PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Environmental Protection”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Asbestos worker protection. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Final rule.

In this Final Rule, EPA is amending both the Asbestos Worker Protection Rule (WPR) and the Asbestos-in-Schools Rule. The WPR amendment protects State and local government employees from the health risks of exposure to asbestos to the same extent as private sector workers by adopting for these employees the Asbestos Standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The WPR's coverage is extended to State and local government employees who are performing construction work, custodial work, and automotive brake and clutch repair work. This final rule cross-references the OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and for General Industry, so that future amendments to these OSHA standards are directly and equally effective for employees covered by the WPR. EPA also amends the Asbestos-in-Schools Rule to provide coverage under the WPR for employees of public local education agencies who perform operations, maintenance, and repair activities. EPA is issuing this final rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Asbestos↗
PubMed2002

Environmental economics for environmental protection.

Environmental economics deals with the optimal allocation of production factors and correcting market failure in protecting the environment. Market failure occurs because of externalities, common property resources, and public goods. Environmental policy instruments include direct regulation, taxes/subsidies, tradable permits, deposit systems, voluntary agreements, and persuasion. Environmental policies usually focus on one pollutant or environmental issue but may have substantial impacts on other emissions and environmental problems. Neglecting these impacts will result in suboptimal policies. We present an integrated optimisation model for determining cost-effective strategies to simultaneously reduce emissions of several pollutants from several sources, allowing for interrelations between sources and abatement options. Our integrated approach in regard to acidifying compounds and greenhouse gases will be able to provide cost-effective policy options that will result in lower overall abatement costs. This paper shows that efficient emission reduction can be calculated, but we argue that, for transboundary air pollution and climate change, it is difficult to implement the socially optimal solution because strong incentives exist for "free-riding". In order to implement efficient policies, international environmental agreements like the Gothenburg or the Kyoto Protocol are necessary to establish stable coalitions. The stability of these agreements depends on the distribution of costs and benefits over countries and on the redistribution of the gains of cooperation.

Air Pollutants↗
PubMed1996

Formulating an Ecosystem Approach to Environmental Protection

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embraced a new strategy of environmental protection that is place-driven rather than program-driven. This new approach focuses on the protection of entire ecosystems. To develop an effective strategy of ecosystem protection, however, EPA will need to: (1) determine how to define and delineate ecosystems and (2) categorize threats to individual ecosystems and priority rank ecosystems at risk. Current definitions of ecosystem in use at EPA are inadequate for meaningful use in a management or regulatory context. A landscape-based definition that describes an ecosystem as a volumetric unit delineated by climatic and landscape features is suggested. Following this definition, ecosystems are organized hierarchically, from megaecosystems, which exist on a continental scale (e.g., Great Lakes), to small local ecosystems.Threats to ecosystems can generally be categorized as: (1) ecosystem degradation (occurs mainly through pollution) (2) ecosystem alteration (physical changes such as water diversion), and (3) ecosystem removal (e.g., conversion of wetlands or forest to urban or agricultural lands). Level of threat (i.e., how imminent), and distance from desired future condition are also important in evaluating threats to ecosystems. Category of threat, level of threat, and "distance" from desired future condition can be combined into a three-dimensional ranking system for ecosystems at risk. The purpose of the proposed ranking system is to suggest a preliminary framework for agencies such as EPA to prioritize responses to ecosystems at risk.KEY WORDS: Ecosystem approach; Ecological risk assessment; Environmental protection; EPA

Journal Article↗
PubMed2002

Is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brownfields assessment pilot program environmentally just?

In the early 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) started a grant program to assist communities redevelop brownfields, which are abandoned or underutilized sites that have real or perceived contamination. In addition to determining if the communities receiving the grants were the most distressed cities in the United States, we also evaluate the U.S. EPA program in terms of environmental justice at the macro scale. Using 1990 U.S. Census of Housing and Population data and a matched-cities methodology, we compared the brownfields pilot cities to other communities in the United States. We found that regardless of intent, the U.S. EPA program is environmentally just by disproportionately awarding grants to the most economically distressed cities. We also found that the cities that received funding in the early years of the program were more economically distressed than cities receiving the funding more recently.

Cities↗
PubMed1992

Regulatory concerns of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The US Environmental Protection Agency, under 2 of its legislative mandates, has the authority to require the testing of industrial and pesticide chemicals. Among the testing requirements, particularly in chronic studies, are those relating to hematology, clinical chemistry, and urinalysis. Some of these requirements will be discussed in detail. Comments on the usefulness of the current requirements and recommendations for changes will be solicited from the meeting participants.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Tolerance setting process in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting tolerances for pesticide residues in food, under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The residue chemistry data required to set tolerances include metabolism in plants and animals, analytical methods, magnitude of the residue, and concentration in processed foods. A key aspect of tolerance-setting procedures is the identity of the residue in the matrix of concern; without knowledge of the chemical moieties that occur as residues, it is impossible to develop suitable methods or generate meaningful residue data. For new chemicals, EPA carries out a single-laboratory validation of the analytical method needed to generate residue data and to enforce tolerances. Tolerance enforcement methods need to be rapid and inexpensive and to use commercially available equipment and reagents. Methods are more complex for many newer pesticides, which are polar compounds that leave low levels of residue. EPA now requires that the registrants of older pesticides, for which methods are not acceptable by today's standards, must develop better methods.

Animal Feed↗
PubMed1992

Assessing the health risks of priority substances under the Canadian environmental protection act.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) came into force in June 1988. This legislation provides the federal government with broad powers to deal with health and environmental problems posed by chemicals and the products of biotechnology throughout their life cycle. Responsibility for administering CEPA is shared between the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Part II of the Act, the "toxic substances" provisions, enables the federal government to impose controls on substances new to Canadian commerce and to address the health and environmental risks posed by existing substances. Part II of CEPA also delineates the manner in which existing substances are to be selected for assessment (priority substances) and controlled. The first Priority Substances List was published in February 1989. The 44 entries on this list include discrete chemicals, classes of chemicals, and complex mixtures of chemicals; the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare must ascertain whether these substances pose a risk (are "toxic" as defined in CEPA) to the environment or to human health by February 1994. This paper outlines the administrative arrangements for conducting risk assessments and the requirements for ascertaining whether a substance is "toxic" with respect to human health under CEPA. The rationale for deeming dioxins and furans, the first two priority substances to be assessed, as "toxic" with respect to human health is also described.

Canada↗
PubMed1995

Approach to health risk determination for metals and their compounds under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) authorizes the Ministers of the Environment and of Health in Canada to investigate a wide variety of substances that may contaminate the environment and cause adverse effects on the environment and/or on human health. Under the Act, assessments have been completed for 44 environmental contaminants on the first Priority Substances List, including four metals and their compounds. The principles developed for the assessment of risk to human health for priority substances under CEPA are outlined, with specific emphasis on the metals. These include general aspects such as estimation of total exposure from all media, the development of exposure potency indices for carcinogens in lieu of low-dose risk estimates, and incorporation of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data, where available, to modify traditionally adopted uncertainty factors for development of tolerable intakes, or concentrations, for nonneoplastic effects. Aspects of the approach to human health risk assessment more specific to the metals considered under CEPA (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel) and implications for the subsequent strategic options process are also addressed, including the extent to which various chemical forms could be assessed (i.e., speciation) and essentiality.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1982

Hazardous waste management system: standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste and standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities--Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed rule.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today proposing amendments to its hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These amendments would replace the annual reporting requirements for hazardous waste generators and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, ad disposal (TSD) facilities with a biennial survey of representative samples of those populations. This approach will provide verifiable data on a wider range of topics, better serve EPA's long term regulatory needs under RCRA, and reduce significantly the information burden on the regulated community.

Refuse Disposal↗
PubMed2003

Worker and environmental protection issues in the remediation of an abandoned source manufacturing facility.

The Gulf Nuclear Superfund Site located in Odessa, Texas, was an abandoned radioactive source production facility slated for cleanup as a Removal Action under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI Superfund program. Prior to cessation of operations and abandonment of the facility in 1992, it was used for the production of radioactive sources used in the oil and gas industry and nuclear medicine applications. Pangea Group was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District to perform remediation of the site and other contaminated debris, cleaning of interior building surfaces, building demolition, and excavation/removal of contaminated soils and septic system. The project scope also included loading, containerization and transportation of low-level radioactive wastes for offsite disposal. Primary radionuclides present at the facility were 137Cs, 60Co, and 241Am. The project also included packaging and removal of radioactive sources and mixed waste consisting of radiologically contaminated lead shot and lead source containers. Included in the paper is a discussion of primary worker protection and environmental protection measures employed on the project. Worker protection issues included the control of industrial and construction safety hazards as well as control of external and internal radiation dose. Control of air emissions and contaminated wastewater were also very important, especially due to the location of the site. The site was located in an area containing both residential and commercial properties. Several residences and businesses were located immediately adjacent to the site. The project involved the participation of the USACE Kansas City District, EPA Region 6, and the Texas Bureau of Radiological Health. Field work on the project started in April 2001 and was completed approximately five months later.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Assessment of potential risk levels associated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference values.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) generally uses reference doses (RfDs) or reference concentrations (RfCs) to assess risks from exposure to toxic substances for noncancer health end points. RfDs and RfCs are supposed to represent lifetime inhalation or ingestion exposure with minimal appreciable risk, but they do not include information about the estimated risk from exposures equal to the RfD/RfC. We used results from benchmark dose modeling approaches recently adopted for use in developing RfDs/RfCs to estimate the risk levels associated with exposures at the RfD/RfC. We searched the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and identified 11 chemicals with oral RfDs and 12 chemicals with inhalation RfCs that used benchmark dose modeling. For assessments with sufficient model information, we found that 16 of 21 (76%) of the dose-response models were linear or supralinear. We estimated the risk from exposures at the established RfDs and RfCs for these chemicals using a linear dose-response curve to characterize risk below the observed data. Risk estimates ranged from 1 in 10,000 to 5 in 1,000 for exposures at the RfDs, and from 1 in 10,000 to 3 in 1,000 for exposures at the RfCs. Risk estimates for exposures at the RfD/RfC values derived from sublinear dose-response curves ranged from 3 in 1,000,000,000 to 8 in 10,000. Twenty-four percent of reference values corresponded to estimated risk levels greater than 1 in 1,000; 10 of 14 assessments had points of departure greater than the no-observed-adverse-effect levels. For policy development regarding management of cancer risks, the U.S. EPA often uses 1 in 1,000,000 as a de minimis risk level. Although noncancer outcomes may in some instances be reversible and considered less severe than cancer, our findings call into question the assumption that established RfD and RfC values represent negligibly small risk levels.

Benchmarking↗
PubMed1999

PROFILE: Environmental Impact Assessment Under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

/ Antarctica has been set aside by the international community for protection as a natural reserve and a place for scientific research. Through the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, the signing nations agreed to cooperate in protecting the antarctic environment, in conducting scientific studies, and in abstaining from the exercise of territorial claims. The 1991 signing of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Protocol) by representatives of the 26 nations comprising the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (Parties) significantly strengthened environmental protection measures for the continent. The Protocol required ratification by each of the governments individually prior to official implementation. The US government ratified the Protocol by passage of the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1997. Japan completed the process by ratifying the Protocol on December 15, 1997. US government actions undertaken in Antarctica are subject to the requirements of both the Protocol and the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There are differences in the scope and intent of the Protocol and NEPA; however, both require environmental impact assessment (EIA) as part of the planning process for proposed actions that have the potential for environmental impacts. In this paper we describe the two instruments and highlight key similarities and differences with particular attention to EIA. Through this comparison of the EIA requirements of NEPA and the Protocol, we show how the requirements of each can be used in concert to provide enhanced environmental protection for the antarctic environment. NEPA applies only to actions of the US government; therefore, because NEPA includes certain desirable attributes that have been refined and clarified through numerous court cases, and because the Protocol is just entering implementation internationally, some recommendations are made for strengthening the procedural requirements of the Protocol for activities undertaken by all Parties in Antarctica. The Protocol gives clear and strong guidance for protection of specific, valued antarctic environmental resources including intrinsic wilderness and aesthetic values, and the value of Antarctica as an area for scientific research. That guidance requires a higher standard of environmental protection for Antarctica than is required in other parts of the world. This paper shows that taken together NEPA and the Protocol call for closer examination of proposed actions and a more rigorous consideration of environmental impacts than either would alone. Three areas are identified where the EIA provisions of the Protocol could be strengthened to improve its effectiveness. First, the thresholds defined by the Protocol need to be clarified. Specifically, the meanings of the terms "minor" and "transitory" are not clear in the context of the Protocol. The use of "or" in the phrase "minor or transitory" further confuses the meaning. Second, cumulative impact assessment is called for by the Protocol but is not defined. A clear definition could reduce the chance that cumulative impacts would be given inadequate consideration. Finally, the public has limited opportunities to comment on or influence the preparation of initial or comprehensive environmental evaluations. Experience has shown that public input to environmental documents has a considerable influence on agency decision making and the quality of EIA that agencies perform.KEY WORDS: Environment; Impact assessment; Antarctica; NEPA; Protocol; Antarctic Treatyhttp://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00267/bibs/24n1p13.html

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Worker and Environmental Protection Issues in the Remediation Of an Abandoned Source Manufacturing Facility.

The Gulf Nuclear Superfund Site located in Odessa, Texas, was an abandoned radioactive source production facility slated for cleanup as a Removal Action under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI Superfund program. Prior to cessation of operations and abandonment of the facility in 1992, it was used for the production of radioactive sources used in the oil and gas industry and nuclear medicine applications. Pangea Group was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District to perform remediation of the site and other contaminated debris, cleaning of interior building surfaces, building demolition, and excavation/removal of contaminated soils and septic system. The project scope also included loading, containerization and transportation of low-level radioactive wastes for offsite disposal. Primary radionuclides present at the facility were Cs, Co, and Am. The project also included packaging and removal of radioactive sources and mixed waste consisting of radiologically contaminated lead shot and lead source containers. Included in the paper is a discussion of primary worker protection and environmental protection measures employed on the project. Worker protection issues included the control of industrial and construction safety hazards as well as control of external and internal radiation dose. Control of air emissions and contaminated wastewater were also very important, especially due to the location of the site. The site was located in an area containing both residential and commercial properties. Several residences and businesses were located immediately adjacent to the site. The project involved the participation of the USACE Kansas City District, EPA Region 6, and the Texas Bureau of Radiological Health. Field work on the project started in April 2001 and was completed approximately five months later.

Journal Article↗