate international efforts

to coordinate controls.

Summary

Experiences with nuclear fallout and DDT

have demonstrated that significant quantities

of pollutants can be readily disseminated by

global atmospheric circulation. Comparably

broad distribution by means of ocean currents

is possible. As the economies of the INorthern

Hemisphere continue to expand, the significance of such international transport of pollutants will increase. International cooperation

in pollution control becomes increasingly

desirable, necessitating a careful appraisal by

the U.S. Government. Moreover, it is plausible

to expect that chemicals such as DDT, which

the EPA allows to be sold only for use outside

the United States, may reenter the country in

significant quantities through the atmosphere.

Questions

1. What steps is the EPA taking to insure

that it has an adequate understanding of

global movement of pollutants, either through

its own research or through that of other

Federal or international agencies? What information exchange programs exist with other

countries in this field?

2. What steps is the EPA taking to understand and monitor t natural sources of

pollutants prior to setting standards?

61
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

and its territories, including its territorial

Background

The recent controversy over the role of

fluorocarbons in the destruction of ozone in

the upper atmosphere is an excellent example

of a difficult-to-anticipate problem which

could best be addressed by reliance on basic

waters.

SPECIFICITY OF RESEARCH

AND REGULATION

research. It is also a problem which requires Issue 8

analysis of global processes of chemical

transport and transformation. To date, these Ecosystems should be characterized in

areas have received little attention from EPA. sufficient detail to accommodate regional

There are several understandable reasons for variation in the potential impacts of pollution.

this. Analyses of global processes have little

apparent immediate relevance to the Agency’s

regulatory responsibilities, are expensive, and

seemingly overlap with the jurisdiction of

other agencies, NOAA in particular. Nonetheless, it appears necessary that EPA take action

to insure that its specific data requirements for

atmospheric, oceanic, and biospheric

phenomena are met.

It appears probable that serious gaps will

occur in the data base compiled by NOAA,

NSF, and DOD in these areas of research

unless the EPA undertakes its own reviews of

the state of the art in global studies, and sees

to it that the gaps are filled wherever feasible.

This potential is illustrated by the record of

DDT research, in which few measures were

made of DDT in the atmosphere prior to 1970,

despite the discovery through global modeling that the atmosphere must be a major

reservoir of DDT. The lack of data was apparently not because of an inability to

measure DDT in air prior to that time, but

merely a failure to attempt to assess the potential magnitude of DDT transfers between environmental media.

In general, a similar failure to examine environmental problems in a sufficiently broad

conceptual framework is present in the EPA

Plan, raising the possibility of simple oversights in current appraisals of pollutant

hazards. The remedy appears to be vigorous

appraisal of the fate of pollutants at several

Summary

Effective regulation of pollutants requires

appraisals of the toxicity, transport, transfer -

these sources of variation have received attention, but EPA has disproportionately

emphasized pollutant-specific phenomena.

The resulting regulations have not accommodated regional variations and have lowered

the credibility of controls even where they are

fully appropriate. Variation in the sensitivity

of environments can be accommodated into

regulations by increasing the specificity of the

circumstances under which controls are required. A significant step in this direction

could be achieved by increasing the specificity

of the environmental distinctions already

made in the EPA’s regulations, such as discriminating between major lake types as opposed to merely discriminating between

,

not carry into regulations nor does there appear to be a systematic attempt to explore the

range of environmental sensitivities before

regulations are formulated.
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Questions

1. What steps has the EPA taken toward

the development of a comprehensive and

detailed taxonomy of ecosystems?

2. How does ORD select ecosystems for

study? How does ORD plan to extrapolate

results from the limited number of ecosystems

which it can study to the varied ecosystems

which it cannot study?

3. What procedures are used to inventory

regional problems and establish priorities for

research? What are examples of regional

research funded under these procedures?

4. To what extent does criteria setting depend on characterization of the environmental context in which the regulations will be applied? Would this activity benefit from an

expanded effort in integration /

characterization studies?

5. What efforts are made to use regional

problems (for example, high ultraviolet radiation and high CO levels along the front range

of the Rockies or air pollution in the Los

Angeles basin) to anticipate effects of potential

national problems or to determine long-term

sensitivity of human populations to some

pollutants?

6. Given that the need for rapid action and

the paucity of appropriate data bases may

often limit EPA’s ability to set very specific

standards initially, what procedures might

ORD and the regulatory arm of EPA jointly

institute to allow periodic refinement of

regulations as research progresses?

Background

Primary standards are designed to protect

human health from direct effects of pollutants.

As such, they are designed for a single target

orgna n ism ( i .e., humans) and national standards for exposure to pollutants are appropriate. H owever, the persistence of pollutants in

the natural environment and the rate of their

dispersal vary regionally. Consequently, the

hazards to humans associated with a given

release of a pollutant vary with time and

place. Regulations regarding the release of criteria pollutants should also reflect these variations if they are to adequately protect the

public without excessive use of controls. In

practice, this means that EPA’s research and

regulatory arms must use a taxonomy of

ecosystems more detailed than is exemplified,

for example, in the regulatory division of

fresh waters into lakes and streams, so that

both research and regulation can be tailored to

the great diversity of landscapes present in

the United States and its Trust Territories.

The same arguments apply to secondary

standards, which are designed to protect

human welfare from indirect effects of pollut -

ants upon ecosystems which suppor or affect

humans in the broadest sense. Adequate appraisals of the potential for such impacts require a discrimination among ecosystem types

at least as detailed as that implied by the distinctions between coniferous and deciduous

forests in the health and environmental effects

section of the research Plan, preferably more

so,

Recommendation of use of a detailed taxonomy of ecosystems is not meant to imply

each ecosystem type be examined. Rather,

usage of a richly detailed conceptual framework is recommended as a means for tuning

the regulatory system and extrapolating

research results. Nor is it meant to imply that

adjustment of standards should be only in the

direction of relaxation. Indeed, care must be

taken to avoid errors arising from overrelaxa -

tion of standards when there is a possibility of

direct or indirect impact on more sensitive

ecosystems. To avoid this, effects should be

appraised. at levels o f biological organization

above and below the one of regulatory interest. For example, regulation designed for

secondary standards requires ecosystem-level

research, and should consider effects at the

biosphere and population levels of biological

organization to obtain an adequate perspective on the context in which regulations are to

operate. A sufficiently broad approach is required to avoid value judgments based on a

6.3
Transport, Fate,

limited view

and Monitoring Research

of the significance of natural

ecosystems, such as their utility as sources of

timber and food, while other values such as

recreation are overlooked.

ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

Issue 9

Is the involvement of EPA/ORD in Alaska

sufficient to safeguard the environmental

quality of this large and diverse State?

Summary

Alaska is unique among the 50 States

because much of its vast area lies within arctic

and subarctic ecosystems which have experienced virtually no human impact in the

past. The scene is now changing rapidly.

Federal lands are being apportioned to natives, to the State, and to the multiple Federal

designations as a result of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act, the Statehood Act, and

subsequent legislation. Pressures for accelerated development of Alaska’s energy and

other resources are strong. EPA’s responsibility in Alaska is exceptionally large

because of the immense national interest in

Alaska as a source of energy and other

resources to meet national needs, because of

the large share that all Americans hold in the

extensive Federal lands in Alaska, and because

of the high value many Americans place on

Alaska’s relatively undisturbed natural environment. The ORD research Plan, while

enumerating the environmental studies being

carried out by several agencies in Alaska, does

not indicate that EPA is coordinating these

efforts so the State’s environmental research

needs are met. (The same holds for similar environments in the northern part of the Great

Lakes States and the northern Rockies.) In addition, there is need for followup studies on

the environmental impacts of large development projects such as the Trans-Alaska Oil

Pipeline. Such studies could serve as a basis

for assessing the effectiveness of environmental impact evaluations made prior to the projects. Such studies coulld also assess the effect iveness of environmental stipulations

governingi construction which resulted from

the environmental impact evaluations.

Questions

1. Is research which has been initiated to

assess the effects of spilled oil in the arctic

marine environment sufficiently comprehensive to provide information on how a major

oilspill would influence sea ice albedo, marine

fish, mammals, birds, and invertebrates? The

reference to such work in the Plan is quite

vague.

2. Is EPA or the Department of Transportation monitoring the environmental effects of

commercial polar flights which are now

known to enter the stratosphere in the polar

region ?

3. Does EPA’s monitoring program include

icefield sampling in Alaska to record longterm changes in fallout levels of industrial

source pollutants as is being done in Greenland and Antarctica?

4. Are lichen plant communities, which are

essential as winter range for caribou and reindeer, included in EPA’s program to study

pollution-sensitive vegetation types? (Early

interests by NSF and the oil industry for support of this research have waned and no comprehensive studies have been initiated.)

5. What program exists to asses s

thoroughly the capacity of Alaska’s rivers and

streams to sustain the increased demands

being placed on them as domestic water

sources and effluent recipients due to the accelerated program to develop public water

and sewage systems in rural Alaskan villages?

What coordination exists with the Fish and

Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, and

other agencies in this regard?

6. Is EPA accumulating data to anticipate

the water and air pollution problems which

will be associated with an expanded

petrochemical industry in Alaska, assuming a

trans-Alaska gas pipeline and liquefaction

facility and additional oil and gas discoveries

in Alaska?

64
7. What support could the EPA provide the

State Department in the event of negotiations

regarding trans-Canadian pipelines?

Background

Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf is considered to have an oil potential greater than

that of any other State, yet the waters involved

also support the largest commercial fishery

harvest of all of our Continental Shelf areas.

Oil and gas exploration and development on

Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf should be

conducted in concert with the collection and

assessment of comprehensive marine, coastal,

and estuarine ecological data. Such data are

essential for setting guidelines to minimize the

impacts on fisheries, marine mammal, sea

bird, and other natural resource values.

The major anticipated environmental impacts associated with large-scale petroleum

development in arctic Alaska apparently has

been overlooked by EPA and other Federal

agencies responsible for environmental protection. The Prudhoe Bay oil discovery, on

State land, has attracted little Federal attention.

Since the initial environmental assessments

necessary for the development of an environmental impact statement for the Trans-Alaska

Oil Pipeline, the Federal Government has

restricted its attention to pipeline surveillance

during the construction period. The oil industry is preoccupied with the task of pipeline

construction. The unique opportunity to carry

out research on pipeline, road construction,

and associated developments in northern environments has been largely overlooked.

Several unexpected environmental problems

have arisen as a result of pipeline construction

and there is a need for research to assess their

consequences, These include blowing road

dust along the haul road which causes premature snowmelt—thereby exposing underlying vegetation and leading to concentrations

of water fowl, caribou, and other wildlife—

and S02 fallout from pumping stations on adjacent caribou lichen winter ranges.

Unanticipated widespread oil exploration

and development on U.S. Naval Petroleum

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Reserve No. 4, and adjacent Federal lands and

native selected lands, apparently falls outside

the responsibilities of Federal research into

environmental consequences of large-scale

energy development, which is aimed at

western oil-shale lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. Comprehensive environmental

research in these arctic ecosystems is essential

as a basis for prescribing guidelines for

development activities. EPA should assume

overview responsibility to insure that the

needed information is being collected. These

arctic and subarctic ecosystems are the basis

for the subsistence economies of Eskimos, Indians, Aleuts, and many other Alaskans as

well as supporting commercial harvests of

renewable resources of great importance to

Alaska and the Nation.

EPA’s responsibility for coordinating environmental research also provides the incentive for development of a comprehensive

system of information exchange with countries with similar northern ecosystems, associated problems, and experience in dealing with

them. Full opportunity should be taken to use

existing bilateral exchange agreements with

the U.S.S.R. and to establish similar agreements where they do not exist with Canada,

Denmark (Greenland), and Norway

(Spitsbergen) to foster the exchange of information on problems of northern development. The international Man and the

Biosphere Program (MAB) Project No. 6—

Mountain and Tundra Systems—provides one

such mechanism.

WATER TREATMENT AND

FATE OF EFFLUENTS

Issue 10

Expanded and redirected research into control of wastewater effluents and treatment of

drinking water supplies is needed.

Summary

The EPA Plan expresses concern for the potential hazards to human health presented by

65
Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

Sewage treatment plant, Blue Plains, Maryland

the growing amounts of wastewater and of and so bypassing natural purification process.

water treatment byproducts entering the The ORD Plan lists research approaches and

water system. There is reason for concern programs in this subject area primarily in

because today’s wastewater effluent becomes general and nonspecific terms, without intomorrow’s water supply. And with growing dicating priorities in terms of scale of effort or

demand, there is a movement toward perceived magnitude of potential health risks.

shortcutting portions of the hydrologic cycle In constrast, emphasis is given to the potential

66
hazard of dispersion of viruses in aerosol

form from irrigation with wastewater sludges.

But this specific proposal is not matched, for

example, by corresponding concern for the

health effects of chemical toxicants from the

same sources.

Many basic questions related to wastewater

treatment and protection of water supplies remain unanswered, for example: the effectiveness of chlorine and ozone for virus inactivation, the effectiveness of removal of organic

compounds, and the mechnisms for the

transport and removal of viruses or carcinogens within aquifers. Proliferation of

treatment plants and increased use of

wastewater in irrigation, use of sludges in

land treatment, and potential contamination

of water for recreational use and drinking

water supplies demand a direct and yet broadbased research effort. Balanced concern is

needed across the full range of classes of

agents: pathogenic micro-organisms (bacteria

and viruses), and chemical toxicants (metals,

pesticides, carcinogens, and other toxic substances) .

Questions

1. How effective are conventional

wastewater treatment methods in removing

toxic chemicals? Do removal processes add

undesirable constituents?

2. How may constituents of particular concern, such as viruses and toxic chemicals, be

carried from a wastewater source to a

relatively nearby water source location?

3. How effective is inactivation of viruses

using chlorine and conventional wastewater

treatment methods? How do results compare

with use of ozone and ultraviolet radiation?

What is the extent of the research effort proposed in these areas?

4. What research is being done into the

technology of removing organic compounds

from drinking water?

5. How much is known about the types

and extent of pollution of air, ground water

and surface water supplies arising from sites

used for sludge disposal ?

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

6. What research is being done to assess the

effects of land disposal of sewage in place of

secondary, not just tertiary, treatment of

wastewater ?

Background

Under Public Law 93-523 (Safe Drinking

Water Act) an increased effort is to be made to

insure the safety of the Nation’s drinking

water supplies. To accomplish this, many new

areas of research need development and a

substantial commitment of resources must be

made. One important reason for this growth

in research need is that the quality of water

supply is closely linked to wastewater treatment effectiveness. And since the time when

standard methods of wastewater treatment

were established, a great variety of new

chemical contaminants (largely of industrial

origin) have been introduced. The list includes

toxic heavy metals such as mercury, carcinogenic materials such as asbestos fibers,

highly persistent organic chemicals of high

toxicity (including carcinogenic potential)

such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s),

and the ever-increasing variety of pesticides.

In the past, it has generally been assumed

that pollutants in wastewater will be diluted

and dispersed when they reach large bodies of

water. At this point all hazards to human

health would be removed. This is not

necessarily the case, however, particularly

when growing demands for water dictate circumstances such as development of water

recreation sites close upon wastewater disposal or sludge disposal locations. Both the

transport and fate of potentially hazardous

constituents, microbiological and chemical,

must be thoroughly understood so that risk to

the health of users in such instances can be

controlled. This requires development of an

augmented, balanced research program.

In addition, there still are basic research

needs with respect to conventional water supply and treatment processes that have not yet

been met. For example, the question of how

standard disinfectants inactivate viruses, and

whether or not the mechanism is similar to

that of bacterial inactivation, needs to be

67
—

Transport, Fate, and Monitoring Research

answered. Halogenated organics, found to be

formed through use of chlorine during normal - disinfection practice, are suspected of

being carcinogens. The present EPA research

program to find alternate routes to disinfection appears inadequate.

A multiplicity of organic compounds has

been found in the drinking water of several

cities. The EPA is considering a standard for

organics in drinking water. However, unless

technology to achieve a standard is rapidly

developed, States and local agencies may find

themselves in the uncomfortable position of

not being able to comply with the standard.

Pathogenic micro-organisms, bacteria and

viruses, are present in raw sewage and constitute a threat to human health. These organisms can escape deactivation if the treatment

processes are bypassed in times of flooding

overloads. Both are likely to persist to some

degree in sludges which are a result of treatment processes and may be used as a fertilizer

or soil conditioner. Thus, a wide range of

ways are open through which such microorganisms may persist (as in soil), may be

taken up and even concentrated by living

organisms, and may contaminate streams and

rivers by runoff or percolation. Much more

research remains to be done in this area.

RECREATIONAL WATER

STANDARDS

Issue 11

Expanded research on the question of

tolerable pathogenic concentrations in primary-contact recreational waters is desirable.

Summary

EPA’s program to determine tolerable

pathogenic concentrations that may occur

without jeopardizing health of humans in primary recreational contact with marine waters

is too limited, The program should be expanded and include consideration of viruses

and other parasites. This need relates directly

to the congressional mandate in Public Law

92–500 relative to recreation in and on the

waters.

Questions

1. Is there a correlation between recreational water standards and hazards to human

health? Is there a significant public health

hazard associated with present standards for

natural surface waters?

2. Has the question of deterioration o f

water quality resulting from bather loads in

natural water bodies and impoundments been

evaluated ?

3. Are there pathogens of concern for

which no standards have

Background

Public Law 92-500 has

quiring the upgrading of

been set?

had the effect of remany areas of surface waters to swimmable quality by 1983. The

need to carefully study the human health

hazards relating to this mandate is of utmost

importance. The present standards for swimming in natural waters should be carefully examined and evaluated. The question of contamination of the waters by the bathers themselves should be examined, since there is evidence that a considerable pollution load

comes from this source.

In many natural water, bodies, the water

quality may appear satisfactory for swimming

as long as there are no bathers, but may

become unsatisfactory when there are bathers.

The common indices of water quality inClude counts of total and fecal coliform organisms. These have long been useful indicators

of treated-water quality because chlorination

adequate to protect health reduces coliform

levels to very low values. However, many

untreated waters may contain coliform orga-

.

nisms which have a soil or animal origin and

may be in no way indicative of any important

health risk. At the same time, tests for other

bacteria and for viruses are not commonly included as a part of untreated-water quality

determination. To show that this is not an

academic distinction, recent research on the

quality of natural waters used for recreation

68

V. Health and Ecological Effects

Research

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

V Health and Ecological

Effects Research

ISSUES LIST

LONG-TERM STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Both long-term studies of chronic exposure and followup studies of acute

exposures are needed to determine effects of pollutants which do not

cause immediately apparent injury.

POLLUTANT SCREENING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......79

It is within the capabilities of ORD to provide EPA with information to

more effectively predict and forestall future chemical environmental

problems.

COORDINATED HEALTH RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

The EPA/ORD 5-Year Plan does not indicate formal lines of communication with other research agencies (i.e., NCI, NIOSH, NIH, or NHLI) to

coordinate carcinogenic and biological research.

MAINTAINING QUALITY EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH . . . . . . . .......82

Because contract resources for extramural research are limited, continuing relationships with particular contractors tend to develop from repeated use and may lead to the loss of independence among contractors.

NOISE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Despite the passage of the Noise Control Act of 1972 which authorizes

EPA to conduct and coordinate research programs in environmental

noise, EPA/ORD is not presently studying noise, nor does its Research

Plan propose such research.

INDOOR AIR QUALTIY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Although ORD has stated that it will study indoor air quality, the Plan

does not disclose the size, distribution, or techniques to be used in this

area.
V. Health and Ecological

Effects Research

INTRODUCTION

The ORD Health and Ecological Effects

program is basic to EPA’s mission to protect

human health and maintain and enhance environmental quality. TO provide a scientific

basis for EPA’s criteria, standards, and

guidelines, the program must aim for an understanding of the total effect of a vast number

of chemical and physical agents on man and

the ecosystem, including possible interactive

and synergistic effects. This chapter addresses

six issues relating to Office of Research and

Development (ORD) research on health and

ecological effects.

Long-Term Studies

Because present primary standards are

based on incomplete health-effect data, longterm studies of the health effects of chronic,

low-level exposure to pollutants need to be

made. Parallel to this effort, sequential studies

are required during and following incidents

when there is a temporary, sharp increase in

pollutant levels. Such studies would help put

standard setting on a firmer scientific base,

The effects of agents in the environment upon

health problems such as cardiovascular and

chronic respiratory disease should receive as

high a priority as carcinogenesis, A method of

following the population under study for

20–40 years needs to be developed. It is not

clear whether these long-term studies are best

undertaken by EPA or by another governmental agency such as the National Institute

of Environmental Health Sciences, In any case,

EPA should have a strong planning and oversight role. (Issue 1)

Selecting Chemicals and Agents for

Study

It is within the scope of the research performed by ORD to formalize a system for predicting the presence of a pollutant in the environment and to rank its relative potential

for harm. (Issue 2)

Coordinated Health Research

Although the ORD 5-Year Plan does attempt to summarize the efforts of other

Federal agencies in environmental and health

research, the document fails to describe the

mechanisms through which such research will

be coordinated and results shared. (Issue 3)

Extramural Research

When a research group depends on EPA for

continued financial support, there is a danger

that contractor-scientists may be compromised by perceptions of EPA’s regulatory

policy. (Issue 4)

Lack of Noise Research

EPA/ORD apparently was not funded to do

noise research, although this is part of their

mandate. The research being conducted

elsewhere in the Federal Government on noise

effects on human is not sufficiently detailed in

the Plan to assess its adequacy. Because of indications that noise may aggravate the impact

of other pollutants, there is reason for ORD to

undertake its own noise research program.

(Issue 5)

Indoor Air Quality

The EPA 5-Year Plan makes only a brief

reference to indoor air quality, and then only

in relation to health effects. It apparently

neglects research on effective environmental

management strategies for indoor air quality

improvement. This is an area for EPA/ORD

both to research and to coordinate the

programs of other agencies (Occupational

Safety and Health Administration/National

Institute for Occupational Health and Safety

(OSHA/NIOSH), HUD, Consumer Product

Safety Commission). (Issue 6)
V. Health and Ecological

Effects Research

ISSUES

LONG-TERM STUDIES

Issue 1

Both long-term studies of chronic exposure

and followup studies of acute exposures are

needed to determine effects of pollutants

which do not cause immediately apparent injury.

Summary

At present, EPA asks: “What are the longterm effects on health of chronic exposures to

pollutants?” and “are the present primary

standards safe?” If EPA postpones starting

long-term studies designed to answer such

questions, we shall still be asking these same

questions in another 20 to 30 years. Such

studies imply a long-term commitment of

funds, equipment, and personnel.

Parallel to this effort, specific investigations

are needed during and following an incident

when there is a temporary increase in pollutant levels. These investigations could help to

answer the question whether acute episodes

have temporary or permanent effects. These,

in turn, may serve as a basis for long-term

studies if the effects appear to be chronic.

It seems appropriate that such studies be included in a Federal environmental research

program. Long-term studies are particularly

important as a means to determine the

critically needed dose-effect curves for low

levels of pollutants in air or water.

Questions

1. What role do long-term studies play in

EPA’s research plans?

2. What are the major scientific and nonscientific problems in such studies?

3. Does EPA have plans to develop longterm chronic exposure studies? If so, what are

the plans?

4. Does EPA have a plan to take advantage

of opportunity-laden episodes?

If EPA plans such studies, the following

specific questions might be asked:

What parameters would ORD select to

follow in the population?

How would ORD propose to maintain

contact with a population sample for

30–40 years?

What criteria would ORD use to determine the pollutants to be studied and the

timespan of the study?

How would ORD insure that the levels

measured truly represented the exposure

or dose to the population? and

What criteria would ORD use to terminate a given long-term study?

What is the present status of EPA’s support of the Community Health Effects Surveillance Studies (CHESS) program? Is a

thorough analysis of accumulated CHESS data

contemplated ?

Background

Chronic degenerative diseases, including

cardiovascular disorders, chronic bronchitis

and emphysema, renal disease, and arthritis,

are the major causes of death and disability in

the United States. Evidence is accumulating

that suggests there are significant environmental factors involved in the causation or aggravation of these disorders. Hence, there is a

great need for better information on the effect

of long-term exposures to pollutants on health

over and beyond that of a possible carcinogenic effect. For example, present air

77
Health and Ecological Effects Research

.4

Cropdusting of sulfur on grapevines south of Fresno, California to retard mildew.

Long-term effects that pesticides may have on the environment need to be determined.

pollution standards are almost totally based stantial impact on individual lifestyles. The inon acute pollutant effects, plus the inclusion of clusion in the standards of a safety factor

a safety factor. There is controversy concern- below observed acute effects appears to be

ing the stringency or inadquacy of each reasonable and prudent considering the rela -

standard In some cases, slight alterations in tive absence of information concerning possi -

primary air quality standards translate into ble long-term toxicity. Accordingly, it is of utbillion; of dollars of control costs, potentially most importance to determine whether ex -

significance health effects, and possibly a sub - posure to pollutants at levelsapproximating

7 8
the current standards do or do not have an

effect after many’ years of exposure.

Rough approximations of exposure can be

estimated from historical data, but are always

suspect and imprecise. Thus, retrospectiveprospective studies have limited value, though

they can be used to develop hypotheses to be

tested. Of greater potential value are prospective studies of defined populations for whom

exposure levels are carefully monitored. Such

studies will require a long-term commitment

with respect to money, personnel, equipment,

and planning. Because of the present commitment of EPA to respond to acute situations

and external pressures to investigate a specific

situation, EPA has not been able to develop a

strong long-term research capability.

Long-term research to establish historical

profiles is not only important in studying

human health problems but also in determining impact on ecological processes. Long-term

monitoring of various animal or plant species

can detect changes in ambient conditions and

can serve as an early-warning system, This

can give EPA and other agencies the capability

to identify the problem before it becomes

acute and to take appropriate action.

Considerable information can also be obtained by studying effects during acute

episodes. For example, an inversion and accumulation of pollutants occurred over

western Pennsylvania. Another such acute

episode recently occurred in the Los Angeles

area as the result of an extensive fire. Such

episodes can be exploited in more detail than

they have been in order to obtain information

on their immediate effects. A followup study

after the pollution has subsided is also necessary to see whether there have been any long -

term effects or whether the changes, if any,

were reversible, After the followup study, a

decision would then be made whether to stop

at that point or to continue with a more

prolonged study.

Contingency plans are required that can be

activated to respond to such episodes. Each

one may require different techniques with

respect to details, but the basic principles and

modus operandi could be developed

Health and Ecological Effects Research

beforehand. Studies of such events have been

spotty. In the instance of the Donora, Pa., exposure, the study in 1948 and followup 10

years later have been good. In others, they

have been inadequate or nonexistent.

Studies of the effects of long-term and acute

episodes could be run as (1) in-house research

with careful scrutiny by a qualified advisory

committee, or as (2) an extramural project

under grant or contract with similar advisory

committee oversight, or (3) this responsibility

could reside in another governmental agency

such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

EPA must develop a philosophy concerning

long-term health research commitments

which consider the balance of long-term and

short-term studies, the support structure for

these commitments, and the various mechanisms that can be used to guarantee continuity

of the committed program.

POLLUTANT SCREENING

Issue 2

It is within the capabilities of ORD to provide EPA with information to more effectively

predict and forestall future chemical environmental problems.

Summary

Observers not connected with EPA were the

first to bring several pollution problems to the

attention of EPA and the public. Notable examples are vinyl chloride and nitrosamines in

air and chloroform in water. This suggests the

need to enhance the ability of EPA to detect

and predict environmental problems, It is

within the scope of the research carried out by

ORD to develop a system for predicting pollutant existence i n the environment and

assessing its relative potential for harm.

To avoid undue duplication of effort, a

program to select chemicals and agents for

study should include, as a first step, the determination of the extent to which such hazards

79
Health and Ecological Effects Research

are under study by other agencies. Second, the

understanding that a substance could on the

basis of chemical and physical properties and

environmental access represent a potential

hazard should be used to screen suspects. At

that point, research priorities could be

assigned to the remaining candidates. The information derived from the screening and

research program would be fed into the appropriate EPA program offices for determination of regulatory action or consideration for

further effects or control technology research.

Questions

1. Presently, how does EPA/ORD make a

determination as to when and under what circumstances a particular problem area will be

investigated?

2. What priority does EPA/ORD assign to

developing a pollutant-prediction capability?

What is the state of development of

EPA/ORD’s capability to foresee environmental hazards?

3. What are EPA/ORD’s present thoughts

on the problems inherent in developing a continuously updated list of pollutants worthy of

detailed examination and assigning research

priorities to the potential hazards on the list?

4. How will ORD use and develop screening procedures in order to predict the effects

of individual pollutants and combinations of

pollutants?

5. What is EPA/ORD’s estimate of the

resources required to develop an effective

early-warning system for environmenta l

hazards?

6. How will ORD approach synergistic

problems in specific ecosystems?

Background

The basic elements of one possible pollutant

screening system are as follows:

The first step is to determine qualitatively

that a particular substance or its precursor

will be emitted into the air or water or placed

onto the land. Such information may be

gathered from previously performed analyses

of industrial effluent streams, domestic

sewage sludges, or air emission streams. Once

a listing of substances has been compiled, a

qualitative assessment of their chemical reactions and transport is required in order to

assess the distribution of the pollutant in the

environment. The pollutant dispersion from

emission points should be ranked according to

whether it is widespread or localized in

nature.

A toxicity ranking based on acute effects,

dose-response toxicological studies, occupational studies, and biological monitoring data

(if available) should be made. The pollutant

then should also be ranked in terms of its

emissions, its biosphere persistence, and its

tendency to accumulate in the food chain,

ground water, soil, sediments, or the atmosphere. The results of these rankings

would assist in determining the pollutants

which pose a more serious threat to society.

It is assumed that an interdisciplinary

group drawn from various ORD research

programs and familiar with appropriate

sources of scientific literature would be

responsible for screening. Once the rankings

have been completed, the substances of

greatest importance will become objects of

new experimental research. One research sequence would include analysis of future emissions and their potential distribution. This

would be based on economic and engineering

analysis of the industrial use or generation of

the substance or its precursor (s) .

Simultaneous research on control technology

would also be done. Once emission patterns

have been determined, research on the movement from the sources to the ecosystems can

be carried out. Simultaneously, dose-response

research with and without synergisms can be

carried out. If the substance is already known

to be in the environment, epidemiological

studies should be done to attempt to understand

the substance’s effects on human populations.

The research results would then be communicated to EPA program offices, where

cost/benefit analyses would be performed at

various levels of control for ultimate use in

standard-setting procedures.

80
New pertinent information is continuously

generated by EPA as well as non-EPA

organizations. The determination of both the

relative priorities of environmental problems,

and the priority for studies and control efforts

within each problem area should be subject to

extensive ongoing review so that EPA does

not become locked into unneeded research

and can respond to newly perceived

problems.

We recognize that in establishing priorities

for R&D, EPA is generally dealing with imprecise areas. In assigning such priorities, EPA

will have to exercise sound judgment in interpreting existing data as well as including

many other factors besides obvious ones such

as acute effects and environmental dispersal.

Decisions concerning R&D expenditures will

require not only estimates of potential harm but

also insights into the likelihood that the proposed research will pay off. Moreover, the

difficulties in establishing priorities for

research among known harmful agents are

different than those inherent in detecting

unrecognized environmental toxicants.

COORDINATED HEALTH

RESEARCH

Issue 3

The ORD 5-Year Plan does not describe the

mechanisms through which interagency environmental and health research planning

will be coordinated and results shared.

Summary

EPA is charged with coordination of the environmental-related activities of Federal agencies. Although the ORD 5-Year Research Plan

does attempt to summarize the efforts of other

Federal agencies in environmental and health

research, the document fails to describe the

mechanisms through which such research will

be coordinated and results shared. Effective

coordination is vital in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of research and to idenHealth and Ecological Effects Research

tify relatively neglected, but important, areas

of research.

Questions

1. How are interagency activities in environmental health research coordinated to

insure that significant hazards are addressed

by the proper agency in a timely fashion?

2. What procedures are in force to avoid

unnecessary duplication of research?

3. What role should ORD play in the field

of carcinogenesis research, and how does this

role fit into the entire Federal carcinogenesis

research effort?

Background

Several Federal agencies in addition to EPA

have extensive environmental research

programs. The total budget to support these

programs has been estimated at $1.3 billion.

EPA has a research budget of $257 million,

with approximately $100 million assigned to

health and ecological research.

Although EPA has been charged with coordinating the environmental research of other

Federal agencies, it is not clear from the 5-

Year Plan what coordinating procedures are

in place or how well they work.

The identification of projects already underway or in the planning stage would avoid

unnecessary duplication of effort. On the

other hand, there are some cases where the

nature of the scientific work or the importance

of the information are such that some deliberate, informed, selective duplication is advantageous. It is as important to identify

programs where duplication and verification

are necessary as those where it is wasteful.

These considerations are particularly applicable to ORD’s planned entry into carcinogenesis research.

A close coordination with another agency

could often allow EPA to obtain information

pertinent to its mission. For example, there are

a number of potential public health problems

described in the EPA/ORD document where

useful information could be obtained by

studying the work force in facilities producing

81
Health and Ecological Effects Research

the polluting agent. Such studies may be given

a relatively low priority by NIOSH in terms of

their total mission, perhaps because of the

relatively small size of the work force. There

should be some mechanism to insure that occupational health or other studies pertinent to

the general population are not overlooked

because of formal agency boundaries.

It is also vital for EPA to maintain a

capability to react quickly to newly identified

significant hazards in concert with other

agencies. One can be reasonably certain that

during the next 5 years some urgent environmental problem will develop that is not foreseen in the EPA/ORD document and that,

although within the responsibilities of EPA,

will require input for its solution from non-EPA

scientists.

MAINTAINING QUALITY

EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH

Issue 4

Because contractors for extramural research

are limited, continuing relationships with particular contractors tend to develop from repeated use and may lead to the loss of independence among such contractors.

Summary

If EPA is to obtain an objective scientific

base to support its regulatory responsibility,

these data must be carefully constructed and

managed. The presentation of these data must

openly acknowledge the weaknesses as well as

the strengths of their design, collection, and

analysis. Because such information, by its very

nature, never provides unequivocal and absolute conclusions, it must be subject to continuous review. This review process should

aid in defining the relative magnitude of the

environmental problem, the scale of future

allocations of resources for its study, and the

appropriateness of existing or proposed

regulations. The mishandling of any of these

issues can have serious ecological and

economic consequences.

To meet these concerns, objective scientific

review is imperative. However, the reality remains that the scientists involved might be

compromised since the economic survival of

their research organization may become

largely dependent upon the Agency’s continued support. Given the limited availability

of professionals, recommending expansion of

such a resource pool neither resolves present

needs, nor is it necessarily feasible or even

desirable. With the range of individual and

organizational expertise and skills that inevitably emerge, choosing those most competent may once more lead to a narrowing of the

potential advisers. Exploring alternatives probably will require careful examination of the

EPA as both the provider and consumer of environmental scientific data in its primary role

as a regulator. Totally divorcing such a

research capability from the enforcement

agency may, however, produce other impediments to the ultimate goal of protecting environmental quality. To pursue long-term

research in some areas of basic environmental

science requires that EPA assist in developing

contractor capabilities where none exist. This

implies a long-term commitment to some contractors.

Questions

1. Given the limited number of nongovernmental research resources of quality, what

mechanisms are employed to assure that an

objective, independent response to EPA needs

are obtained ?

2. If nongovernmental researchers were

funded by transfer from another agency, how

can one be assured that such an agency would

continue to provide support if it perceives

these activities to be peripheral to its own mission ?

3. Given the temptation to extend analyses

beyond the limits of the data bases and to exclude or emphasize data consistent with perceived or explicit policies, how can the

researchers producing such data provide an

objective presentation of their work? How can

t
they provide independent opinion without

risk of jeopardizing their continued fiscal support?

Background

Perceived policy goals, whether responsive

to explicit agency mandates or to supposed

positions, will tend to subtly mold the viewpoint of a researcher. This is especially true

where positions become specific as in

rulemaking and the standard-setting procHealth and Ecological Effects Research

NOISE RESEARCH

Issue 5

Despite the passage of the Noise Control

Act of 1972 which authorizes EPA to conduct

and coordinate research programs i n environmental noise, EPA/ORD is not presently

studying noise, nor does its Research Plan

propose such research.

esses. At one extreme, the viewpoint of contractor-researchers may be influenced by their Summary

own internal biases rather than by a customer

agency. At the other extreme, the establishment of a standard (and, inter alia, the procedural impediments to its subsequent adjustment) may impair objectivity if, for example,

data contrary to a stated EPA position are subsequently generated by con tractor -

researchers. In other words, the scientists may

tend to develop a “vested interest” or an emotional commitment to the standard that they

have helped establish. Present realities of fiscal support of university-based researchers do

not preclude such conflicts if these scientists

are used as contractors.

Alternative approaches should be considered, although their inherent shortcomings

must be recognized. If research activities are

“passed through” to other agencies, without

regulatory responsibility, the newly responsible agency may regard such an acquisition as

dissipating its total resources. Even if required

by statute to provide continuing support,

future fiscal exigencies may imperil research

activities. The flow of data output may be impeded by organizational channels not geared

to regulatory needs.

Noise causes behavioral, psychological, and

physiological changes in humans and animals,

and may through such changes alter the

susceptibility of organisms to other pollutants. As a potential modifier of the impact of

other pollutants, noise deserves study by ORD

despite the presence of analyses of the effects

of noise itself by other agencies. Moreover,

although the hearing ranges of animal species

differ and their susceptibility to direct noise

impacts probably diverge, there appears to be

no Federal research involving the effects of

noise on species other than man and selected

laboratory’ animals.

Questions

1. Does EPA feel it has sufficient information on the human health and psychological

effects of noise to promulgate and enforce

reasonable regulations on noise?

2. Does EPA think it has sufficient coordinating authority, and that sufficient funds

exist within the Federal establishment, to

secure further information needed to establish

and enforce noise regulations ?

In sum, unless objective scientific data are 3. To what extent are possible interactive

forthcoming, environmental regulations being effects between noise and other pollutants

being investigated? established, or already in place, will not be

readily open to reassessment or change in the 4. Why is there no mention of noise

light of new information. The quality of objec- research in the EPA Research Plan?

tivity need not be distorted by bad intent or

even conscious desires, but its subtle impair- 5. What has EPA done to evaluate the

ment can influence the substance of regula - responses of wildlife to noise, particularly at

tions. frequencies which are inaudible to man?
Health and Ecological Effects Research

6. What has EPA done to evaluate the

effects of sudden irregular bursts of noise such

as sonic booms on wildlife?

Background

Americans inhabit an envir onment in

which noise levels have been rising as inexorably in recent decades as have other forms

of pollution. The potential magnitude of noise

impacts in routine life is exemplified by recent

data which found teenagers to have hearing

loss comparable to that of a 55-year-old

group. While this hearing loss was surely in

large part self-inflicted by voluntary exposure

to excessively amplified sound, it means that

such groups have little margin of safety with

respect to hearing, because the effects of noise

on hearing are cumulative and irreversible.

Preliminary NIEHS data have indicated that

noise can aggravate the adverse effects of

chemical pollutants in laboratory animals.

The adverse effects of certain kinds of noise on

reproduction of chickens and lactation in

cows have also been observed, Wildlife

populations can be disturbed significantly in

mating, reproduction, and other behavior by

the noise from construction (e.g., Alaska

pipeline), off-the-road vehicles (e.g., southwest desert), transportation (SST’s, cars), and

other sources. Aquatic organisms, like whales

and dolphins, can also be substantially disturbed by noise. Noise and inaudible vibrations may be an important contributor to psychological and physiological ill health, work

efficiency loss, and other effects.

Research may be needed on effects of noise

on wildlife because none now exists within

the Federal establishment, despite its importance to the survival of wildlife populations.

Animals do not sense noise in the same way as

humans do. Rather, they respond to a

different set of frequencies, and often in

different and more dramatic ways. Regulation

controlling the noise generated by machines

adequate for human protection may not be

adequate for wildlife (e.g., off-the-track vehicles).

At present, EPA has no research program

on noise. It is entirely dependent on what

84

other information may be available on this

topic, and seems ill prepared to respond

quickly to problems of environmental noise

which may arise. Unless some further attention is paid to problems of general noise, annoyance of sonic booms, and other noiserelated questions, the importance of these factors in human and ecosystem health will remain unclear. The research being conducted

elsewhere in the Federal Government on noise

effects on human health is not sufficiently

defined in the Plan to enable an assessment of

its adequacy. In particular, it appears that EPA

has the clearest responsibility to appraise the

psychological and esthetic impacts of incongruous noises upon the environment.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY

Issue 6

Although ORD has stated that it will study

indoor air quality, the Plan does not disclose

the size, distribution of research effort, or

techniques to be used.

Summary

According to the 5-year Plan, ORD will

study indoor air quality. However, neither the

magnitude nor the distribution of research

efforts are clear. Moreover, there are no apparent plans to investigate techniques for indoor air-quality improvement. Some effort

should be committed to investigating impact

and possible control of toxic air pollutants

either released in, or accumulating indoors.

Studies could be made of ways to reduce indoor air pollution levels through improved

building and ventilation system design, the

restriction of toxic-vaper-generating products, and attention to interior furnish i rigs.

Interactions between indoor pollutants and

nonpollutant factors such as air temperature,

humidity, and air movement in relation to

health effects should also be studied. In addition, there is evidence that tobacco smoking

may be an important source of exposure to

carbon monoxide, respirable particles,

nitrogen oxides, and airborne carcinogens to

smokers and nonsmokers alike.
Health and Ecological Effects Research

Noise Pollution: Noisy construction equipment such as the type being utilized here

by a Washington, DC. construction worker is common throughout the United States.

Questions program between research on health effects,

1. What overall priority will EPA assign to

and the development of effective management

programs to improve air quality?

monitoring indoor air quality and to finding

effective management strategies for its im- 3. What steps does the EPA plan to deter- provement? mine the seriousness of the release of toxic

2. What will be the distribution of effort agents and how to control it? Similarly, what

within the indoor air-quality research investigations are underway to examine the

75-387 0 -76-7 85
Health and Ecological Effects Research

accumulation of outdoor pollutants indoors,

as, for example, the buildup of jet fuel fumes

in airport terminals?

4. What emphasis should be given to the

contribution of tobacco smoking to indoor air

quality relative to other sources?

5. What steps will be taken to broadly disseminate the results of such studies?

Background

Despite progress in cleaning the ambient air

outdoors, Americans continue to be exposed

to adverse air conditions indoors.

At present, the focus is upon industrial

plant atmospheres, but other indoor working

environments—such as offices, garages, other

service shops, laboratories, warehouses, and

stores—also come under the jurisdiction of

OSHA and may ultimately be regulated. Indoor air quality in the home is the sole

research responsibility of EPA, but there are

other physically confined space areas which

must not be forgotten. For many public buildings such as schools and theaters which are

technically workplaces for a few but are occupied by a much larger number of persons,

research responsibility is presumably shared

between EPA/ORD and OSHA/NIOSH. Even

for industrial plants the responsibility is

shared between the two agencies. Exhaust

fumes from such plants can be hazardous to

the ambient air. This was probably first recognized in the case of beryllium-using plants

during World War II. Since then, asbestos,

vinyl chloride, and arsenic emissions have

also ceased being solely matters of occupational concern.

Nonpollutant factors in indoor air quality,

notably temperature, humidity, and air movement, possibly have a greater influence on

health, especially the upper respiratory tract,

than is generally realized. Research is needed

into this area.

There is also considerable potential for toxic

pollutant exposures in the American home.

Millions of Americans are sporadically exposed indoors to high concentrations of toxic

vapors and particles from domestic cleaning

fluids, floor polishes, and fresh paint as well

as from pressurized aerosol sprays which can

be retained in the deep lung to produce

pneumoconioses. Asbestos fibers, of proven

carcinogenic properties, can become suspended in the domestic air from exposed insulation of boilers and pipes, from the incorporation of asbestos in domestic building and

surfacing materials, and from the use of some

brands of talcum power in the bathroom. Potentially dangerous aerosol sprays are used in

confined spaces (kitchens and bathrooms) by

three-fourths of the adult population.

Cigarette smoke contains particulate and carbon monoxide which are of potentially toxic

significance to exposed persons in confined

areas. Domestic cooking and heating devices

are potential sources of nitrogen oxides and

carbon monoxide.

Very little is known about how to encourage safe use of toxic products in homes

and schools. The EPA could exercise leadership in this area through public education, air

management in Federal public buildings, and

recommendations for building design and

ventilation. EPA’s Office of Toxic Substances

should provide data to FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission on regulation of the contents of products to be used in

the home, including the proscription of certain constituents, the limitation of others, and

precautionary labeling. Development of

cheap, portable pollutant-monitoring devices

would be of great value in ascertaining the extent of indoor air pollution.

The current EPA research Plan conveys no

sense of the priority regarding these problems.

If they are not vigorously addressed, costly

ambient air cleanup efforts may yield fewer

health benefits than anticipated in improving

human health.

86
VI. Socioeconomic Research
~-

,-- .-
VI. Socioeconomic Research

ISSUES LIST

1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

The Plan does not provide evidence of an adequate, substantive effort to

integrate socioeconomic research into environmental management.

2. METHODOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOCIOECONOMIC

RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

The Plan’s frequent references

research are not embodied in

the requisite methodologies.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL REQU

RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to environmentally

concrete proposals

IREMENTS FOR

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

related socioeconomic

to develop and apply

SOCIOECONOMIC

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

The existing organizational structure of ORD does not support the full

development and proper use of socioeconomic research.
VI. Socioeconomic Research

INTRODUCTION

Development

references to

Research and

replete with

The Office of

(ORD) Plan is

needed socioeconomic research. It would seem

beyond question that the value—indeed the

necessity--of such research is clearly recognized and fully appreciated. In particular, the

National Environmental Policy Act calls for

interdisciplinary approaches combining the

methods of the natural and social sciences and

the design arts. Yet so little follows in the way

of reasoned proposals and structured

programs as to cast serious doubt on ORD’s

commitment to research in this area.

Interviews with ORD managers disclosed

that socioeconomic research occupies a low

priority because they perceive no explicit congressional mandate. This perception may account for some of the uncertainty ORD

managers voice as to the proper focus and

thrust of socioeconomic research as well as

their lack of direction in formulating

meaningful research questions or realizing

fruitful applications in this area.

Environmental Management

Effective strategies of environmental

management, combining both “nonstructural/nontreatment” and technological

approaches, demand far greater inputs from

socioeconomic research than the ORD Plan

provides. Problems of environmental

management occur on all levels of governmental responsibility—multi-State and national as well as State and local. ORD’s circumscribed outlook on this research area

needs broadening to comprehend the full

range of problems and possibilities, present

and future. (Issue 1)

Methodological Requirements

Methodological developments across a

broad front of socioecomic research are

needed to support ORD’s progress in environmental management and other areas of concern. Nothing resembling such a programed

effort appears in the Plan, however. A

systematic and sustained program of

methodological development is required if

substant ive p rob 1 ems o f so c i o e c o n o m i c

research are to be successfully analyzed and

solved. (ISSue 2)

Organizational Requirements

Socioeconomic research is scattered and

fragmented throughout the Plan. Research in

this area does not now exist on a sound

organizational basis within ORD. A coherent

and consistent organizational structure is

needed to correct deficiencies in research

policy, planning, management, coordination

and utilization of socioeconomic research.

Failure to commit organizational resources to

socioeconomic research precludes significant

progress in this area. A program of

socioeconomic research that is organizationally distinct but functionally integrated

with other ORD research activities seems essential. (Issue 3)

91
VI. Socioeconomic Research

ISSUES

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AND SOCIOECONOMIC

RESEARCH

Issue 1

The Plan does not provide evidence of an

adequate, substantive effort to integrate

socioeconomic research into environmental

management.

Summary

“Environmental

been properly or

management” has not

fully conceptualized by

ORD; consequently, the research proposed in

this area is incomplete and insubstantial. This

is especially true in respect to socioeconomic

research which must form a major portion of

the knowledge base required. The Plan is conspicuously weak in its disregard for research

on relevant social behavior and social institutions. Nonstructural/nontreatment approaches to environmental management have

not been analyzed and developed to any significant depth. Similarly, the effective combination of technological and nontechnological approaches to environmental management

are not explored and treated to any considerable length. There is no appreciation indicated

of the policy research dimensions and implications for the area; no guiding principles

of environmental management research and

practice are adduced and applied. Difficult institutional problems of implementation and

enforcement persist amid preoccupations with

marginal control technology and industrial

process improvement. A realinement of

research priorities from single-purpose abatement techniques to comprehensive environmental management seems justified. In ORD’s

provision of planning assistance to State and

local managers, urban environmental

management is a critical area that deserves

greater research emphasis. Local concerns, including citizen involvement, should not

preclude attention to environmental management issues at multi-State and national levels

of concern, however. Environmental management as “crisis management” should be

replaced by an anticipatory research function

within ORD. Overall, an enlarged conception

and heightened awareness of environmental

management are needed, together with an expanded and intensified research effort. While

immediate research payoffs can be expected,

the longer term benefits of sound environmental management are of paramount importance.

Questions

1. Does ORD construe “environmental

management” as a comprehensive process for

the analysis of complex environmental

systems and the coordination of activities impinging on them? If so, how is it proceeding to

specify and conduct needed research on this

level?

2. What level of effort and commitment of

resources would be needed in support of a

broad program of research on environmental

management ?

3. Is a research program needed to extend

planning assistance to larger (multi-State and

national) geographical areas and governmental entities? If so, what plans are being formulated to achieve this research purpose,

since no funds are identified with it in the

Plan?

4. Does ORD view its Environmental

Management Subprogram as primarily one of

providing planning assistance for local

management of pollution abatement

programs? Is this restriction in scope a decision internal to EPA?

93
Socioeconomic Research

5. In view of the evident widespread need

for planning assistance to local jurisdictions

on environmental management problems,

how is the low funding level—$3 million per

year over the next 5 years—justified?

6. To what extent has EPA established a

working relationship of environmental

management programs with local jurisdictions so that research conducted by ORD is

applicable and useful? Were any formal

means used to elicit suggestions from these

local authorities to aid in formulation of the

Plan?

7. What are the limitations of “hardware”

solutions (i. e., control technologies) for

achieving and maintaining environmental

quality, and what are the roles in this regard

of lifestyle changes and institutional restructurings (in energy conservation, transportation, urban design, and the like) ?

8. What attention is being paid to new urban design concepts and land-use plans and to

the development and demonstration of decentralized technology, such as sewage and

solid waste reuse and energy capture at the individual home or small community level, as

approaches to environmental management?

9. What ORD efforts, planned or underway, would be likely to anticipate and adjust

inconsistencies between national economic

and environmental goals? What is the likelihood that future resource shortages in energy,

food, and materials may result in pressure to

relax environmental standards and regulations?

10. Considering the potential long-term

effects of large-scale technology on the

world’s ecosystems, what alternative management strategies can help insure future generations against severe penalties without

economic disruption in the short term?

Background

The Concept of “Environmental Management”

In the language of the Plan, environmental

management involves the use of “manage94

ment techniques that improve environmental

quality through nonstructural and nontreatment methods, thereby reducing required

capital costs (for example, change farming

methods, institute profitable industrial process changes, and modify land-use patterns)

(p. 9). Socioeconomic research would appear

crucial to the successful application of such

methods.

Besides nontechnological methods, environmental management is further said to

employ “institutional approaches to implement technological options (e.g., improve

regulatory approaches, provide economic incentives or sanctions). ” The effective use of

such implementation strategies strongly implies a vigorous socioeconomic research effort

in technology assessment and institutional

analysis. A final description is that of “comprehensive approaches to integrating all environmental programs in an efficient manner

* * *.” The principles for guiding program

selection and integration reside in the national

environmental policy enunciated by NEPA

and similar legislation. To derive and apply

these principles requires a further level of

research effort, that of environmental policy

research.

Given this broad construction of environmental management, the task for ORD

research managers is to plan, organize, and

conduct a program of ‘ ‘multimedia ,

multidisciplinary” research to engage the

broad spectrum of environmental problems.

In fact, however, ORD’s concept of environmental management is constricted and its

effort deficient, especially in regard to

socioeconomic research. It is this conceptual

failure which perhaps accounts for EPA’s

difficulty in formulating significant research

questions and seeing relevant program applications.

Socioeconomic Research in Environmental Management

A conspicuous weakness in the Plan is its

disregard for research on the social institutions and social behavior relevant to environmental management. For example, the ques-
tion of incentives needs to be approached in a

more fundamental way. Presently, short-term

profit incentives militate against energy and

materials conservation and the substitution of

low-impact materials and technologies. Traditional economic approaches discount the

future more heavily than makes sense from

the standpoint of the welfare of future generations. If the overall incentive structure is to

promote environmental protection and

enhancement, a better understanding of social

behavior and social institutions will be required.

Technological Fix

In the absence of a larger conception of

what environmental management research

should be about, ORD’s recourse is to focus

narrowly on innovations in control technology and alterations in industrial process as

the principal means to achieve environmental

quality objectives. Despite occasional disclaimers, this “technological fix” attitude pervades the Plan. It is unfortunate that it should

persist at a time when institutional constraints

appear far the most persistent and

problematic, and the environmental strategy

which places chief reliance on technological

solutions appears more and more doubtful of

success. Transportation plans in particular

have proved difficult to institute and implement. Institutional problems must be confronted and understood; the difficulties in

nontechnological approaches are the reason

for doing research on them, not for avoiding

them. In terms of research payoff in the near

term, it could even be argued that these are the

most promising avenues. Even so, the longer

term benefits of sound environmental

management are likely to be the more important ones.

While the Plan acknowledges that

socioeconomi c a nd institutiona l

methodologies are needed “to judge environmental management options and balance

these options against competing national

needs” (p. 2), a more accurate gage of ORD’s

commitment is the less than 1 percent of its

projected budget allotted to the EnvironmenSocioeconomic Research

tal Management Subprogram. A substantial

diversion of research funds from single-purpose abatement techniques to comprehensive

environmental management seems appropriate. This is not to imply, however, that simply

elevating priorities and augmenting budgets

will achieve the objectives of environmental

management in the absence of a well-conceived and structured research program,

Planning Assistance

According to ORD’s interpretation, the Environmental Management Subprogram is intended to provide “regional” environmental

planners and managers with methods to

determine feasible alternative solutions to

specific environmental problems and to provide techniques for arriving at least-cost solutions to such problems. This is reasonable

since the implementation of many environmental laws and regulations is left to State and

local governments. Strategies to achieve

specified environmental objectives are recognized by ORD as varied and complex, and

their development as generally beyond the financial and technical capabilities of State and

local authorities. Hence, the Environmental

Management Subprogram is designed to provide the planning assistance to these

authorities needed for implementing Federal

environmental quality programs. The funding

level of $2–$3 million per year allotted to the

Environmental Management Subprogram appears inadequate, however.

Public Participation

The Plan makes scant provision for public

involvement in environmental planning,

design, decisionmaking, and management.

Potential users of socioeconomic research are

confined to “environmental planners and

managers” without recognizing the public’s

role mandated by Public Law 92–500 and

other legislation. While mention is made of

the need to research ways of presenting

various environmental management alternatives to the public (p. 98), research is also required into techniques of public involvement

and the analysis and evaluation of environ95
Socioeconomic Research

mental perceptions and preferences held by

different sectors of the public.

The Urban Environment

Of special concern are problems of environmental management in the urban environment. Continuing geographical concentration

of human activity will tend to further exacerbate the interrelated environmental problems

confronting urban planners and managers,

Local officials are devoting increasing attention to land use, transportation, housing, and

municipal services as key features of the urban

environment. The need appears pressing for

ORD to initiate a thoroughgoing investigation

of how these options can be better managed to

improve the quality of urban life.

Attention to problems of urban environmental management seems lacking in the

ORD Plan. This is regrettable in light of the

concentration of environmental problems that

accompanies the concentration of urban

populations.

Multi-State and National Levels of

Environmental Management Concern

The emergence of major multi-State- and

national-level environmental problems would

seem to warrant a deliberate ORD research

effort into alternative means by which their

effective management can be undertaken. I1-

lustrative of such emergent problems is the

large-scale development of energy resources

in the Western States, now under study by

Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry

(OEMI). Such development could precipitate a

series of interrelated, multi-State problems in

water resource management, air and water

pollution, and in the socioeconomic conditions associated with a population influx. This

is one prime example of the need to begin

looking toward ways in which complex and

widespread environmental problems can be

dealt with. Similarly, at the national level,

competing needs of economic development

and environmental quality must be analyzed

and reconciled. In both cases, a central feature

of environmental management research

should be to develop methodologies for incorporating socioeconomic factors into a comprehensive planning and management process.

Environmental Management as Crisis

Management

Inadequate provision is made for developing the anticipatory research function necessary for effective environmental management

.

systems. Events of a “crisis” nature are accumulating at an increasing rate, and it

becomes increasingly difficult for managers to

respond to these in a timely fashion. The

“pollutant-of-the-month” syndrome is

symptomatic o f the failure t o

anticipate research needs. Frequently, ORD

cannot respond effectively to short-term information requirements because the need for

R&D was not anticipated or, if foreseen, not

translated into an ongoing research program.

Many important policy decisions need R&D

results within days to months; such research

therefore must be anticipated well in advance.

It is impossible, of course, to predict accurately the time and nature of all future environmental “crises. ” There are some

emergent issues that clearly warrant ORD’s

attention, however. Significant technological

and social changes are forecast as natural

resources are depleted and concerns over environmental degradation increase. While it is

said that “EPA’s research must be both anticipatory as well as responsive” and that a

reasonable balance must be struck between

short- and long-term research “to meet future

and emerging environmental policy, ” it remains that “this Plan does not * * * reflect a

level of resources sufficient to fully perform

all anticipatory research and development

which would allow ORD to get a headstart on

newly emerging problems * * *“ (p. 14). But

this is not only a matter of resource constraint

within ORD. It is also a question of research

leadership.

96
METHODOLOGICAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR

SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH

Issue 2

The Plan’s frequent references to environmentally related socioeconomic research are

not embodied in concrete proposals to

develop an d apply the requisite

methodologies.

Summary

Methodological requirements fo r

socioeconomic research are not matched by

proposed methodological developments,

Deficiencies in this area prevent the use of

integrated approaches to environmental-impact assessment required by NEPA. Broad

recognition of needed methodological research

extends to environmental problem ident i f i cat ion, formulation of environmental

management alternatives, socioeconomic impact assessment and evaluation. But these are

not connected by ORD in a general framework of environmental planning

methodology. Attention should be focused

on:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

anticipatory research on technological

and social trend forecasting;

policy research on competing national

needs and their implications for environmental quality goals and

strategies;

integrated assessment for combining

technological and nontechnological approaches to environmental management and resource development;

research into a broad spectrum of

socioeconomic impacts and their distribution;

institutional analysis for implementing

and enforcing environmental management options for pollution control; and

evaluation research on the effectiveness

of environmental policies and

Socioeconomic Research

programs and the utilization of

socioeconomic research results.

Among many possible approaches to

developing socioeconomic methodology, environmental modeling receives major attention. The experience with Strategic Environmental Assessment System (SEAS) raises

questions about the utility of large-scale

modeling approaches, however. Overall, the

Plan does not confirm a strong ORD commitment to pursuing a systematic and sustained

effort of methodological development. A comprehensive program is required if substantive

problems in socioeconomic research are to be

successfully analyzed and solved.

Questions

1. What difficulties are responsible for

ORD’s failure to provide a concrete program

of research for methodological development

in the socioeconomic area? How might such

difficulties be resolved?

2. Why have research efforts toward more

adequate whole-systems characterization and

assessment been reemphasized when the need

for better ways of dealing with whole systems

(environment, resources, economy, social institutions, cultural patterns, etc. ) is becoming

more apparent?

3. In the absence of a comprehensive

program of methodological research, how can

substantive results be obtained on

socioeconomic questions?

4. What is being done in a concrete way to

implement anticipatory research ?

5. Is there a legitimate role for ORD in environmental policy research or is the need for

policy analysis fully satisfied elsewhere in

EPA (e.g., the Office of Planning and Management) ?

6. What steps are being taken to institute

and implement an operational methodology of

integrated assessment?

7. What actions are being taken or contemplated to expand the limited scope of previous effects research, particularly in regard to

“welfare effects” and distributional studies?

97
—

Socioeconomic Research

8. What methodological developments are

needed in the area of institutional analysis?

What measures are proposed for realizing

them ?

9. In view of the massive public investment

in environmental quality programs, why has

no systematic program of evaluation research

to test their effectiveness been developed?

What are present plans for filling this research

need and what is projected over the coming 5

years?

10. Reflecting on the experience with

SEAS, what is now considered to be the utility

of large-scale modeling as a methodological

approach to socioeconomic research? What

portions of the SEAS effort can be retained

and further refined?

Background

Substantive analyses in environmental

managemen t and other areas o f

socioeconomic research require a wide variety

of methodological developments. Since environmental management involves analyzing

the systemic interrelations of diverse technological and nontechnological components

in intermedia and interregional contexts, the

Plan accordingly calls for development of

“comprehensive systems analysis and evaluation methods” (p. 98). What work is actually

being done or planned along these lines is not

divulged, however, and no serious attempt is

made to place such development within a

general framework of environmental planning methodology. Similarly, while the interdisciplinary and integrative nature of ORD’s

research is duly stated (p.3), the Plan omits

any discussion of means to effect the

methodological integration of socioeconomic

with other approaches. Hence, the unified approach prescribed in NEPA remains inoperative. The need for methodological development is recognized at numerous points in the

Plan, but there is nothing that resembles a

programed effort to meet it. The Plan fails

especially to support the methodological requirements of socioeconomic research. Major

discrepancies persist between the severe

methodological demands of socioeconomic

research problems and the adequacy of

analytic tools presently available to solve

them.

Although not stated as a coherent research

program, the Plan does imply methodological

developments over a wide range o f

socioeconomic research needs. Typical are the

following:

Problern identification.--"Methodological

tools should be developed for assessing environmental problems * * *“ (p. 9), including the anticipation of future problems.

Formulation of alternatives. --The development of alternative control technologies

and management methods to effect environmental enhancement and restoration

(p. 22).

Impact assessrnent. —Methodologies for

assessing the socioeconomic impact of

pollutants, including assessment of

resource utilization (p. 43), and for predicting consequences of alternative pollution

control strategies (p. 9).

Impact evaluation. —Methodologies for

measuring the effectiveness of environmental controls (p. 9) and evaluating the total

community costs and benefits of environmental programs (p. 100), including the

relevant costs, risks, and benefits of feasible

control options (p. 22).

Taking the Plan as a whole, a

methodologically complete program of

socioeconomic research would seem to require attention to at least the following six

interrelated areas:

1. Anticipatory research. The Plan calls for

research on the assessment of long-term probable trends in the production of renewable

resources (p. 78), including trends in

agricultural production such as “large-scale

farming, conversion of marginal lands to

cropland, chemical and energy-intensive practices and the likely increase in irrigation” (p.

68) and, in the area of alternative pest

management, the need for “identifying emerging agronomic trends that can be made environmentally sound before coming into

98
—

general use” (p. 84). In the field of environmental management, the need is stated t o

make available “types of economic and environmental forecasting procedures” (p. 98).

In addition, technological forecasting of both

industrial and control technology seems

necessary for achieving and preserving environmental quality standards over the coming decades. The identification and assessment

of these social and technological trends demands a corresponding methodological

development in the area of anticipatory

research.

2. Policy research. Policy research should be

directed toward the identification of environmental policy issues: What degree of environmental disruption constitutes a problem requiring public policy response and whether a

particular environmental problem is better

approached at national, State, or local levels;

the formulation of environmental goals and

policies as influenced by legislative, administrative, and legal actions; and the

evaluation of socioeconomic costs and benefits

of environmental policy implications across a

broad spectrum of affected parties at interest.

A key policy research question involves recognizing and resolving the “significant conflicts

[that] may arise between energy development,

production and use, community development

and renewable resource activities” (p. 78),

Maintaining goal consistency in the midst of

“competing national needs” (p. 2) is a central

issue that policy research must address.

3. Integrated assessmmt. As stated in the

Plan, “Environmental, economic and social

consequences of energy alternatives together

must be used as a basis for EPA policies” (p.

138). But it is not apparent how this is to be

approached methodologically. For instance,

while it is stated that ‘‘Current scientific opinion and recent judicial proceeding indicate a

need to evaluate the impact of pollutants on

entire systems as well as individual species, ”

the Plan cautions that “Unfortunate y,

satisfactory methods of such systems evaluation are still inadequate” (p. 43). The wholesystem analyses required for environmental

management have yet to be developed. Such

assessments are vital to any integrated proSocioeconomic Research

cedure that involves tradeoffs among

economic, social, and environmental impact

and between technological and nontechnological factors. The methodology of

technology assessment—which actually spans

all six areas considered here—would be a

prime candidate for assisting this development. In any event, further effort is required

to derive benefit from the i m proved

multimedia techniques called for in the Plan

(p. 98).

4. Effects research. Continued support of

‘‘comprehensive environmental/socioeconomic assessments” is cited as a basic

research guideline for the Plan (p. 9). Indeed,

needed research on social and economic impacts is widely noted in the contexts of alternative pollution control strategies (p. 9),

renewable resources (p. 78), water quality (p.

79), pest management (p. 84), soil treatment

systems (p. 88), advanced land monitoring

systems (p. 108), and metropolitan development (p. 155), on levels of both community

and regional impact. In light of its general applicability, social and economic impact assessment should correspondingly receive major

research attention. Yet the Plan offers no real

basis for predicting major advances in this

vital area. Past research performance suggests

a chief preoccupation with costs and not

benefits, and with individual health effects to

the exclusion of other “welfare” effects. Little

added emphasis has been placed on distributional studies, almost totally neglected previously.

5. Institutional analysis. Institutional

analysis is crucial to any strategy of environmental management. Environmental management effectiveness is determined by the

capacity of institutions to implement environmental quality standards and by society’s acceptance of their enforcement. Equallv, the institutional impacts of environmental policy

options must be included in any comprehensive program of “integrated assessment. ”

While recognizing the importance of such

considerations, the Plan gives no concrete

suggestions on how research can accelerate

methodological development in the area of institutional analysis.

99
Socioeconomic Research

6. Evaluation research. Evaluation research is

needed to test both the effectiveness of

socioeconomic research approaches and the

usefulness of their results. Whether work

completed and in progress is achieving

established objectives is especially critical in

the relatively ill -defined area o f

socioeconomic research. A second, and more

central, question for evaluation research is not

only whether socioeconomic research results

are meeting user needs but also whether

research applied in regulatory practice is

achieving desired standards of environmental

quality. In both these respects, a quality-control measure of research performance is required. A program of methodological

development in this area should review and

refine evaluation research methods now

widely in practice and adapt them to the

specific program needs of ORD.

One methodological approach in particular

recurs throughout the Plan-environmental

modeling. The socioeconomic research components of modeling approaches are noted in

regard to predictive terrestrial ecosystem

models (p. 55), comprehensive basin water

quality models (p. 61), and energy development on a regional scale (p. 158). But it is in

regard to SEAS that the major socioeconomic

modeling effort has already taken place, and it

is here that major questions of the suitability

of large-scale models arise. While the Plan

holds out the prospect of further development

of SEAS “to support impact assessment of

energy, environmental and recovery tradeoffs and alternatives” (p. 115), the future of

this modeling effort seems questionable.

ORGANIZATIONAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR

SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH

Issue 3

The existing organizational structure of

ORD does not support the full development

and proper use of socioeconomic research,

Summary

Nowhere in ORD is there a distinct

organizational element concerned with

socioeconomic research. The scattering of

socioeconomic research throughout the Plan

does not represent a clearly defined and wellmanaged research program. It is evident that a

sound organizational base is lacking. A properly conducted program of socioeconomic

research is needed both to avoid unnecessary

duplication and to encourage positive

developments. The need appears pressing for

an organizationally distinct socioeconomic

research function that is functionally inte -

grated with all phases of ORD research activity. This need emerges at every stage in the

research cycle: policy, planning, management,

coordination, and use. Socioeconomic

research has not been effectively brought to

bear on EPA policy research needs; a closer

relation of socioeconomic research to ORD

policymaking seems needed, In research planning, no basis is found for determining

socioeconomic research needs and for setting

research priorities. The nature of the research

task in the socioeconomic area has not been

sufficiently well analyzed to delineate the

necessary methodological developments and

their substantive applications. Failure to commit organizational resources to socioeconomic

research precludes making significant

progress in this area. Research management is

confounded by lack of established research

objectives, and consequently of criteria and

measures for gaging progress toward their attainment.

While some duplication of research effort is

inevitable and even desirable, severe resource

constraints necessitate full research coordination. There appears to be no systematic means

for scanning relevant socioeconomic research

and assimilating their results, however.

Whether ORD is meeting the need for effective

research use is not discernible from the Plan.

Overall, it appears that many of ORD’s

failures in socioeconomic research are traceable to defective organization.

Questions

1. Are there sufficiently broad legislative

100
mandates for ORD to conduct needed

socioeconomic research? Is there clear policy

guidance for carrying out this research? If not,

what steps are being taken to secure the

necessary authorizations ?

2. What kinds of socioeconomic research

should ORD sponsor to make regulatory procedures more effective?

3. How are socioeconomic research

priorities determined within ORD? What is

the basis for projecting future research needs

in this area?

4. How has ORD’s socioeconomic research

program been affected by the recent

reorganization, particularly the disbanding of

the Washington Environmental Research

Center (WERC) ? Have problems in the

recruitment and retention of qualified

researchers impeded the development of a

more forceful program of socioeconomic

research ?

5. How should socioeconomic research be

organized to facilitate meeting the goals

established by ORD?

6. How does socioeconomic research interact with other technical and scientific activities of ORD? Is there continuous interplay? Do they have reasonable physical access to each other to provide easy communication?

7. Do the EPA program offices have direct

input into socioeconomic research? How are

the results of such research brought into the

regulatory process?

8. What steps should be taken to improve

the use of socioeconomic research findings in

regulatory practice?

9. What criteria should be applied in judgi ng research performance in the

socioeconomic area? What measures of

research effectiveness should be used to determine how well these criteria are being met?

10. What is the most effective mechanism

for achievin g coordination wit h

socioeconomic environmental research done

by other Federal agencies and by private

researchers and institutions? What is ORD

75-387 0 -76-8

Socioeconomic Research

doing to improve coordination with other

organizations involved in environmental

R&D and to define jurisdictional responsibilities in areas of cooperative effort critical

to socioeconomic research?

Background

Underlying the lack of a comprehensive

program for methodological development is a

more fundamental issue: the need to conceive

and structure a broad organizational process

for supporting and conducting socioeconomic

research. Aspects of such a process will be

considered under the topics of research

organization, policy, planning, management,

coordination, and use.

Research Organization: While mentioned in

almost all sections of the Plan, socioeconomic

research is accorded only piecemeal treatment.

Nowhere is it brought to a sharp focus as

regards research policy, planning, management, coordination, and utilization of results.

Identifiable socioeconomic research in the

Plan is loosely divided between Office of

Health and Ecological Effects, in respect to

health and other welfare effects; Office of Air,

Land, and Water Use (OALWU), in respect to

nontechnological elements in its Environmental Management Subprogram; Office of

Energy, Minerals, and Industry, in respect to

the socioeconomic aspects of “integrated

assessment”; and Office of Monitoring and

Technical Support (OMTS), in respect to the

SEAS modeling effort. In all these the

organizational context for socioeconomic

research appears precarious at best,

The prevailing organizational climate for

socioeconomic research in ORD is scarcely

conducive to its full development and proper

use. The scattering of socioeconomic research

interests and efforts throughout the Plan does

not represent a clearly defined and wellmanaged r esea rc h agenda. A properl y

organized and conducted program o f

socioeconomic research is needed both to

avoid unnecessary duplication and to encourage positive developments. Organizational effectiveness does not of itself guarantee

research effectiveness, of course. It may,

101
Socioeconomic Research

Research Policy: While the existing mechanisms for research policy formation are not

clearly delineated in this Plan, they seem to

operate to inhibit the conception and execution of a coherent and consistent program of

socioeconomic research. More positive contact

between research in this area and ORD

policymaking appears highly desirable. There

is need for high-level representation of

socioeconomic research interests in ORD. The

presence on the Science Advisory Board of

senior members with direct experience in conducting as well as managing socioeconomic

research would be a constructive first step.

Research Planning: The Plan offers no basis

for determining socioeconomic research and

for setting research priorities. This condition

implies a lack of integration in ORD research

planning rather than the “interconnected

system of research pursuits” called for in the

Plan (p. 20). Hence, there is no way of predicting at what stage of development

socioeconomic research should be in 5 years,

and no basis for planning its development in

as orderly a fashion as the research function

permits. The nature of the research task in the

socioeconomic area has not been sufficiently

well analyzed to delineate the necessary

methodological developments and their substa nt ive applications. Fai1ure to commit

organizational resources to such a plan of

development virtually precludes its accomplishment.

Researc h Management : Becaus e

socioeconomic research appears in so fragmented a condition throughout the Plan, no

clear-cut accountability for its performance

can be assigned. The lack of organizational

focus for this research area would appear to

undermine the ability of research management to function smoothly. Because of indefinite research objectives, moreover, it is

difficult to apply criteria and measures of

research performance to gage how well those

objectives are being met and to schedule work

and allocate resources for their accomplishment.

Research Coordination: “While EPA is clearly

mandated to be the lead Agency in environmental R&D, the missions of other federal

agencies necessitate environmental R&D.

Therefore, EPA has the responsibility to make

sure that environmental R&D capabilities in

other agencies are not unnecessarily duplicated but are recognized and utilized as efficiently as possible” (p. 144). There appears to

be no systematic means for scanning this

research and assimilating its results, however.

Besides coordination of research outside EPA,

a similar problem arises within ORD because

of the scattered condition of socioeconomic

research.

Research Use: In socioeconomic research as

in other areas, the payoff from research comes

in its actual use. Prospective users are found

in EPA program offices, in municipal and

State environmental agencies, and in the

offices of ORD itself. Users within ORD are

directly affected insofar as integrated assessment and other comprehensive methodologies

are involved. How well ORD is meeting the

requirement of effective research use cannot

be determined from the Plan. How ORD intends to improve its performance in this final

research task is likewise uncertain.

102
Appendices
Appendix A

The Research Mission

By Dr. Wilson K. Talley*

Reprinted From EPA JOURNAL, OCTOBER 1975, VOL. 1, NO. 9

The fundamental mission of the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t hard to state:

the achievement and enhancement of a quality

environment. Our research contributes to the

development of effective pollution control

strategies and i n the promulgation of reasonable and scientifically sound environmental

standards and regulations.

Some of the basic questions confronting

EPA’s research program include:

When does a substance in the environment

become a “pollutant”?

To what extent should a pollutant be controlled?

What is the best way to eliminate or control

the pollutant?

EPA’s Office of Research and Development

needs the answers to provide timely and valid

scientific information and necessary technical

tools and control systems.

Phosphates provide a simple illustration of

some of the basic questions we are concerned

with. As we all know, phosphates are a widely

used fertilizer and can play a useful role for

man.

However, excess phosphate in our waterways can cause degradation of water quality

and lead to fish kills. These results occur

because too much phosphate stimulates

massive growths of algae and other aquatic

So we have the responsibility of determining how much phosphate a lake can tolerate

before it suffers from excess algae. Then we

have to decide what techniques can be used to

 deal with this problem most effectively.

These are the types of problems we have

been dealing with in the case of Lake Shagawa

in northern Minnesota, for example. We have

been successful in restoring this badly

polluted body of water by drastically reducing

the amount of

wastewater from

ment plant.

SEVEN ACTS

Our research

phosphates discharged in

an advanced waste treatprogram is authorized by

seven separate congressional acts: The Clean

Air Act; the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act; the recently passed Safe Drinking Water

Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Federal,

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;

the Public Health Service Act; and the Noise

Control Act.

Through this legislation, we have available

$250 million for research this fiscal year. Of

this total, $66 million will support the inhouse activities of our staff of 1800 professional and support workers in 15 field units

and headquarters. The remainder of the

money will support an outside research

program—fully integrated with the in-house

research—that is carried out through grants

and contracts with the academic, research, and

industrial communities, as well as through

cooperative agreements with other Federal,

State, and local agencies.

The ties between the in-house researchers

and the EPA-financed external programs are

Because of the manner in which the Agency

receives its authorizing legislation, the

research program for budgetary purposes has

been classified along specific media or

*Dr, Wilson K, Tal Iev is Assistant Aclm in istrator for

Rcwarch and [le~’elc~pment.

105
The Research Mission

categorical lines such as air, water, pesticides ries including air, water, pesticides and radia-

. . . But pollution problems seldom restrict tion. In taking environmental action to protect

themselves to such arbitrary boundaries— human health, we regulate exposure to

pollutants often create spillover effects in specific contaminants, not their effects. In this

other media. And other factors-costs, for in- way, adverse health effects associated with

stance, and feasibility of alternative pollution may be reduced or eliminated rather

strategies—preclude focusing solutions in than treated after the fact.

only one medium. Consequently, environ- In developing the data needed to establish mental research must be integrated. exposure/response relationships, we examine

5-YEAR PLAN

This integration must fit a time frame suited

to the schedule of problems and responsibilities we face. So in working out a new

structure for the research program, we have

shifted our planning from a year-to-year

schedule to a 5-year time frame. Each year, we

will spell out what we can foresee for the next

five—and thus revise this 5-year plan each

year. ORD’s new organizational structure

follows accordingly, and is organized by type

of product.

ORD’s short-term activities, primarily

quality assurance, monitoring, and analytic

responses to the immediate needs of other

Agency programs, were grouped together

under the Office of Monitoring and Technical

Support.

The relatively more stable long-term activities, relating to the determination of the

human health and ecological effects of pollutants, were organized into the Office of Health

and Ecological Effects.

The third component of ORD’s mission—

meeting legislative and Agency mandates for

control or abatement technology—was,

because of its size, organized into two groups:

The Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry;

and the Office of Air, Land, and Water Use.

Our main programs are organized within this

framework.

how pollutants reach man: i.e., via air, water,

food or a variety of routes. In addition to

laboratory studies, one of the ways we investigate exposure/response relationships is

through observing the health of different

population groups.

For example, we are assessing the incidence

of illness in swimmers at relatively clean and

relatively polluted beaches to determine better

how the illness can be correlated to chemical

or microbial indicators of water quality. T he

information obtained will be used to help us

develop health criteria for recreational water

quality.

Similarly, we are carrying out studies to

assist in evaluating existing standards and

developing new ones for air quality. Conducted in several locations across the country,

these studies are designed to investigate the

relationship between air quality and health

effects such as respiratory disorders in

children, asthmatics, and other population

subgroups.

Ecological effects and processes is a research

program which determines the effects of air

and water pollutants on the structure and

function of ecosystems and on subcomponents of such systems. Work is planned and

organized along problem area lines; it is

directed toward target media—freshwater,

marine, and terrestrial--and conducted according to the character of the problem.

These four offices plan and implement Among the studies in progress are those to

research that can be broken into our 14 major define and characterize ecosystems; that is, to

program areas. unravel the myriads of individual ecosystem

Health effects is a base research program, components and then to understand their

dynamic, functional relationships, where our scientists work to determine and

evaluate health hazards that may arise from To do this, we carry out field studies on

pollution from a number of media and catego- natural ecosystems as well as attempt to

106
The Research Mission

simulate ecosystems in the laboratory. With

the knowledge gained, we can enhance our

capability for accurately determining the impact of existing pollution on the ecological

balance and for predicting the damage of increasing pollution.

For example, we are studying the effects of

pollutants from a new coal-fired power plant

on the wildlife and on the surrounding grasslands in Colstrip, Montana.

We must answer questions such as: what

effect will pollutant X have on the plant or

animal organisms in an ecosystem ? Will the

pollutant impair the organism’s ability to

reproduce or escape predation? How will the

ecosystem be functionally altered if pollution

renders a species of plant or animal incapable

of surviving ?

Transport and fate of pollutants research

produces empirical and analytical techniques

to allow relating air and water pollution emissions to ambient exposures. In the atmosphere, we must identify sources, sinks,

and transport and transformation processes

for gases and particulate. In aquatic environments similar considerations apply. This area

also includes effects on visibility, turbidity,

rainfall, water quality, and intermedia transfer

of pollutants.

To discover feasible control and abatement

technology, several programs address various

aspects of this complex work.

Waste management program research

focuses on the prevention, control, treatment,

and management of pollution resulting from

dustrial activities. This area includes

municipal and domestic wastewater, collec -

tion/transport systems, land surface runoff,

municipal solid wastes and air pollutants.

Current research includes the development of

improved methods for the processing and disposal of sewage sludge. We are also looking at

the possibilities of incinerating the sludge in

combination with solid waste and attempting

to make use of heat generated in this process.

Water supply activities include research,

development, and demonstration necessary to

provide a dependable and safe supply of

drinking water, and to prevent health damage

resulting directly or indirectly from contaminants in drinking water.

For example, new and improved technology is being developed for the removal of

infectious agents in drinking water. The

problem with using chlorine as a disinfectant

is that it produces substances which may be

toxic, so we are exploring alternatives to

chlorination. These alternatives include the

use of ozone and the use of ultraviolet light.

We are also looking at technology for the

removal of potentially toxic organic contaminants from drinking waters. One such technique for removal of these organics involves

the use of activated carbon. Added to the

water in powder or granular form, the carbon

acts as a sort of sponge—the organic com -

pounds attach themselves to the carbon which

is then removed,

Mineral extraction processing and

manufacturing program research is concerned

with point sources of air, water, and residues

pollution that may arise from the industrial

sector of the economy. It is focused on those

mining, manufacturing, service, and trade industries which are involved in the extraction,

production, and processing of non-energy

materials into consumer products. In addition,

the environmental problems that can arise

from accidental material spills are studied.

This research activity supports the technical

requirements of the Clean Air Act and Water

Pollution Control Act by developing and

demonstrating new or improved, cost-effective abatement technology.

Renewable resources program activities encompass the development of total management systems , including predictive

methodology, that are to control air, water,

and land pollution resulting from the production and harvesting of food and fiber. This

area includes the assessment of probable

trends in the production of renewable

resources and their resulting environmental

impact. Major areas of concern include crop

production in both irrigated and nonirrigated

107
The Research Mission

lands, forestry practices, and animal production.

Environmental management research looks

at environmental management strategies—

various comprehensive approaches to integrating all environmental programs in an

efficient manner, utilizing land use management as the basic integrating mechanism. For

example, methods are being developed to

assess the environmental impacts of sewer

and transportation systems on community

growth. Also, methods for integrating

regional air and water quality planning efforts

are under way.

Energy extraction and processing technology covers the assessment of problems and

development of control techniques to mitigate

the environmental impact of the mining and

processing of coal and other energy resources.

Solid, liquid, and gaseous fuel as well as such

non-fossil energy sources as uranium and

geothermal sites are considered. The range of

problems considered spans the spectrum from

assessment of the socio-economic aspects of

resources extration and good practice in offshore drilling to abatement of acid mine

drainage and coal cleaning.

Energy conversion-utilization technology

assessments is the category aimed at assuring

adequate energy production from fossil fuels

with minimum damage to environmental

quality. After assessing environmental impacts, this program identifies, develops, and

demonstrates the required pollution control

technology for present and emerging energy

systems.

For example, our Industrial Environmental

Research Laboratory at Research Triangle

Park has been developing and demonstrating

flue gas desulfurization technology, commonly known as stack gas scrubbers. These

units can be used to control sulfur dioxide

emissions from stationary sources, with particular emphasis on coal-fired electric power

plants.

Integrated technology assessment is required to identify significant technology gaps

and provide information for important policy

decisions. The assessment must include environmental, energy, economic, and social factors.

Energy health and ecological effects include

those research efforts necessary to determine

the environmental effects associated with

energy extraction, transmission, conversion,

and use. With this knowledge, measures can

be taken to protect human health and welfare,

the ecosystem, and social goals while increasing energy production.

Measurement, techniques and equipment

development research provides methods

which serve as the Agency’s “eyes, ears, and

nose.” Some of the more immediate needs of

the Agency concern environmental monitoring. After all, if we can’t be sure a pollutant is

there, how are we to control it?

In this program, physical, chemical, and

biological principles provide the basis for

development of procedures and instruments

to measure pollutants. These procedures and

instruments are then used by the Agency in its

monitoring networks.

As an example of how this program works,

we may find that we need to routinely

measure a newly identified environmental

pollutant such as vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride

is a colorless gas which recently was identified

as the industrial chemical responsible for

causing a kind of cancer in industrial workers.

A procedure to measure vinyl chloride was

developed by our monitoring program in

cooperation with the regional surveillance

and analysis laboratories. This system was

used by the regions in a national monitoring

survey to evaluate the vinyl chloride problem.

The analytical procedure is currently being

refined in our laboratories under the measurement, techniques, and equipment development program.

Monitoring quality assurance serves all environmental monitoring activities of the

Agency. Its purpose is to assure that monitoring data used to support the Agency’s

regulatory programs are scientifically sound

and legally defensible.

To illustrate this problem area, consider a

butcher weighing a piece of meat. If he were to

108
take the same piece of meat and repeatedly

weigh it, each successive weighing would be

different from the others. If he used a good

balance, these differences would be small and

there would be no cause for alarm. However,

if the differences were large, the customer

could become very distressed.

It is the purpose of the quality assurance

program to standardize the measurement procedures to reduce the variations in such successive measurements to acceptable

differences. The quality assurance program

also provides standard reference materials of

certified purity and reference samples of

known concentration so that analysts can

check the accuracy of their analyses. Quality

control guidelines and manuals are developed

to assure uniform analytical practices. Finally,

the quality assurance program provides for

evaluation of laboratories for the adequacy of

their facilities and the competencies of their

technical personnel.

Technical support is also provided by our

research program to other elements of the

Agency. This is usually not research per se; it

is mainly the application of our findings in all

fields, and the lending of our research scientists and our research facilities to other parts

of the Agency for their immediate or unusual

needs.

These needs may be for technical information, for the evaluation of a particular pollution control problem, for a surveillance or

The Research Mission

monitoring job in one of the Regions, or

perhaps for monitoring and control of an

emergency pollution episode. Identification of

this function as a distinct activity reflects a

determination that we will continue to be

responsive to the immediate needs of the

Agency.

Taken together, these 14 program areas are

the totality of our research program. The

specific content of any area is based on a number of fundamental factors.

First and foremost is the full recognition

that research serves a support function within

the regulatory Agency. Our strategy, specific

objectives and priorities should not and cannot stand as entities in and of themselves.

Rather, they must derive from those of the

Agency in the accomplishment of its total

legislative mandate.

The program, then, is one of missionoriented research and not one of so-called

basic research. This is not to say that some

very fundamental research is not, in fact, an

integral part of our program. It is and must

continue to be so because of our responsibility

to provide the best scientific data and to

develop control systems for pollution

problems that are beyond the present state-ofthe-art. Further, a most important research

function is to anticipate the problems that will

emerge in the future and—if we cannot prevent them—tag them so that they will not arrive unheralded.

109
Appendix B

Statutory and Administrative

Background

The establishment of the Environmental

Protection Agency and its Office of Research

and Development is an outgrowth of the

recognized need to enhance the level of environmental quality and to unify, where

possible, the disparate environment-related

agencies and offices scattered throughout the

Federal Government.

Statutes

The Agency was created through powers

granted to the President under sections

901 (a), 901 (a) (3), and 907 of Title Five of the

U.S. Code.

Section 901 (a) provides that the President

may reorganize elements of the Executive

Branch “to promote the better execution of the

laws, the more effective management of the

Executive Branch and its agencies and functions.” Section 901 (a) (3) notes tha t

reorganization is permitted “to increase the

efficiency of the operations of the Government

to the fullest extent practicable.” Section 907

acts as a bridge for the orderly transfer of such

Federal business as public hearings and other,

ongoing actions. Using this legislation, the

President established the Environmental Protection Agency in December 1970, under

Reorganization Plan No. 3.

Federal environmental objectives are set

forth in the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969. The purposes of this legislation

are to establish “a national policy which will

encourage (a) productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to

promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and

biosphere and stimulate the health and

welfare of man; to enrich the understanding

of the ecological systems and natural

resources important to the Nation, and to

establish a Council on Environmental

Quality.”

Title I states that all policies, regulations,

and laws shall conform to the policy

established in the act. Federal agencies are required to use a systematic, interdisciplinary

approach to formulate such plans and policies

that may affect the environment and to consult with the Council on Environmental

Quality. In addition, they are to provide a

report with all legislative and proposed

Federal actions which describes a proposed

program’s environmental impact, alternative

proposals, and short- and long-range environmental effects as well as noting any irreversible or irretrievable environmental

damage that a given program may cause.

Title II establishes the Council on Environmental Quality. This three-member Council is

required to aid the President in formulating

environmental decisions, to review Federal

programs, to conduct investigations and

studies, to document and define changes in

the national environment, to provide an annual report on environmental quality, and to

advise the President on pending legislation.

While the National Policy Act establishes a

central Federal direction in the area of environmental planning, EPA/ORD is governed

by eight separate laws as amended, plus guidance from various appropriations reports. The

eight Federal laws, in alphabetical order, are:

Clean Air Act.—Requires EPA to establish a

research and development program that

coordinates and accelerates investigations

to determine the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.—This legislation requires EPA

to develop biologically integrated pest control alternatives and to formulate a national

monitoring program.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. --Creates a research and development program

110
Statutory and Administrative Background

Figure 4. Legislative Base for ORD Research

Program Area I Health and Ecological Effects

Subprogram Area Health Effects

Program EIement Health Effects (Air) ●

Health Effects (Water) ●

Health Effects (Pesticides) ●

Health Effects ( Radiation) *

Health Effects ( Interdisciplinary) ●

Health Effects (Toxic Substances) *

Subprogram Area Ecological Processes and Effects

Program Element Ecological Processes and Effects (Air) ●

Ecological Processes and Effects (Water) ●

Ecological Processes and Effects (Interdisciplinary) ●

Subprogram A red Transport and Fate of Pollutants

Program EIement Transport and Fate of Pollutants (Air) ●

Transport and Fate of pollutants (Water) ●

Program Area II Energy

Subprogram Area Extraction and Processing Technology

Program Element , Extraction and Processing Technology v ●

subprogram Area Conversion Utilization Technology Assessments

Program Element Conversion and Utilization Techniques and Assessments ●

Subprogram Area Health and Ecological Effects

Program Element Health and Ecological Effects a ●

Program Area I I I Industrial Processes

Subprogram Area Mineral, Processing, and Manufacturing

Program EIement Mineral, Processing, and Manufacturing Industries (Air) 9-4

Mineral, Processing, and Manufacturing Industries (Water) ++ *

Subprogram Area Renewable Resources

Program Element Renewable Resources Industry (Interdisciplinary) *-0 ●

Program Area IV Public Service Activities

Subprogram Area Waste Management

Program Element Waste Management (Water} *-9

Waste Management (Solid) ●

Subprogram Area Water Supply

Program Element Water Supply ●

Subprogram Area Environmental Management

Program EIement Environmental Management (Interdisciplinary) ●

Program Area V Monitoring and Technical Support

Subprogram Area Monitorilng, Techniques, & Equipment Development

Program Element Measurement, Techniques, & Equipment Development (Air) ●

Measurement, Techniques, & Equipment Development (Water) —- - 0

Measurement, Techniques, & Equipment Development (Interdisciplinary) w ●

Subprogram Area Quality Assurance

Program Element Quality Assurance (Interdisciplinary)

Subprogram Area Technical Support *

Program Element Technical Support (Air) ●

Technical Support (Water) ●

Technical Support ( Interdisciplinary)

Technical Support (Energy)

*

Program Area VI Program Management and Support

Subprogram Area Program Management

Program EIement Program Management ●

Subprogram Area Program Support

Program Element Program Support ●

Other ORD

Program Elements Science Advisory Board (Interdisciplinary) *

Reimbursables ORD

ADP Support ●

SOURCE PLANNING REPORTING A NO REVIEW MANUAL, INTE RIM PROCEDURES Of f(ce of R,,wwch and

0,, ,I{,,XII?,,l U S E,,v, ronm,nt,l Prc)Iect,ur, Aq,,,cy W.sh, (,qto,) O C 20460 OK 197 5

111
Statutory and Administrative Background

under EPA to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in navigable waters. Requires

research and development in such specific

areas as Great Lakes pollution, oilspills, and

thermal discharges. Provides for the

establishment of a control technology and

management program to eliminate the discharge of waterborne pollutants.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.—Working with the Commerce

Department and the Coast Guard, EPA

must monitor and study the pollutants

dumped into the ocean or which reach the

Great Lakes. EPA is required to consult

with the Commerce Department on such

topics as overfishing, man-induced changes

in the ecosystem, and the long-range effects

of pollution.

Noise Control Act.—Provides that EPA will

establish a research and development

program to examine noise control, abatement technology, and the health effects of

noise under various conditions.

Public Health Service Act.—This legislation

instructs EPA to determine environmental

radiation levels, associated health risks, to

review present radiation standards, and to

assess the nuclear fuel cycle and its relationship to the environment.

Safe Water Drinking Act.—Provides for EPA

to conduct research and development

studies on waterborne contamination and

the diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of such contaminates. It also requires that EPA establish a research and

development program to assure a safe supply of drinking water.

Solid Waste Disposal Act.—Directs EPA to

work in numerous waste disposal areas including research and development on the

operation and financing of solid waste disposal systems; monitoring to determine

negative health effects; development of

methods to reduce negative health effects;

the reduction of unsalvageable materials;

and new methods of collecting, processing,

and recovering materials and energy generated from solid waste.

112

In addition to requirements set forth in

Federal legislation, appropriations reports are

a source of EPA directives. Specific requests

for research and development through appropriations reports have included an assessment of adverse environmental impacts affecting the Chesapeake Bay and a study of the

potential impact created by powerplant siting

on the lower Ohio River in terms of environmental, social, and economic factors.

ADMINISTRATION

When the EPA was first established, it consolidated 15 separate organizational programs

in the Federal Government. The environmental research units among these programs were

formed into the Office of Research Monitoring, which was subsequently renamed the

“Office of Research and Development.” ORD

was an amalgam, at that point, of 40 separate

field installations—installations with different

functions, interests, and interrelationships.

In June 1973, the 40 installations were consolidated into three major field units called

National Environmental Research Centers

(NERC’s). Later a fourth NERC was

established, These major centers, in turn, administered 24 field laboratories.

By 1975, the consolidation under the four

NERC’s was becoming administratively cumbersome. A second reorganization occurred.

This time the order of organization was based

on the type of output desired.

Under the second reorganization, four

offices were established. Each is responsible

for planning one or more of the major ORD

subprograms. In one case—monitoring techniques and equipment development—planning authority is shared by two offices. Each

office also has implementation responsibilities

for individual subprograms. Implementation

responsibility is frequently shared by two or

more offices.

The Office of Health and Ecological Effects

has planning responsibility for two

subprograms: health effects and ecological

processes and effects.
The Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry plans the research and development effort

for four subprograms: mineral, processing,

and manufacturing; health and ecological

effects/energy; extraction and processing technology/energy; and conservation, utilization,

and technology assessments/energy. Two

subprograms are planned by the Office of

Monitoring and Technical Support: quality

assurance and technical support. The

monitoring techniques and equipment

development subprogram is planned by the

Office of Monitoring and Technical Support

and the Office of Air, Land, and Water Use.

The latter Office has five additional

Statutory and Administrative Background

subprograms for which it has planning

responsibility: transport and fate of pollutants, renewable resources, waste management, water supply, and environmental

management.

Each subprogram established by ORD has

been created as a result of Federal legislation.

Some programs are formulated on the basis of

a single law, while others have many legal

references. The matrix displayed in figure 4,

which lists ORD program areas, subprogram

areas, and program elements, charts the relationship between environmental legislation

and each activity.

113
Glossary of Terms
Glossary of Terms

Abate—(abatement) (1) to put an end to, (2) to

reduce in degree in intensity or to reduce in

value or amount.

Acid Rainfall—Rainfall that is increasingly

more acid, and thus more toxic to the environment, under conditions of increasing

air pollution. Rainfall in the eastern United

States has become 32 times more acid than

it was in the 1950’s,

Activated Sludge Plants—Wastewater treatment facilities in which the wastewater

passes through an aerated tank containing a

suspension of aerobic bacteria which feeds

on the nutrients in the wastewater.

Agronomy—A branch of agriculture dealing

with field crop production and soil

management.

Ambient-General condition all around a

given point.

Amine—(1) any of various basic compounds

derived from ammonia by replacement of

hydrogen by one or more univalent hydrocarbon radicals, (2) a compound containing one or more halogen atoms attached

to nitrogen.

Best Management Practice (BMP)—Alternatives designed to reduce or prevent runoff

of pollution discharges or emissions that

adversely affect air, land, or water, including cost-effective determinations and

evaluation of social and economic impacts.

Bioassay—A particular technique for testing a

substance against a living tissue for toxic,

mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic

agents.

Biodegradable —Capable of being broken

down into innocuous products by the action of living beings (micro-organisms).

Biomass—The amount of living matter (as in a

unit area or volume of habitat),

BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand; biological oxygen demand.

Brines—(d) water saturated or strongly impregnated with common salt, (b) strong

saline solution (as of calcium chloride),

“BROX” System —System which treats

organically contaminated brines generated

in glycol production.

Carcinogen— A substance or agent which produces or incites cancer.

Catalyst—A substance (as an enzyme) that initiates a chemical reaction and enables it to

proceed under milder conditions (for example, at a lower temperature) than otherwise

possible.

Chemosterilant—A substance that produces

sterility (as of an insect) without marked

alteration of mating habits of life expectancy.

CHESS (Community Health Effects Surveillance Studies) — EPA’s CHESS study

found that sulfate concentrations in California and in States east of the Mississippi are

in the 7– 1 3

μ m

/ m 3 range (μ m —

micromoles) and that Northeastern States

have concentrations over 13 μ m

/ m3. This

means that within the eastern half of the

continental United States, levels of sulfates

were higher at urban sampling sites than at

nonurban sites. This study gives significant

evidence of the adverse effects of atmospheric sulfates. From such studies there

may be enough evidence to show a

cause/effect relationship between ambient

sulfur oxides and pulmonary diseases, such

as emphysema.

Climatology—The science that deals with climates and their phenomena.

Closed-Cycle Technology—Processes

designed to prevent all pollutants from

escaping into the environment.

117
Glossary of Terms

Combined Sources Research—The development of technology to treat industrial

wastes from several plants in a region with

a single facility or in combination with

municipal waste management.

Compliance Monitoring—Monitoring which

is undertaken to gather specific evidence

from a point source or discharge for use in

possible litigation.

Control Technology—A combination of

hardware, operating procedures, or process

changes used to reduce the harmfulness of

gaseous, liquid, or solid effluents from a

pollution source; normally based on contaminant (1) removal and isolation, (2)

transformation chemically and/or

physically to a less harmful form, or (3) dispersion to prevent localized high levels.

Critera Pollutants—Pollutants for which an

ambient air quality standard has been set,

Currently standards have been set for six

pollutants, sulfur dioxide (S02

), carbon

monoxide (CO), total suspended particles

(TSP), hydrocarbons (HC), oxidants (OX)

and nitrogen oxide (NOX

). The expectation

is that approximately 25 more criteria

pollutants will be promulgated between

1976 and 1978.

Cytogenetics —A branch of biology that deals

with the study of heredity and variation by

the methods of both cytology (history of

cells) and genetics.

Ecological Criteria Development—Includes

laboratory studies (such as bioassays) to

establish tolerable pollutant levels. Work

performed under ecological criteria is performed in direct response to legislative

mandates to define numerical standards for

pollutants.

Ecological Processes and Effect s

Subprogram —This research subprogram

provides EPA with the knowledge and

theoretical structure on which to base environmental criteria, standards, and regulations.

Ecosystem— A living community and the

physical environment associated with it,

functioning as a unit in nature.

118

Effluent—The outflow from a pollution

source.

Energy Conservation, Utilization, and Technology Assessment Subprogram—This

subprogram focuses on identification,

characterization, assessment, and development of control technology for pollutants

associated with utility and industrial combustion sources.

Energy Extraction and Processing Technology Subprogram—The objective of this

subprogram is to permit a rapid increase in

extraction and processing of domestic

energy resources and to enable these energy

sources to be used effectively in an environmentally compatible manner.

Environmental Management Subprogram—

The objective of this subprogram is to provide regional environmental planners and

managers with methods to determine feasible alternative solutions to specific environmental problems and to provide techniques

for selecting lowest cost solutions.

Epidemiology—(1) a branch of medical

science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a

population; (2) the sum of factors controlling the presence or absence of a disease or

pathogen.

Estuary—A water passage where the tide

meets a river current, especially an arm of

the sea at the lower end of a river.

Eutrophic—Well nourished—rich in dissolved nutrients (as phosphates) but often

shallow and seasonally deficient in oxygen.

Fate—The final destination for a substance

which has traveled through the biosystem.

F1oc—A loose, fluffy mass formed by the aggregation of a number of fine particles suspended in a liquid medium, usually water.

Flocculate—To cause to aggregate into a fluoculent (loose, fluffy organization) mass.

Flue-Gas Desulfurization (FGD)—Process by

which flue gas from coal-fired utility and

industrial boilers is cleaned by passage over

or through a bed of chemically active
minerals, such as lime or limestone. This

process is one of the few coal pollution control techniques available in the 1970’s

which meets Clean Air Act requirements.

Fluidized-Bed Combustion (FBC)—Technique

for burning coal on a suspended bed of

mineral matter.

Freon—Generic term, originally a trade name,

used for any of various nonflammable

fluorinated hydrocarbons used a s

refrigerants and/or propellants for aerosols.

Geothermal-Of or relating to the heat of the

earth’s interior.

Glycol—Ethylene glycol—an alcohol containing two hydroxyl groups.

Groundwater—Water within the earth that

supplies wells and springs.

Halogen—Any of five elements—fluorine,

chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine—

That form part of group VII A of the

periodic table and exist in the free state normally as diatomic molecules.

Hazardous Air Pollutant—An air pollutant to

which no ambient air quality standard is

applicable and which in the judgment of the

EPA Administrator may cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating illness.

Health and Ecological Effects Program—This

program is fundamental to EPA’s responsibility to set criteria standards and

guidelines to enhance environmental

quality. It provides information for the

establishment of water quality criteria, air

quality criteria, ocean disposal criteria,

pesticide registration guidelines, effluent

standards for toxic and hazardous

materials, and radiation standards.

Health and Ecological Effects/Energy

Subprogram—This subprogram identifies

all adverse environmental aspects (essential

for criteria development and control technology requirements) associated with

energy extraction, conversion and use.

Glossary of Terms

Integrated Assessment Subprogram (part of

the Energy/Environmental Program) —This

subprogram’s objectives are to integrate the

complex, environmental, social, and

economic issues of various technologies

under alternative environmental management systems.

Intermittent Controls-Controls which are

used at intervals, that is, put into use when

pollution is heavy, then later turned off or

discontinued.

Lichen—Any of numerous comple x

thallophytic plants made up of an algae and

‘a fungus growing in symbiotic association

on a solid surface (as a rock).

Malathion —A thiophosphate insecticide

C10H19O6PS 2 with a lower mammalian toxicity than parathion.

Marginal Land—Land that is barely productive agriculturally due to its nonproductive

capacity or its limited water supply. Attempts made to use such “marginal land”

often result in accelerated land erosion,

resource degradation, and the impairment

of wildlife habitat and aquatic environments.

Materials Processing Research—Thi s

research covers many industrial activities

that mechanically or chemically change a

material from one form to another (e.g.,

metalworking or electroplating).

Materials Production Research—Thi s

research includes problems of industries

concerned with exploration for and production of raw materials such as iron,

aluminum, and limestone.

Measurement Techniques and Equipment

Development Subprogram—Thi s

subprogram involves development, evaluation, and demonstration of field and

laboratory measurement and monitoring

methods and instrumentation.

Microcosm—A community or other unity

that is a typical or ideal example of a larger

unit y.

119
—

Glossary of Terms

Minerals Processing and Manufacturing Industries Subprogram—This subprogram

considers point sources of water, air, and

residue pollution produced by industry.

Minority Institutions Research Support

(MIRS)—An EPA program conducted to

direct research grants to minority institutions in the area of environmental research.

Mobile Source Pollutants—Pollutants resulting from a source that moves (i.e.,

automobile emissions).

Monitoring and Technical Support

Program—This program includes research,

development, and demonstration activities

and direct assistance and support to all of

EPA. Program includes three subprograms:

Measurement Techniques and Equipment

Development, Quality Assurance, and

Technical Support.

Mutagenesis—The occurrence or induction of

a relatively permanent change in hereditary

material involving either a physical change

in chromosome relations or a biochemical

change in the codons (a triplet of

nucleotides that is part of the genetic code

and that specifies a particular amino acid in

a protein or starts or stops protein synthesis) that make up genes.

Noncriteria Pollutant—Hazardous pollutant

(such as mercury, fluorides, vinyl chloride,

etc.) for which no ambient air quality standard has been established. Insufficient health

effects data have been developed to

establish a “safe” exposure level for these

pollutants.

Nonpoint Source Pollutants—Pollutants arising from certain management practices in

the area of renewable resources, such as application of fertilizers or pesticides to productive land.

NOx

. Control Technology—This research and

development seeks to identify, assess, and

promote development of cost-effective commercial methods for control of oxides of

nitrogen (NOx

) from both existing and new

stationary combustion sources.

120

OSWMP (Office of Solid Waste Management

Programs)—This Office was established by

EPA to deal with the national solid waste

problem.

Outfall—The outlet of a body of water; the

mouth of a drain or sewer.

Ozone—A triatomic form of oxygen formed

naturally in the upper atmosphere by a

photo chemical reaction with solar

ultraviolet radiation. It is also generated

commercially by an electric discharge in ordinary oxygen or air. It is a major agent in

the formation of smogs and is used

especially in disinfection and deodorizatiort

and in oxidation and bleaching. Its natural

role in the upper atmosphere is to shield the

earth from excess ultraviolet radiation.

Pathogen—A specific disease-causing agent

such as a bacterium or virus.

Pesticide Registration—The EPA process by

which a pesticide is approved for use.

Petrochemical —A chemical isolated or

derived from petroleum or natural gas.

Pheromone —A chemical substance that is

produced by an animal and serves as a

stimulus to other individuals of the same

species for one or more behaviora l

responses.

Physical and Chemical Coal Cleaning—This

process involves methods to physically or

chemically remove sulfur from coal having

a moderate sulfur content (1–2% ). This

allows coal to be burned in conformity with

Clean Air Act standards.

Pollutant-of-the-Month Syndrome-Crisis

atmosphere produced by a continuing

series of revelations which show new substances to be harmful.

Primary Air Quality Standards—Primary

standards are defined as “allowing an adequate margin of safety” in protecting the

public health.

Public-Sector Program—This program includes three research subprograms: Waste

Management, Water Supply, and Environmental Management.
Glossary of Terms

Pyrolysis—Breaking up of large organic

molecules brought about by the action of

heat.

Quality Assurance Subprogram--Thi s

subprogram focuses on standardizing

measurement methods, providing standard

reference materials and samples, developing quality-control guidelines and manuals,

on-site evaluation of analytical laboratories,

etc.

Regenerable—Substances which can be

reconstituted and used again.

Renewable Resources Subprogram—This

subprogram includes food, fiber, and wood

production and related activities ranging

from agricultural production through har -

vesting.

Retrofit—To furnish with new parts or equipment not available or installed at the time of

manufacture.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)—The EPA

Administrator may conduct research,

studies, and demonstrations relating to the

causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and

pretension of physical and mental diseases

and other impairments of man resulting

directly or indirectly from contaminants in

water, or to the provision of a dependably

safe supply of drinking water.

Saline—Consisting of or containing salt.

Salmonid—Genus name (Salmonidae) of any

of a family of elongate soft-finned fishes (as

a salmon or trout) that have the last vertebrae upturned.

Science Advisory Board (SAB)—Board

established to provide a strong, direct link

between EPA’s Administrator and the

scientific community.

Scrubber—A large-scale and relatively expensive device for accomplishing flue-gas

desulfurization (see FGD definition). In addition, some scrubbers accomplish partial

removal of NOx particles.

Second-Generation Flue-Gas Desulfurization Process—Any of several processes

which yield usable sulfur compounds as a

byproduct and/or permit reuse of the

chemicals required in the desulfurization

process.

Secondary—A backup system or program.

Secondary Air Quality Standards—These

standards protect the public “from any

known or anticipated adverse effects” (i.e.,

not necessarily health effects).

Secondary Treatment Plants—Examples of

these plants are: wastewater lagoons, trickling filters, or activated sludge plants. These

plants alleviate the need for installation of

entirely new treatment systems.

Silviculture—A branch of forestry dealing

with the development and care of forests,

Sludge—(l) a muddy deposit (as on a river

bed); (2) a muddy or slushy mass, deposit,

or sediment: as a precipitated solid matter

produced by water and sewage treatment

process or muddy sediment in a steam

boiler.

Small Particle Control Technology-Control

technology to reduce fine particle emissions

(less than 3 microns in diameter).

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)—This act

directs the EPA Administrator to conduct

and cooperate research efforts relating to

any adverse health and welfare effects of

the release into the environment of

materials present in solid waste, and

methods to eliminate such effects; the

operation and financing of solid waste disposal programs; the reduction of the

amount of such waste and unsalvageable

materials; the development and application

of new and improved methods of collecting

and disposing of solid waste, and processing and recovering materials and energ y

from solid wastes .

St. Louis Regional Air Pollution Study—

ORD study to develop and validate

regional-scale models for criteria air pollutants.

Standard of Performance—A standard for

emission of air pollutants which reflects the

degree of emission limitation achievable

through the application of the best system
Glossary of Terms

of emission reduction which (taking into

account the cost of achieving such reduction) the EPA Administrator determines

has been adequately demonstrated.

Stationary Source Pollutants—Pollutants

caused by sources which do not move (i.e.,

factories and powerplants).

SEAS (Strategic Environmental Assessment

System)—An operational tool for environmental forecasting and policy analysis. EPA

planned to have SEAS support an impact

assessment of energy, environment, and

recovery tradeoffs and alternatives, but it is

now undergoing reevaluation.

Synergism—A cooperative action of discrete

agencies (such as chemicals or muscles) so

that the total effect is greater than the sum

of two or more effects taken independently.

Tertiary—A system which follows both a

main and secondary effort.

Teratology —The study of malformations,

monstrosities, or serious derivations from

the normal type in organisms.

Toxicology —A science that deals with

poisons and their effect and the problems

involved (as clinical, industrial, or legal).

Toxic Substance—Chemicals considered

dangerous to health and the environment

(e.g., phenols).

Trace Metals—Possibly toxic metals that

move through the environment and

humans in very small quantities.

Transport—Movement of a substance

through the ecosystem.

Transport and Fate of Pollutant s

Subprogram—This subprogram is responsible for the development of empirical and

analytical techniques that relate air and

water pollution source emissions and discharges to ambient exposures.

Triazine —Any of three compounds

C3H3N3

--containing a ring composed of

three nitrogen atoms; also: any of various

derivatives of these including several used

as herbicides.

Trickling Filters —Wastewater treatment

equipment in which wastewater is sprayed

on and trickles down through an aerated

bed of rocks, the surfaces of which are

coated with bacterial populations which

feed on the nutrients in the wastewater.

Tritium—A radioactive isotope of hydrogen

of mass three times the mass of ordinary

light hydrogen.

Trophic-Of, relating to, or characterized by

nutrition.

Trophic Level-One of the hierarchal strata

of a food web characterized by organisms

which are the same number of steps

removed from the primary producers.

Ureas—A soluble basic nitrogenous compound (CO(N H2

) 2) that is the chief solid

component of mammalian urine and an end

product of protein decomposition, is synthesized from carbon dioxide and ammonia, and is used especially in synthesis

(as of resins and plastics) and in fertilizers

and animal rations.

Waste Management Subprogram—Thi s

subprogram focuses on prevention, control,

treatment, and management of pollution

produced by community, residential, or

other nonindustrial activities. Research

concerns municipal and domesti c

waste water and collection/transport

systems, urban land surface runoff,

municipal solid wastes, and associated air

pollutants.

Wastewater Lagoons—Shallow earthen

ponds, usually lined, in which liquid wastes

are stored for an extended period to promote natural setting of suspended solids

and decomposition of organic compounds

in the stored fluid.

Watershed—(1) water parting, (2) a region or

area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular

watercourse or body of water, (3) a crucial

dividing point or line.

Water Supply Subprogram —Thi s

subprogram focuses on three areas of concentration: health effects, water treatment,

and systems management and groundwater management.