neha conference in las vegas hit the jackpot

NEHA Conference in Las Vegas Hit the Jackpot The National Environmental Health

Association's 1985 Annual Educational Conference held at the Riviera Hotel

in Las Vegas, Nevada was a high stakes winner- large attendance, top-notch educational program, sensational entertainment.

NEHA members and guests at the Las Vegas meeting took advantage of the opportunity to participate in technical sessions of excellent quality. The Riviera facility was ideally arranged for maximum participation and fulfillment of the purpose of professional education and updating. Though the fun and games were close at hand they did not detract from NEH A's dealing with the Environment and the Future- An Un- finished Agenda.

Members who have contacted NEHA headquarters since the conference have

all said it was the best conference they have attended with practically no glitches in its operation. Thanks for operating smoothness go to Nevada's Host Affiliate General Chairman, Howard Schwartzer, and his cadre of efficient and diligent workers. If ever anyone knew "how to get it done" they did.

Over 600 members and friends of NEHA attended the Wednesday evening awards presentation, dinner and entertainment spectacular. The new show, "SPLASH," was a part of that evening and one that attendees will not soon forget. It opened, complete with giant fish tank for underwater actors, while NEHA was in Las Vegas, and we were among the first to see it. The show was a positive finale to the week's ex- citing events.

Highlights of the NEHA Executive Committee Meeting

NEHA's Executive Committee

covered a 36 item agenda during its meeting on June 22. Highlights of the meeting include:

•Association membership dues can now be paid by credit card.

•Available to NEHA members this fall will be a unique "Environmental Health Trends Report" newsletter and new Self Paced Learning Modules on Hazardous Waste and Toxic Sub- stances.

•NEHA membership has grown by approximately 200 over the past year.

•NEHA members can now obtain

legal insurance through the Associa- tion.

•It was agreed that a new publication examining salaries for En- vironmental Health professionals should be developed with a target release date in the spring of 1986.

•The 1989 Annual Educational Con-

ference will be hosted by the Washing- ton State affiliate in Seattle.

•A modest penalty fee was adopted for people who fail to renew their

Registered Sanitarian credential by May 1, 1986.

•Support for pending legislation on Superfund was given.

•Contingent approval was given for a rent-a-car benefit for all NEHA members.

The NEHA Board of Directors met twice during the Annual Conference. Highlights of their meeting include:

•Adopting a Fiscal "tear 86 NEHA budget which features significant office automation advancements.

•The Nominating Election resulted in placing the names of Harry Grena- witzke of Michigan and Leon Vinci of Connecticut on the 1986 mail ballot as candidates for Second Vice President.

•The Board deferred until next year a decision to create a new Section within NEHA to deal specifically with Hazardous Wastes.

In addition, the Board heard and discussed numerous reports by the NEHA officers, section and council chairpersons and its student and industry affiliates.

RECOGNIZING

EXCELLENCE

The National Environmental Health

Association's Awards Program recognizes excellence among professionals in environmental health. The persons recognized at the Annual Awards Lunch- eon and the Annual Banquet have proved, and continue to show their excellence in technical areas, teaching, writing, and leadership. Save none, they are dedicated to their profession and to the National Environmental Health Association. They have made their presence felt across the country and around the world, in the field, in the classroom, in gatherings where environmental health decisions are made. NEHA is proud to offer the small re- wards of plaques and certificates, and small monetary sums, to these people who have indeed shown their passion for excellence.

Walter S. Mangold Award The National Environmental Health

Association's highest honor is the Walter S. Mangold Award, named after the pioneer professional, mentor, and professor who set the pace for environmental health education and professional excellence.

Dr. Trenton G. Davis is only the second Mangold Winner to appear on stage in a Las Vegas Casino. Las Vegas stardom is brief, but Mangold glory lives on.

70 Journal of Environmental Health Vol. 48, No. 2

Copyright 1985, National Environmental Health Association (www.neha.org)

The 1985 recipient, Trenton G. Davis, Dr. P.H., is special assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C., a recent appointment. Davis was chairman of the Department of Environ- mental Health at ECU from 1972 un-

til 1985, during which time he guided the program to full accreditation by the National Accreditation Council for En- vironmental Health Curricula. In 1981, a graduate program at ECU was ac- credited also.

Trenton Davis has contributed much

of his professional life to advancement of the professional in environmental health through active participation in the North Carolina Public Health As- sociation's Environmental Health Sec- tion and at several levels of NEH A. He was a NEHA regional vice president for three years beginning in 1975, was elected to the office of Second Vice President in 1979 and became President in 1982 when NEHA was going through its most troubled times. Trenton gave his leadership to the National Ac- creditation Council, served on the advisory committees of all national fed- erally funded projects to identify the environmental health professionals and their continuing education needs, and to provide self-paced learning for field professionals.

Dr. Davis was instrumental in the development and presentation of 14 workshops or seminars in North Caro- lina and neighboring states between 1976 and 1984, and is annually invited to conduct training sessions in South Carolina. He has been a participant in the Interstate Seminar, as well as other professional workshops.

Trenton accepted the responsibilities of Editorial Director of the Journal of Environmental Health in 1984 at the re-

quest of NEHA's Executive Commit- tee. He continues to serve the Environ- mental Health field practitioner by helping provide a relevant professional journal. Before assuming the role of educator, Trenton worked as a Sanitar- ian with the Greene County Health De- partment, Greenville, Tennessee. He earned a bachelor's degree from East Tennessee State University, a Master of Public Health from Tulane and a Doc- torate in Public Health from the Uni- versity of Oklahoma.

Journal Editorial Award

Annually, if merited, the Journal presents the A. Harry Bliss Editorial Award to a person who has done an outstanding job as a peer reviewer, who has helped obtain manuscripts for peer review, or has contributed substantial- ly to editorial content. The 1985 recipient, John B. Conway, Ph.D., of the Graduate School of Public Health at San Diego State University, was recognized for outstanding service as a reviewer and author. John does more than his share of reviews and never says he's too busy. In fact, he says, "keep them coming!' In 1984, Dr. A. Harry

Bliss, who was associated with the Journal for 40 years before bowing out in 1977, began the practice of giving $100 to the recipient of the A. Harry Bliss Editorial Award. Dr. Bliss was

present at the Awards luncheon to assist Dr. Trenton Davis in this award

ceremony. Others recognized during the ceremony included all peer reviewers at the luncheon, past Editorial Director, Dr. William Walter, and Editor-in-Chief, Ida Marshall. Through the peer review process, Jour- nal content is verified and improved. It is important to the stature of the publication.

Dr. John Conway, standing center, is the proud recipient of the Journal's A. Harry Bliss Editorial Award presented by Dr. Trenton G. Davis, editorial director. Dr. Bliss, right, made a monetary award. President Richard Rowe, seated.

Certificates of Merit

Annually, each affiliate of NEHA is entitled to name its Outstanding Envi- ronmental Health professional to receive a Certificate of Merit at the Awards Luncheon at the Annual Edu- cational Conference. Certificate of Merit recipients at the June 25, 1985 presentation are:

Butler Green, Alabama

Windell B. Phillips, California

Wayne E. Wood, Connecticut James W. Bloom, Illinois Norris Lehman, Indiana James J. Balsamo, Jr., Louisiana Paul Martin, Industry Affiliate Steven Calichman, Massachusetts

Roger Stroh, Michigan Dr. Joseph E. Edmondson, Missouri Howard Schwartzer, Nevada Darrel Bone, New Mexico

D.R. Baxley, North Carolina Tom Magato, Ohio James Bowman, National Capital Area Dennis Hill, National Capital Area Joel A. Swayngham, South Carolina Thomas L. Edmonson, Jr., Texas Captain Michael Parsons, Uniformed

Services

Reed S. Roberts, Utah

Linda Chapman, Washington Robert F. Schmitz, Wisconsin

September/October 1985 Journal of Environmental Health 71


Walter F. Snyder Award

Since 1971, the National Sanitation Foundation and National Environmen- tal Health Association have co- sponsored the Walter F. Snyder Award to honor the founder of NSF and fos- ter continuing dedication to environmental quality through recognition of persons who uphold the ideals of Wal- ter Snyder.

The 1985 recipient of the Walter F. Snyder Award is Dr. William G. Walter, who over his 43 year career as professor, researcher, author, editor and leader in microbiology and environmental science, has been dedicated to bettering environmental quality for better public health. Dr. Walter was a professor and head of the De- partment of Microbiology at Montana State University from 1941 until his retirement in 1980. During his career, he was an author of several books and numerous articles published in scientific publications. He was active in the American Society for Microbiology, the American Public Health Associa- tion, the American Academy of Sani- tarians, the American Board of Micro- biology and the National Environmen- tal Health Association. He served as president of NEHA's predecessor, the National Association of Sanitarians, in 1962-63. He received the Walter Man- gold Award in 1972, the Journal Edi- tors' Award in 1976. He was Editorial Director of the Journal of Environ- mental Health from January 1978 until June, 1984. Dr. Walter received the distinguished Teaching Award of the

Dr. William G. Walter was honored by NEHA/NSF as recipient of the Walter Snyder Award. Dr. Nina I. McClelland, NSF President did the honors.

Montana State College Alumni Asso- ciation in 1960, the Distinguished Ser- vice Award from the Montana Associa- tion of Sanitarians in 1960, and the Carski Distinguished Teaching Award for 1973 from the American Society for Microbiology.

Dr. Walter was active in the National Accreditation Council for Environmen- tal Health Curricula and the National Council on Continuing Education in Environmental Health until this year. He is currently collecting material on the history of the National Association of Sanitarians and National Environ- mental Health Association. In retirement, Dr. Walter is interested in collecting stamps, golfing, and several civic activities in Bozeman, Montana.

Standing, I- r, Garland Gobble, Al Brown, and Mel Monkelis received special recognition from 1984-85 President Richard K. Rowe for service above and beyond the call of duty.

The Hancor Award The Hancor Award is presented to a

person who has contributed to the state-of-the-art for on-site wastewater

management on behalf of the NEHA On-Site Committee, and is sponsored by the Hancor Corporation, Findlay, Ohio. The 1985 recipient, Charles L. Senn, Los Angeles, California, has been contributing to this state-of-the- art for 50 years - from Los Angeles to

Charles L. Senn received the Hancor Award for his many years of contributing to the betterment of on-site wastewater management.

Bangladesh, to Sumatra, to the Philip- pines, to Borneo, to Sri Lanka, to Malaysia. He was chairman of the NEHA committee that compiled the 1979 State-öf-the-Art Manual of On- Site Wastewater Management , and continues to serve NEHA's efforts in that technical area. Charlie was En- vironmental Health Director for the Ci- ty of Los Angeles 1934-64, taught evening classes at California State Col- lege, Northridge and UCLA. He is an active worldwide consultant for water, sewerage and on-site wastewater.

Certificates of Service NEHA members who have served as

volunteers to maintain a viable professional registration for Sanitarians and have concluded their service as mem-

bers of the screening committee received Certificates of Service at the NEHA Awards Luncheon on June 25. All from Colorado, they are Robert T. Bowland, James C. Lastoka and Scott A. Miller, Ph.D.



Past Presidents' Award The past presidents of the National

Environmental Health Association, and its predecessor, National Associa- tion of Sanitarians, present an award each year at the NEHA Conference to recognize a person who has worked long and hard for NEHA in a general or specific program that has improved the stature of the environmental health

professional. The 1985 recipient of the NEHA Past Presidents' Award is Rich-

ard E Clapp, Decatur, Georgia. Dick, a self-employed consultant in Environ- mental Health, retired from his career with the Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta several years ago, but continues to be active in the field. He was recognized for his efforts in developing professional and educational standards, writing recommendations for college and university curricula, and participating in the National Accredita- tion Council for Environmental Health Curricula.

Industry Sanitarian The Food Industry Sanitarian Award

presented annually by the NEHA Food Protection Section to a person who is employed by industry recognizes super- ior effort by a person in this area. Charles D. "Dee" Clingman, Vice President, Quality Control, Red Lob- ster Inns of America was recognized as the 1985 recipient. Dee was employed by the State of Ohio and developed their foodservice managers certification program. He went to the National Institute for the Foodservice Industry for several years, and has been with Red Lobster since 1979. Dee has been ac-

tive in NEHA, serving as Food Section chair 1982-83 and as organizer of the Industry Affiliate of NEHA. His efforts have done much to enhance the

visibility of environmental health professionals employed by industry.

C. Dee Clingman, right, received the Food Industry Sanitarian Award from award chairman John Chrisman.

Richard Clapp, Decatur, Ga., right, received Past Presidents' Award from presenter Dr. Trenton G. Davis.

Calvin Wagner Award The American Academy of

Sanitarians annually presents an award to one of its members who has shown

outstanding achievement and attained a status of distinction in environmental health. The award consists of a

monetary award and a certificate. The 1985 recipient, Geswaldo (Joe) Verrone, is Acting Director, Policy Review Staff, Indian Health Service (U.S. Public Health Service) in Rockville, Md. Dr. Verrone has a bachelor of science

degree from the University of Pitts- burgh, a Master of Public Health from the University of North Carolina,

and a Doctor of Public Health from Tulane. He has served with the Indian Health Service since 1962, having served in area offices in Portland, Pine Ridge and Phoenix. He has been at IHS headquarters since 1968. He has served on the Sanitarian Career Developoment Committee, is a member of the Commissioned Officers Association, the Uniformed Services Environmental Health Association, the American Public Health Association and NEHA. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Sanitarians.

A special occasion for the American Academy of Sanitarians was the presence of Dr. Carruth Wagner, former Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Servcie, founder and sponsor of the Calvin Wagner Award. At the ceremony: Dr. John G. Todd, USPHS IHS, Dr. Geswaldo (Joe) Verrone, 1985 Wagner Award recipient; Dr. Carruth Wagner; and Dale Treusdell, USPHS, IHS.



First Vice President George Morris and wife Bonnie; Deborah Rowe and President Richard K. Rowe enjoy the gala party festivities.

Executive Committee members during the banquet festivities: Above, Dora May Cole- man; Joyce Kirkwood, Phil Kirkwood, and Tom Edmonson. Below, Rick Smith, Linda Chap- man, Bruce Clabaugh, Diane Evans and Leon Vinci.

New President, Jay Walsh, received his symbolic gavel from SSI presented by Charles Felix.

Fun and games at the Awards luncheon. Regional vice presidents Linda Chapman and Leonard Rice received an award for the

participation in a workshop for making "snow angels." Below- President Rowe conferred the Order of the Carp on Ex- ecutive Director Nelson Fabian.



The Future of Environmental Protection:

An Unfinished Agenda Dr. Terry F. Yosie

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak before the National Environmental Health Asso-

ciation. I am especially pleased to represent E.P.A. Administrator Lee Thomas who sends his regards and his wishes for a successful conference.

My topic this morning is The Future of Environmental Protection: An Un-

finished Agenda. I believe this is a most appropriate topic to discuss with you given the diverse affiliations of many of you with state and local agencies, the private sector, academia as well as with other nations. You represent a wealth of individual and collective experiences in working to resolve a host of past, present and future environmental problems.

I want to address this topic in several different ways. First, I want to draw upon some case examples to illustrate what I believe are some important con- clusions and lessons from the past two decades of environmental protection. While I do not always agree with George Santayana's comment that those who forget the past are con- demned to repeat it, I do believe that certain historical processes do tend to repeat. Second, I will discuss some factors that explain how the current national environmental agenda is established. And finally, I want to engage in some crystal ball gazing on which issues and concepts are likely to domi- nate the environmental agenda during the remainder of this decade.

Journal of Environmental Health, V. 48 (2) 75-79. * •

Dr. Terry F. Yosie, Director Science Ad- visory Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Presented as the Keynote Address at the National Environmental Health Associa- tion's Annual Educational Conference Las

Vegas, Nevada June 24, 1985

Keynoter, Dr. Terry Yosie, is interviewed by a member of the press following his remarks at the keynote session.

Before launching into my prepared remarks, I would like to say a few words about my own beliefs and back- ground. I jumped into the environmental trenches in the mid-1970's as a

graduate student researching the interrelationship among technological in- novation, institutional development and environmental policy. In 1978 I joined the E.P.A., and in 1981 1 became Director of the Science Advisory Board. The Board is an independent group of scientists and engineers established by the Congress that ad- vises the EPA Administrator on the

technical bases of regulation development including the control of hazardous air pollutants, incineration of hazardous wastes from landfills, criti- quing the quality and direction of EPA's research programs and evaluating Agency risk assessments.

My experience with these issues has, quite naturally, influenced the way I look at environmental problems. Some of the assumptions, or biases, that I hold include the following:

• To the extent that there exists a

general distrust of government's capa- city to solve problems, agencies respon- sible for protecting health and the environment face an additional challenge in converting the general desire for a clean environment into policies and

programs that are effective and fair. The only way that I know to lessen this distrust is to explain the bases of our policies and go the extra mile to solicit the input of a broad variety of individuals and groups before a policy decision is made. To do anything less than this is to call the legitimacy of the decision-making process into question.

• Despite the one hundred plus years as an urbanized, industrialized society, we have yet to establish criteria by which to judge when environmental policies are successful. How clean is clean? What is an adequate margin of safety? We continue to debate these and other questions.

• In the choice between environmen-

tal values and economic efficiency, the current public consensus on national environmental issues will consistently favor environmental values.

•EPA's mandate to protect the environment frequently enmeshes it in a series of debates that, at first glance, have little to do with the environment.

These include agricultural and international trade policy, land use planning and real estate transactions, among others.

•A major debate in environmental protection today rages around the issue of whether to provide the greatest amount of protection for the greatest number versus protecting every individual against environmental risk. The outcome of this debate has major implications for environmental control strategies.

Patterns of Past Environmental Protection Efforts

The birth of the environmental movement in the United States dates

from the mid to latter 19th century - manifested through such events as the creation of state and local boards of

health, development of professional societies to address environmental



issues and the passage of environmental legislation- when public policy- makers realized that environmental

policies designed for an agricultural society were not adequate to conditions encountered in an increasingly urbanized industrial society. With new technologies such as water filtration systems, local governments made capital investments to reduce water borne

disease, and state governments enacted legislation to try to reduce upstream cities from polluting the sources of water supply for downstream cities. This pattern of state and local primacy continued well beyond the 1930's, but the New Deal era ushered in the first

systematic entry of the federal government into environmental decision mak-

ing, largely through appropriations for water pollution abatement activities.

Those of us on today's firing line tend to forget about the intellectual and institutional vitality of these earlier efforts. For example, last year EPA pro- mulgated a Ground Water Protection Strategy which embodied three classes of ground water based on its use and its vulnerability to contamination. Yet the first freshwater classification

system was adopted by the state of Pennsylvania in 1923. Today's concern about the effects of acid rain on lakes

was preceded at the turn of the century as people became aware of the adverse environmental effects of acid mine

drainage. One of today's mitigation strategies for acidified lakes is liming; funding of liming programs occurred during FDR's Administration.

There are several patterns to this earlier period of our environmental history that still apply. The first is the effect of crises in galvanizing public concern and support for environmental protection. In 1903 and 1904 a great debate was occurring in the Pennsyl- vania legislature regarding a pure streams bill. The issue was deadlocked until two major typhoid fever epi- demics, traced to polluted streams, precipitated a wave of public concern which broke the legislative logjam. In some ways a similar parallel exists between Love Canal and the passage of the Superfund. Similarly, the Bhopal disaster has elevated the issue of air

toxics to the front and center of today's . environmental agenda.

A second pattern of the past is the largely reactive nature of environmental policies. In general, there are at least

two areas in which Americans have

never excelled: espionage and government planning. Leaving the question of espionage to the CIA, one of the major reasons for our past failures in government planning is the incremental nature of decision making. By that I mean that there is a tendency to keep adding on responsibilities to government agencies due to the wants and needs that are expressed in the political process. As a result, there is a tendency for system overload to occur. When this happens the ability to anticipate events dwindles. As a result, there is more of a tendency to react to events. Our environmental history is filled with examples of how environmental policies represent reactions to events such as fish kills in the Ohio River, the de- terioration of Lake Erie and air pollution episodes in Donora, Pennsylvania.

A third pattern of the past is the acceptance of environmental protection by the middle class of this country. Political scientist J. Clarence Davies

wrote that "Concern with pollution is a luxury in the sense that a nation or an individual who is forced to be preoc- cupied with obtaining sufficient food, clothing and shelter will not have the time or inclination to worry about pollution, except in those cases where it is an obvious and imminent threat to

public health - The greater amount of leisure time enjoyed by the population leads to a greater demand for recreational resources. . .and the higher level of education enables people to comprehend better the dangers and dynamics of pollution!' This descrip- tion conforms to the prosperity and growth of the middle class in the post World War II era.

Thus, the growth of the environmental movement preceded the activism we associate with Earth Day. Rod and gun clubs, fish and game organizations all previously supported environmental clean-ups. Also, if one examines the debates in the state legislatures in the 1930's and 1940's some very unusual coalitions developed. For example, both fish and game clubs and the railroad industry supported clean water legislation. The fishermen's position needs no explanation, but the railroads supported this legislation because polluted river water significantly reduced the useful life of engine boilers.

There remains a school of thought which argues that those who support

environmental programs are elitist. One example of this thinking is a book published a few years ago entitled The Environmental Protection Hustle . The

author argues that environmentalists represent a set of class interests of people who already have theirs and are determined to block the rest of us from

getting ours.

There is little support for this view. During the 1981-1982 economic slump, the worst this nation has experienced since the Great Depression, there was little public support for relaxing environmental standards. This testifies to

how broad and deep public opinion really is on environmental issues.

The Current Setting of the Environmental Agenda

These three patterns from our environmental history-the role of environmental crises, the largely incremental nature of past environmental policies and strong public support for environmental programs- all di- rectly affect the way in which environmental priorities are set today. I want to discuss several examples of this interrelationship between the past and present and also point to some relatively new factors that significantly in- fluence how environmental decisions are made.

First, it is no surprise that crises, like events, occur and continue to evoke public and political concern. The after- math of the Bhopal disaster will continue to reverberate for years to come. EPA recently published an Air Toxics Strategy that is designed to address many of the concerns raised in the wake of Bhopal. A key feature of this strategy deals with sudden, accidental releases of toxic pollutants. EPA plans to expand its program for emergency preparedness and response by evaluating and improving information systems, training state and local response teams and planning for emergencies (including exercises to test how well systems are working and how they can be improved). In addition, EPA is ex- panding its program to control air toxics and, in this year alone, will reach decisions on approximately 20 hazardous air pollutants that are candidates for national regulation. Contrary to recent reports in the media, this is not a way for EPA to dump the problem of air toxics on the states.

A second factor that influences to-

day's environmental agenda is that we



still have a big job to do in cleaning up past environmental practices, as reflect- ed by the broad support for an expand- ed Superfund program. At the same time, due to the incremental nature of the American political system, new responsibilities are continually being added to existing programs. This has produced some notable contradictions:

• People who rail against EPA for over-regulation are likely to become rabid environmentalists when confront- ed with an environmental issue in their

own backyard; conversely, people who advocate more regulation frequently oppose siting pollution control facilities in their area of the country. This is known as the NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome.

• In its implementation of the environmental laws of this country EPA finds itself in some rather unique roles. These include: real estate agent (pur- chase of Times Beach, Missouri); highway builder (due to its authority to deny highway construction funds to areas not in compliance with ambient air standards); implementer of farm policy (resulting from its licensing of pesticides); business planner (as the result of the need to forecast

automobile sales to predict emissions); and influencing international trade (due to the cost of regulating chemicals which affects their market competitiveness).

These are just a few of the contradictions that reflect current environmental policy. Why do such contradictions occur? There are at least two reasons:

• Americans are unwilling to tolerate low levels of involuntary risk from the environment even though they tolerate much higher risks as the result of their personal habits and lifestyles.

• Environmental policy is the result of emotional concerns as well as the

product of rational analysis. Dr. Mor- ton Corn, a former director of OSHA and now a professor of environmental engineering at The Johns Hopkins University has said that the rational assessment of environmental risks "will

in no way change highly emotional issues

formation to go on . . .but I don't look forward to any lessening of disputes in my lifetime." A related issue is that groups of the population who are par- ticularly sensitive to environmental exposures are children and the elderly. These groups sometimes need special protection by our society.

The contradictions of environmen-

tal policy are thus a product of our society's conflicting needs and values. These conflicts stem from the earliest

days of our government. Edmund Ran- dolph, for example, argued to the participants in the Constitutional Conven- tion of 1787 that the evils from which the country suffered originated in "the turbulence and follies of democracy!' An alternative view, and fortunately for us a majority view, was expressed by George Mason who said that "not withstanding the. . .injustice experienced. . . from democracy, the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be con- sulted!'

A third factor influencing today's environmental agenda is that the middle class support for environmental protection has many characteristics in com- mon with other government programs designed since the 1930's. Just as the New Deal and The Great Society were intended to insulate people from economic risks, so environmental programs are supposed to protect people from environmental risks. These economic programs spawned a set of economic entitlements, through tax and spending policies, such as the deduction of interest payments on home mortgages, social security and medicare. We are headed down a similar path in establishing entitlements for environmental policy. Court suits brought by Vietnam veterans against a number of major chemical companies for exposure to dioxins in Southeast Asia, and other suits brought by victims of nuclear testing in the 1940's and 1950's represent efforts at establishing the right to an en- titlement as the result of past, involuntary exposures to harmful pollutants.

Let me pause for a moment to ensure that the point I'm trying to make is not misunderstood. I am not saying this development is bad but that it is happening and we ought to recognize that. Environmental entitlements have economic impacts.

It should be evident to all just what environmental protection represents. It represents a political statement on the part of society to redistribute resources to achieve more of some goods such as cleaner air, water and land, and less of others. This has historically been the case. In the late 19th century Dr. Her- mann Biggs, a leading public health authority from New York City, noted

that "public health is purchasable. Within natural limitations, a community can determine its own death rate!'

The American public has elevated environmental protection as a core value of society, akin to a civil liberty or to a provision in the Bill of Rights. Just as government is expected to maintain the solvency of social security, so is it expected to treat the environmental issue as an unbreakable commit-

ment. Public opinion polls confirm this. So does any Congressman with a hazardous waste dump in his district. Any political or governmental official who doesn't recognize this fact does so at his/her own peril.

Environmental Issues and Concepts: A Look Ahead

Americans have invested fairly large sums of money trying to forecast the future with very little success. Complex econometric models, systems analysis and technology assessment all represent analytical tools that have been utilized to sneak a peak of what's around the next bend in the road. Yet, these efforts have not been terribly successful. A major reason is because of the existence of so-called "assumption drag"- the continued use of assumptions long after their validity has been contradicted by the data. John Kenneth Galbraith tells of an economist named

Babson who correctly predicted the on- set of the Great Depression yet whose views were ignored by his colleagues because of the unorthodox methods he

used. Galbraith relates that, although Babson's colleagues failed to predict the crash, they believed it was far better to be wrong in a respectable way than to be right for the wrong reasons. Therefore, it is with considerable hu- mility and trepidation that I offer my own thoughts on our environmental future. I want to assure you that none of my ideas came from the National En- quirer or People Magazine. I also ad- mit that I can't possibly talk about all issues that will be important in the future. Do not interpret these omis- sions as demonstrating a lack of aware- ness or concern.

One of the issues with enormous

economic and societal implications is biotechnology. I define biotechnology as including all of the technologies which use living organisms to make commercial products. A specific com- ponent of biotechnology is genetic engineering, which is the alteration of



the genes of organisms. These altera- tions allow the organisms to exhibit different or new functions. Biotechnology is, of course, one of the fruits of our research-intensive, high-technology civilization. Like many other technological innovations, however, there is concern about its environmental impacts. Not long ago, Judge John Sirica halted the field testing of a biotechnology ex- periment designed to yield frost resistant potatoes; he ruled that such a test required the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This decision has generated great concern within the academic community and the biotechnology companies who have raised questions about the nation's ability to enjoy the benefits of this technology as well as the impact of regulation upon their future economic competitiveness, vis-a-vis the Japanese. EPA shares the responsibility for regulating this industry with other agencies of the federal government, including the Food and Drug Administration and the De- partment of Agriculture, and we are jointly working to develop a regulatory framework to encourage the development of this technology while pro- viding the appropriate safeguards.

One of the interesting spin-offs of biotechnology will be to stimulate a relatively new field of inquiry called environmental risk assessment. EPA and

other government agencies have for years developed methods for and have practiced the assessment of human health risks in which extrapolations are made with animals to predict health ef- fets in humans and to analyze associa- tions between exposures to chemicals and health effects. Biotechnology will spawn the development of methods to address similar questions in the ecosys- tem. For example, scientists and regu- lators will try to learn whether the development of genes to make potatoes more frost resistant, once they are released in the environment, will affect pine trees in the same or different ways. Also, biotechnology has the potential to significantly enhance the existing pollution control arsenal by the syn- thesizing of bugs to feed on or detox- ify hazardous wastes and other pollutants. In short, an industry that will probably reshape our lifestyle is emerging.

Another issue that I believe will oc-

cupy a prominent position on the environmental agenda is the transition from the storage of hazardous wastes in landfills to their destruction by in-

cineration. The passage by the Con- gress in 1984 of amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sets firm deadlines through the remainder of this decade by which EPA has to determine which of these wastes

can be safely landfilled. If EPA fails to act, the deadlines, or "hammers'' take effect and the chemicals are automatic-

ally banned from landfills. The RCRA amendments will, I believe, further alter the economic incentives which have traditionally favored landfilling toward alternative disposal methods such as incineration on land and at sea.

Many individuals and groups have expressed concerns about the performance of incinerators to effectively destroy wastes. Some of the issues raised have included the performance of incinerators under all operating conditions, the question of whether 99.99% destruction efficiency of chemicals is uniformly achieved and the characterizations of stack emissions.

My own advisory board has recently completed an extensive report on incineration and called these and other

issues to the agency administrator's at- tention. The EPA is responding through implementing a research strategy that is designed to address technical issues raised by the scientific community as well as by other groups. Our attitude toward incineration is

straightforward: if the public is to realize the benefits of this technology, we at EPA need to go the extra mile to demonstrate that it is safe.

A third major trend that is evolving deals with targeting pollution control efforts on a cross-media basis rather

than just focusing on a single media. U.S. environmental laws have tradi-

tionally sought to control pollutants as if they remain in the same media to which they are initially released. But many pollutants are discharged into more than one media, and few remain in a single media. They cross and re- cross media boundaries, change form, and have harmful effects in media

other than the ones into which they were first released.

In developing an understanding of cross-media problems, four issues need to be kept in mind. The first is the ini- tial creation and sources of pollutants; second is fate of pollutants when con- trols are applied; third is the physical, chemical and biological transforma- tions of pollutants after their release in- to the environment; and fourth are the various ways human and environmen-

tal receptors are exposed to pollutants. EPA is tooling up its analytical

capabilities to control cross-media problems. We are initiating a major effort to develop new techniques of exposure assessment to better assess people's daily activities, both in indoor and ambient environments, to define where in the course of those activities pollutant exposures occur, and what are the particular sources of exposure. In addition, EPA's Integrated Environmen- tal Management Program is funding a series of projects in particular geo- graphic areas of the country to better define area-wide sources of cross media exposures and risks.

Finally, EPA is evaluating not only individual chemicals but also complex chemical mixtures as they move through different media. EPA has recently published guidelines on how to perform risk assessments for pollutant mixtures.

A fourth emerging issue is what I call risk arbitration. During the 1960's and 1970's a number of interest groups per- suaded the federal government to protect the rights of certain groups of society including the handicapped and welfare recipients. The impulse behind these efforts was a generous one - to share a part of our collective economic abundance with those less fortunate. A similar rights campaign is developing around a number of environmental issues. Last year and this year, for example, a major debate occurred during the markup of Superfund legislation over amendments to establish rights of compensation for people who had been exposed to toxic substances. Similarly, legislation introduced in the Congress since the Bhopal disaster would establish rights of compensation to those persons exposed to chemical releases by manufacturers and processors.

There are a number of dimensions to the environmental rights movement that need to be carefully examined. First, who is authorized to arbitrate environmental risks? The Congress has authorized EPA, working with state and local governments, to develop and enforce regulations and standards for a number of pollutants. But the issue is broader than that of existing regulatory authority. Individuell cities have in- itiated community right to know legislation to identify the chemicals present in on-site manufacturing processes. The state of California has banned smoking in many public places, to limit exposures to non-smokers. An increas-



ing number of people are filing suits against the tobacco companies charg- ing them with deliberately endangering the public health. EPA plans to active- ly promote community right to know programs to ensure that local governments have ready access to information on chemicals in use. In addition, the Agency is developing an Acute Hazards Lišt of those substances that are most likely to cause harm in the event of large accidental releases. We will also step up enforcement of chemical hazard notification requirements under Superfund and the Toxic Substances Control Act. In short, the issue of who arbitrates environmental risk is being debated at every level of society. This trend, which can be called environmental populism, indicates the desire of people to possess greater direct control over their personal environment. In this regard, environmental populism is similar to the tax rebellion or the grow- ing entreprenurial spirit in the country. People want to have greater control over their own destiny.

Another dimension of the environ-

mental rights debate revolves around the question of what constitutes an ac- ceptable level of risk? This is an extremely difficult issue to resolve, in part because of scientific uncertainties but

also due to the fact that differing sec- tions of the country have contrasting beliefs. The citizens of Richland, Wash- ington, have views on nuclear energy that may differ from the opinions of people living near the Three Mile Island reactor. Many cities and towns that have land based incinerators of

hazardous wastes operating nearby oppose locating incineration facilities out at sea because of the fear of spills.

EPA views part of its job as setting a national ceiling above which area- specific environmental risks should not rise. When National Ambient Air

Quality Standards are set, for example, EPA identifies the population groups most sensitive to exposures from sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. This would include such groups as asthma- tics, angina patients and pregnant women. The assumption is that if we adequately protect these sensitive individuals, we have then reduced environmental risks and made the quality of the air safe enough for members of the general population. State governments are then free to develop even stricter standards to provide an extra

measure of protection to meet the localized needs of their citizens.

This is not a fully satisfactory ap- proach to many citizens of this country who believe EPA ought to strive for levels of environmental protection as close as possible to zero risk regardless of cost or administrative feasibility. In this respect, the debate over reducing environmental risk parallels the debates over the means to eradicate poverty and unemployment. The best advice I ever heard on how to resolve these ethical

dilemmas was written by the late jour- nalist and scholar Walter Lippmann in his book, The Public Philosophy , published in 1955. Lippmann wrote that, "A rational person acting in the real world may be defined as one who decides where to strike a balance between what is desirable and can be

done. It is only in an imaginary world that we can do whatever we wish"

The final trend I want to talk about is the changing nature of EPA itself. In preparing this speech I uncovered an interesting statistic about the agency where I work. Of the present work force of approximately 14,000 employees, over one-third were hired in the last two years. We are adding about 200 new employees per month. This development indicates that a fresh pool of talent, with new ideas and energy, continues to find public service attractive and continues to invigorate the agency. At the same time, I'm concerned if the agency work force turns over too fast, because institutional memory is one of the most vital qualities of any organization.

In 1980, Peter Drucker wrote a book entitled Managing in TUrbulenl Times . Working at EPA, I can relate to that experience and so can anyone who has ever worked at EPA. The Agency is trying not only to cope in the midst of turbulence but also to take the initiative in better defining environmental priorities. Stating priorities in the public sector is an extremely difficult task. The priorities of private sector activities are relatively clear - bring a new product to market, increase market share, maximize profit - but stating goals in government is more difficult because it in-

volves choices among values as well as the fact that the means for achieving the goals is as important to many people as the goals themselves. Someone once said, correctly I think, that the ob-

jective of business is to maximize, while the purpose of government is to satisfy.

It is not surprising, therefore, that EPAs efforts to state environmental

priorities will not meet with universal acceptance. But I believe we have an obligation to tell the American public what we know and don't know about

an environmental problem, how good our analytical and technological tools are to solve problems, how to reach a workable division of labor with state

and local governments to achieve the unique contributions we are all capable of making, whether we can spend $5 billion for Superfund more wisely than $10 billion. We can always spend money - that has never been an issue. But five or ten years down the road, when asked if EPA achieved the maximum reduction of risk for the resources that were available to us, we want to declare an emphatic yes! That is our major challenge in the decade of the 1980's.

Nimby Should Pay Site Recipient

Howard Kunreuther of the Wharton

School, University of Pennsylvania, writing in the Natural Hazards Observ- er for July 1985, gives some recommendations for solving the hazardous facility siting problem. He recommends using the term "benefit-sharing" rather than "compensation" and broadening the concept of benefit sharing to include non-monetary arrangements such as improved health care facilities for a city that sites a noxious facility. He recommends development of pro- cedures whereby communities can spe- cify how much they would be willing to pay to have a facility located else- where than in their backyards. In this way, the potential beneficiaries will recognize that if they are not chosen for a facility, they will have to pay someone who is. This arrangement, he says, can mitigate concerns regarding the ine- quities associated with locating these facilities in poorer areas.

Kunreuther recommends development of a sharing rule in which the amount a community is taxed for not having a facility increases propor- tionately to the amount it requires for being chosen. He says that "compensation" is not a cure all for the noxious

facility siting problem but another tool in negotiating a site selection.


This content downloaded from 174.29.22.93 on Wed, 05 May 2021 16:46:27 UTCAll use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms


ri



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATON 1985 Annual Conference Exhibitors

ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 3300 Riverside Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43321 Timothy J. Lang, Product Mgr. (614) 457-3051

BULL RUN VALVE CO., INC. 8012 Centreville Rd. Manassas, VA 22110 Robert B. Mayer, President (703) 369-2000

BIOLAB, INC. P.O. Box 1489 Decatur, G A 30031 David Frazier, Convention Coordinator (404) 378-1753

"BUGS" BURGER BUG KILLERS, INC. 7801 NW 29th St.

Miami, FL 33122 Michael B. Moon, Dir. Qualtiy Control (305) 592-6312

CMS ROTOR DISK 5266 General Road

Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1Z7 Canada

Tom Smith, Vice President (416) 625-8916

CONNECTICUT ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH ASSOCIATION (1986 Affiliate Host)

c/o Wayne Wood Ridgefield Health Dept. Town Hall, 400 Main St. Ridgefield, CT 06887

THE DELFIELD COMPANY P.O. Box 470

Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48858 James T. Otenbaker

(517) 773-7981

J.T. EATON & COMPANY, INC. 1393 East Highland Road Twinsburg, OH 44087 Bart Baker, Vice President (216) 425-7801

EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE 1947 Center St.

Berkeley, CA 94704 Rose M. Payan, Ph.D., Senior Field

Marketing Representative (415) 849-0950 X537

ELJEN CORPORATION 15 West Wood Road Storrs, CT 06268 Joseph Glasser (203) 429-9486

CHARLES FELIX ASSOCIATES 229 North St. NE

Leesburg, VA 22075 Charles W. Felix

(703) 777-7448

FENNIMORE CHEMICALS/ARRO-GUN P.O. Box 1116 Glendora, CA 91740 H.B. Munns

(818) 334-0116

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, USPHS 300 San Mateo, NE, Suite 600 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Eugene R. Meyer, Deputy Chief, EMS, EHB (505) 766-6565

INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES 1895 Star Lane

Meridian, ID 83642 Harry Beaulieu, Ph.D. (208) 888-7691

LAMB AND ONE INDUSTRIES

3670 Procyon Las Vegas, NV 89103 William H. Shoupp, Chemical Div. Mgr. (702) 876-2020

LA MOTTE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS COMPANY

P.O. Box 329 Chestertown, MD 21620 W. Lawson Cording, Vice President (301) 778-3100

LOS ANGELES NUT HOUSE P.O. Box 21067 Market Station Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone (213) 623-2541

LIQUID METRONICS/J.L. Wingert Co. 19 Craig Road Acton, MA 01720 Ellen Chambers

(617) 263-9800

MARS AIR DOORS

17920 S. Figueroa Gardena, CA 90248 Martin Smilo, President (213) 770-1555

MICROPHOR, INC. P.,0. Box 490 Willits, CA 95490 Marilyn Davis, Marketing (707) 459-5563

NATIONAL AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING ASSOCIATION

20 N. Wacker Dr. 35th Floor

Chicago, IL 60606 Larry Eils (312) 346-0370

NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1468 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 D.L. Lancaster, Manager Education and Training Program (313) 769-8010

NILFISK OF AMERICA, INC. 224 Great Valley Parkway Malvern, PA 19355 Patricia A. DeNale, Manager Advertising & PR (215) 647-6420

PUBLIC HEALTH INTERNATIONAL OF OREGON

P.O. Box 116

Roseburg, OR 97470 Richard Swenson

(503) 757-6841

PUREX POOL PRODUCTS, INC. 18400 E. Mohr Ave.

City of Industry, CA 91749 Charles Field, Guardex Product Mgr. (818) 965-1551

R-VALUE/Jeffrey Stone & Assoc. P.O. Box 2235

Smyrna, GA 30081 Jeffrey Stone (714) 854-2688

SHASTA MANUFACTURING, INC. P.O. Box 2243

Redding, CA 96099 Thomas J. Wilhelmson, President (916) 241-1417

WILLIAM SMITH ASSOC. 1020 108th NE, Suite 215 Bellevue, WA 98004 Wayne Smith (206) 454-9139

SWEET SEPTIC SYSTEMS, INC. 5701 Mother Lode Dr.

Placerville, CA 95667 C.T. Sweet

(916) 622-8768

THETFORD CORPORATION 7101 Jackson Road

Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 Gilda Bone, Business Manager 1-800-521-3032

TUF-TITE INC.

501 W. Algonquin Rd. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Ted Meyers, President (312) 439-1900

UNITED STATES ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422 Major Schmidt (301) 671-2488

UNIVERSAL SENSORS & DEVICES, INC. 9256 Deering AVe. Chatsworth, CA 91311 Wen S. Young, President (818) 998-7121

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Department of Environmental Health SC-34 Seattle, WA 98195 Jack B. Hatlen, Assoc. Professor (206) 543-4252

VILLAGE MARINE TEC 2000 W. 135th St.

Gardena, CA 90249 Arlene Parker, Products Administrator (213) 516-9911

ZABEL INDUSTRIES, INC. P.O. Box 1484 _

New Albany, IN 47150 Willard C. Thorn, President (812) 738-1197



Book Exhibit Participants Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL 32887

American Medical Association 535 N. Dearborn St.

Chicago, IL 60610

American Public Health Assn. 1015 15th St. NW

Washington, DC 20005

ASTM 1916 Race St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

AVI Publishing Co., Inc. P.O. -Box 831

Westport, CT 06881

Bureau of Law & Business, Inc. 64 Wall St. Madison, CT 06443

Columbia Books, Inc. 1350 New York Ave. NW


Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1414 22nd St. NW


CRC Press, Inc. 2000 Corporate Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33431

Edward Arnold Publishers 300 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201

Johns Hopkins University Press 701 W. 40th St., Suite 275 Baltimore, M D 21211

Little Brown & Co. 34 Beacon St. Boston, MA 02106

Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 157 E. 86th St. New York, NY 10028

The Mcllvaine Company 2970 Maria Ave.

Northbrook, IL 60062

Monthly Review Press 155 W. 23rd St.

New York, NY 1011

National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave. NW


Natural Resources Defense Council 122 E . 42nd St., 45th Floor New York, NY 10168

Noyes Publications 120 Mill Road

Park Ridge, NJ 07656

Occupational Health Training Foundation

120 Tremont St., Suite 321 Boston, MA 02108

Pantheon Books 201 East 50th St. New York, NY 10022

Plenum Publishing Copr. 233 Spring St. New York, NY 10013

PTI Publications P.O. Box 412 Waukesha, Wl 53187

Sierra Club Books 2034 Fillmore St.

San Francisco, CA 94115

Technomic Publishing Co. Inc. 851 New Holland Ave. Box 3535

Lancaster, PA 17604

Thomson Publications 1118 W. Stuart Fresno, CA 93711

Unipub 205 E. 42nd St. New York, NY 10017

Urban & Schwarzenberg 7 East Redwood St. Baltimore, MD 21202

Viking Penguin, Inc. 40 West 23 St. New York, NY 10010

W-H Interscience, Inc. PO. Box 1944 Dearborn, Ml 48121

Literature Exhibit Participants

Certification Board of Infection Control P.O. Box 5428 Willowick, OH 44094

Holaday Industries, Inc. 14825 Martin Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Katadyn USA Inc. 4907 E. McDowell Rd. Scottsdale, AZ 85257

National Water Well Assn. 500 W. Wilson Bridge Rd. Worthington, OH 43085

Norweco, Inc. 220 Republic St. Norwalk, OH 44857

Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. 725 Ann St.

Delavan, Wl 53115

University of Cincinnati Institute of Environmental Health College of Medicine, M.L. 182 231 Bethesda Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45267

The Connecticut Environmental Health Association showed up to tout the 1986 An- nual Educational Conference scheduled for Hartford, Parkview Hilton Hotel, June 14-19. The group shows great promise for hosting an excellent, activity packed event. Plan to be there.



neha conference in las vegas hit the jackpot

Documents