Environmental Hazards

Natural phenomena Human Activities Controlling environmental hazards: goal of reducing risk

to human life and health Is zero risk attainable?

Five Major Areas of Environmental Concern Re. Health

Waste management Air pollution

• Outdoor air

• Indoor air

Water pollution Radiation

WASTES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Wastes and Environmental Hazards

Four contributing factors• Urbanization• Industrialization• Population growth• Introduction of disposable products and

containers

Solid Waste and Its Management

Solid waste as part of modern life Four major sources

• Agricultural• Mining• Industry 5%• Municipalities/Domestic Sources 5%

Together, about 90-91%

Solid Waste Management

Aimed primarily at municipal and industrial wastes

Formation of Environmental Protection Agengy (1970)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975 (RCRA)

Integrated waste management approach Approx. 80% of money spent on municipal waste

management spend on collection process

Disposal of Solid Wastes Sanitary Landfills Incineration Resource Recovery (Recycling) Source Reduction Waste Management in Pennsylvania (1996)

• Act 101 requires all counties to have detailed plans for managing their own wastes; currently, all have municipally ratified, state-approved plans

• At beginning of 1996, Pennsylvania had 51 permitted municipal waste landfills and 7 waste-to-energy facilities, with a combined capacity for 10-13 years

Hazardous Waste Management

Definition of hazardous waste Prior to RCRA, hazardous waste was generally

disposed of in a dump or landfill, along with other solid wastes

Four characteristics making a waste hazardous:• Ignitability• Corrosiveness• Reactivity• Toxicity

Dual problems faced today:• Appropriately disposing of new hazardous waste

• Correcting mishandling errors of the past

Five Approaches to Hazardous Waste Management• Secured Landfill• Deep Well Injection• Incineration• Recycling• Source Reduction

Hazardous Waste Cleanup

Federal government as primary participant 1980 -- Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) -- the “Superfund”

1985 -- Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA)

Progress as of 1999• 1,204 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites on NPL

• 585 sites has reached the construction completion stage

WATER POLLUTION

Sources of Water Pollution

• Point Source Pollution

• Non-point Source Pollution

Types of Water Pollution

• Biological pollutants

• Toxic pollutants

• Other/Miscellaneous pollutants

Strategies to Insure Safe Water

• Clean Water Act (1972)

• Focus of EPA regulations

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974)

• Waste water treatment -- municipal/governmental

• Septic systems

• Conservation

AIR POLLUTION

Outdoor Air Pollution

Most Prevalent Sources• Transportation• Electric power plans• Industry, primarily mills and refineries

Criteria pollutants -- most pervasive air pollutants Pollutant Standard Index (PSI) Special Concerns with Outdoor Air

• Acid rain• Smog• Reduction of the ozone layer• Global warning (controversial)

Regulation of Outdoor Air• Clean Air Act (1963) -- plus subsequent amendments

• 1970 Amendments

• 1990 Amendments

Indoor Air Pollution

Numerous sources resulting from human actions Aeroallegens Radon Protection of Indoor Air

• Modification of individuals’ behavior• Legislation

RADIATION

• Naturally Occurring Radiation

• Human-made Radiation

• Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982)

> Development of site capable of safely receiving high-level nuclear wastes

> Ensure that low-level wastes (from medicine, universities, and research labs) are also handled properly

• Currently, no public waste facility exists in the U.S. capable of handling high- level wastes

> NWPA provision for a planned facility in Yucca Mountain, NV, but controversy has slowed its development

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL

LEGISLATION/POLICIES

Political systems respond to the public demands of the moment. In environmental health, this has resulted in a pattern of legislative and policy developments dictated by problems or crises seen as particularly important at different points in time

The early 1970s was a critical turning point in expanding government’s role in environmental regulation, shifting authority from local town halls to state capitals and to Washington, DC

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 and given responsibility for all environmental media (air, water, land) and most of the major pollution control programs. However, the federal departments of Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Defense (and, later, Energy) retained considerable control over specific environmental agency regulatory functions

After EPA’s formation, many states consolidated environmental regulatory responsibilities into new agencies -- little “EPAs” modeled on the national agency• One result was that state health departments ceased to be the

dominant environmental regulatory agency in the majority of states

• Another result was the various state agencies retained some degree of environmental control often at cross-purposes with the state environmental agency

The federal EPA (and its state counterparts) became an amalgamation of programs and divisions, rather than a carefully integrated agency

In sum, environmental regulation at the national level is fragmented along media lines -- partly in response to the variety of influences in the executive branch that have some role in environmental policy

Federal legislation also illustrates the fragmentation of environmental laws -- e.,g., some 25 separate federal laws address some aspect of toxic substances control and hazardous waste management; 8 separate laws give EPA authority in toxic substance control

At the state level, permits are a basic tool of environmental management in all states --i.e., proposed development projects cannot begin until issued a formal permit

Often, multiple permits must be acquired -- e.g., air and water pollution, protection of wetlands, wildlife protection

No two states have devised identical regulatory systems, despite federal pressures and monetary incentives to do so

Federal-state relations in environmental regulatory programs can be characterized in three patterns:• Federal role as extremely deferential to state

government preferences -- “cooperative federalism” -- with federal attempts to stimulate action through funding incentives

• Federal role as dominant -- “national federalism” -- including auto emission policies and the Superfund

• Balance of federal and state levels -- with federal role of forcing state action and providing regulatory control in the absence of state action, but typically a delegation of authority to state agencies with funding to ease state costs of implementation