THE ENVIRONMENTA REVOLUTION

IN ATTITUDES

ISSN 1532-207X

THE ENVIRONMENTA REVOLUTION

IN ATTITUDES

Kim Masters Evans

INFORMATION PLUS� REFERENCE SERIESFormerly Published by Information Plus, Wylie, Texas

The Environment: A Revolution in AttitudesKim Masters Evans

Paula Kepos, Series Editor

ª 2006 Thomson Gale, a part of The ThomsonCorporation.

Thomson and Star logos are trademarks andGale is a registered trademark used hereinunder license.

For more information, contactThomson Gale27500 Drake Rd.Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535Or you can visit our Internet site at http://www.gale.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDNo part of this work covered by the copyrighthereon may be reproduced or used in any formor by any means—graphic, electronic, ormechanical, including photocopying,recording, taping, Web distribution, or

information storage retrieval systems—without the written permission of thepublisher.

For permission to use material from thisproduct, submit your request via Web at http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you maydownload our Permissions request form andsubmit your request by fax or mail to:

For permission to use material from thisproduct, submit your request via Web at http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you maydownload our Permissions request form andsubmit your request by fax or mail to:

Permissions DepartmentThomson Gale27500 Drake Rd.Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535

Permissions Hotline:248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253, ext. 8006Fax: 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

Cover photo reproduced by permission ofPhotoDisc.

While every effort has been made to ensurethe reliability of the information presented inthis publication, Thomson Gale does notguarantee the accuracy of the data containedherein. Thomson Gale accepts no payment forlisting; and inclusion in the publication of anyorganization, agency, institution, publication,service, or individual does not implyendorsement of the editors or publisher. Errorsbrought to the attention of the publisher andverified to the satisfaction of the publisher willbe corrected in future editions.

Project EditorJohn McCoy

PermissionsMargaret Abendroth, Edna Hedblad,Emma Hull

Composition and Electronic PrepressEvi Seoud

ManufacturingDrew Kalasky

ISBN 0-7876-5103-6 (set)ISBN 1-4144-0768-8

ISSN 1532-207X

This title is also available as an e-book.ISBN 1-4144-1043-3 (set)

Contact your Thomson Gale sales representative for ordering information.

Printed in the United States of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

T A B L E O F CO N T E N T S

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

C H A P T E R 1

The State of the Environment—An Overview . . . . . . . 1Public opinion and knowledge about environmental issues haveevolved over time and have led to federal and state laws protectingenvironmental resources. These laws have been debated on theireconomic impacts and on how well they protect citizens from envir-onmental hazards and crimes. The international community isalso concerned about the environment and has, with varying degreesof success, implemented environmental standards of protection.

C H A P T E R 2

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Emissions of chemicals from automobiles, factories, and powerplants are mostly to blame for air pollution, which can make peoplesick and harm the environment. Government regulation, along withthe implementation of new technologies, is designed to promote cleanair, but some people believe these measures do not go far enough.

C H A P T E R 3

The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 37Scientists generally agree that the Earth is getting warmer, andmany scientists believe that an enhanced greenhouse effect accountsfor this change. Gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrousoxide, and chlorofluorocarbons may be causing global warming,which could have severe effects on the Earth. Many nations havecommitted themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

C H A P T E R 4

A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Ozone can be either a health hazard or a health protectant,depending on where in the atmosphere it is located. Manmadechemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, can deplete the protectivelayer of ozone found in the upper atmosphere, which protectshumans, plants, and animals from excess UV radiation exposure.The international community plays an important role in safe-guarding environmental health by protecting the ozone layer.

C H A P T E R 5

Acid Rain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Combustion of fossil fuels emits sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxidesinto the atmosphere, leading to acid rain. Acid rain can harmhuman health and damage ecosystems. Politicians and environ-mental groups in the United States and worldwide have sought

reductions in the pollution that causes acid rain through legisla-tion and other measures.

C H A P T E R 6

Nonhazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73The vast majority of waste generated by modern society is notinherently hazardous. It includes paper, wood, plastics, glass,nonhazardous metals and chemicals, and other materials. Land-filling, incineration, and combustion are the most common dis-posal methods for nonhazardous waste. These methods, however,have environmental consequences that must be mitigated throughdesign and control techniques.

C H A P T E R 7

Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling andComposting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Problems associated with the disposal of nonhazardous wasteshave created a greater need for recovery of materials throughrecycling and composting. These methods save landfill space,conserve the energy that would be used for incineration, reduceenvironmental degradation and use of new resources, generatejobs and small-scale enterprise, reduce dependence on foreignimports of materials, and conserve water. However, their imple-mentation and success are dependent upon public participation,government regulation, and economic factors.

C H A P T E R 8

Hazardous and Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . .101The most toxic and dangerous waste materials are those classifiedby the government as hazardous or radioactive. The storage,transport, and disposal of these wastes require special considera-tion, subjecting them to strict regulatory control and intensepublic scrutiny. Federal and state governments try to ensure thatthese wastes are managed in a way to protect the environment andpublic health.

C H A P T E R 9

Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117Water is an essential resource necessary for sustaining all forms oflife, but human alteration of the environment and patterns ofwater usage can have a devastating affect on the water supply.Legislation, including the Clean Water Act, seeks to improve andprotect the integrity of America’s surface water, groundwater,oceans, coastal water, and drinking water. How effective suchlaws have been is a matter of debate.

The Environment v

C H A P T E R 1 0

Toxins in Everyday Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135Many of the substances naturally found in the environment orreleased by modern, industrialized society are poisonous atcertain dosages. They may be found in the home, workplace,or backyard, in the food and water people eat and drink, and inmedications and consumer products. Common toxins includemetals, pesticides, and other chemicals; radiation, particularlyfrom radon exposure; indoor air pollutants, such as asbestosand mold; and foodborne contaminants, including pathogens.These toxins can have damaging effects on the environment andhuman health.

C H A P T E R 1 1

Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources . . .151Forests, wetlands, soils, minerals, and oil, as well as entire ecosys-tems are endangered by the activities of humans. The diversity oflife on Earth (biodiversity) is also at risk, with many species facingextinction. Local, national, and international efforts must belinked to deal with pressures on the environment.

IMPORTANT NAMES AND ADDRESSES . . . . . . .171

RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

v i Table of Contents The Environment

P R E F A C E

The Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes is part of

the Information Plus Reference Series. The purpose of

each volume of the series is to present the latest facts on a

topic of pressing concern in modern American life. These

topics include today’s most controversial and most stu-

died social issues: abortion, capital punishment, care for

the elderly, crime, the environment, health care, immigra-

tion, minorities, national security, social welfare, women,

youth, and many more. Although written especially for

the high school and undergraduate student, this series is

an excellent resource for anyone in need of factual infor-

mation on current affairs.

By presenting the facts, it is Thomson Gale’s inten-

tion to provide its readers with everything they need to

reach an informed opinion on current issues. To that end,

there is a particular emphasis in this series on the pre-

sentation of scientific studies, surveys, and statistics.

These data are generally presented in the form of tables,

charts, and other graphics placed within the text of each

book. Every graphic is directly referred to and carefully

explained in the text. The source of each graphic is pre-

sented within the graphic itself. The data used in these

graphics are drawn from the most reputable and reliable

sources, in particular from the various branches of the

U.S. government and from major independent polling

organizations. Every effort has been made to secure the

most recent information available. The reader should bear

in mind that many major studies take years to conduct,

and that additional years often pass before the data from

these studies are made available to the public. Therefore,

in many cases the most recent information available in

2006 dated from 2003 or 2004. Older statistics are some-

times presented as well if they are of particular interest

and no more recent information exists.

Although statistics are a major focus of the Informa-

tion Plus Reference Series, they are by no means its only

content. Each book also presents the widely held positions

and important ideas that shape how the book’s subject is

discussed in the United States. These positions are

explained in detail and, where possible, in the words of

their proponents. Some of the other material to be found in

these books includes: historical background; descriptions

of major events related to the subject; relevant laws and

court cases; and examples of how these issues play out in

American life. Some books also feature primary documents

or have pro and con debate sections giving the words and

opinions of prominent Americans on both sides of a con-

troversial topic. All material is presented in an even-

handed and unbiased manner; the reader will never be

encouraged to accept one view of an issue over another.

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

The condition of the world’s environment is an issue

of great concern to both Americans and people world-

wide. Since the late nineteenth century, humankind’s

ability to alter the natural world, both deliberately and

unintentionally, has increased. Many people fear that

without proper restraint, humankind’s actions could for-

ever alter, or even eliminate, life on Earth. There are

those, however, who feel that these fears are exaggerated

and that the substantial cost of environmental protection

on business and industry should be minimized. The con-

flict between these two positions has serious environmen-

tal, political, and economic ramifications, both within the

United States and worldwide. This book examines the

steps that have been taken to protect the Earth’s natural

environment, and the controversies that surround them.

The Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes consists of

eleven chapters and three appendices. Each of the chapters

is devoted to a particular aspect of the environment. For a

summary of the information covered in each chapter,

please see the synopses provided in the Table of Contents

The Environment v i i

at the front of the book. Chapters generally begin with an

overview of the basic facts and background information on

the chapter’s topic, then proceed to examine subtopics of

particular interest. For example, Chapter 8: Hazardous and

Radioactive Waste begins by defining hazardous waste and

describing the laws and agencies that regulate it. It then

describes the major sources of hazardous waste, namely

industrial sites, as well as the sources of household hazar-

dous waste. The chapter then moves to a detailed discus-

sion of how hazardous waste is dealt with, such as source

reduction, recycling, and treatment. Discussion of hazar-

dous waste concludes with a section on the Superfund

program discussing how contaminated sites are dealt with.

The second half of the chapter covers radioactive waste,

starting with the nature and sources of such waste. The

difficulties of dealing with the most dangerous types of

radioactive waste, including the public fear of these wastes,

is discussed. The chapter ends with an examination of

proposed long-term repositories for radioactive waste and

the controversies surrounding them. Throughout the chap-

ter special consideration is given to the problem of hazar-

dous waste and the various methods used to clean up

contaminated areas. Readers can find their way through a

chapter by looking for the section and subsection headings,

which are clearly set off from the text. Or, they can refer to

the book’s extensive Index if they already know what they

are looking for.

Statistical Information

The tables and figures featured throughout The

Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes will be of particu-

lar use to the reader in learning about this issue. The tables

and figures represent an extensive collection of the most

recent and important statistics on the environment, as well

as related issues—for example, graphics in the book cover

the amounts of different kinds of pollutants found in air

across the United States; the major sources of groundwater

pollution; the amount of wetland that is destroyed each

year; and public opinion on whether the state of the envir-

onment has become better or worse in the last five years.

Thomson Gale believes that making this information avail-

able to the reader is the most important way in which we

fulfill the goal of this book: to help readers understand the

issues and controversies surrounding the environment and

reach their own conclusions about them.

Each table or figure has a unique identifier appearing

above it, for ease of identification and reference. Titles for the

tables and figures explain their purpose. At the end of each

table or figure, the original source of the data is provided.

In order to help readers understand these often com-

plicated statistics, all tables and figures are explained in

the text. References in the text direct the reader to the

relevant statistics. Furthermore, the contents of all tables

and figures are fully indexed. Please see the opening

section of the Index at the back of this volume for a

description of how to find tables and figures within it.

Appendices

In addition to the main body text and images, The

Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes has three appen-

dices. The first is the Important Names and Addresses

directory. Here the reader will find contact information

for a number of government and private organizations

that can provide further information on aspects of the

environment. The second appendix is the Resources sec-

tion, which can also assist the reader in conducting his or

her own research. In this section the author and editors of

The Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes describe some

of the sources that were most useful during the compilation

of this book. The final appendix is the Index. It has been

greatly expanded from previous editions and should make

it even easier to find specific topics in this book.

ADVISORY BOARD CONTRIBUTIONS

The staff of Information Plus would like to extend its

heartfelt appreciation to the Information Plus Advisory

Board. This dedicated group of media professionals pro-

vides feedback on the series on an ongoing basis. Their

comments allow the editorial staff who work on the project

to continually make the series better and more user-

friendly. Our top priorities are to produce the highest-

quality and most useful books possible, and the Advisory

Board’s contributions to this process are invaluable.

The members of the Information Plus Advisory

Board are:

• Kathleen R. Bonn, Librarian, Newbury Park High

School, Newbury Park, California

• Madelyn Garner, Librarian, San Jacinto College—

North Campus, Houston, Texas

• Anne Oxenrider, Media Specialist, Dundee High

School, Dundee, Michigan

• Charles R. Rodgers, Director of Libraries, Pasco–

Hernando Community College, Dade City, Florida

• James N. Zitzelsberger, Library Media Department

Chairman, Oshkosh West High School, Oshkosh,

Wisconsin

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

The editors of the Information Plus Reference Series

welcome your feedback on The Environment: A Revolu-

tion in Attitudes. Please direct all correspondence to:

EditorsInformation Plus Reference Series27500 Drake Rd.Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535

v i i i Preface The Environment

CHAPTER 1

T H E S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T — A N O V E R V I E W

We have not inherited the Earth from our fathers. We

are borrowing it from our children.

—Native American saying

Photographs from outer space impress on the world

that humankind shares one planet, and a small one at that.

(See Figure 1.1.) Earth is one ecosystem. There may be

differences in race, nationality, religion, and language,

but everyone resides on the same orbiting planet.

General concern about the environment is a relatively

recent phenomenon. Two closely related factors explain

the rising concern during the second half of the twentieth

century: global industrialization following World War II

and the worldwide population explosion. It was once

thought that the life-sustaining resources of planet Earth

were infinite; now it is known that these resources are

finite and limited.

HISTORICAL ATTITUDES TOWARDTHE ENVIRONMENT

The Industrial Revolution

Humankind has always altered the environment

around itself. For much of human history, however, these

changes were fairly limited. The world was too vast and

people too few to have more than a minor effect on the

environment, especially as they had only primitive tools

and technology to aid them. All of this began to change in

the 1800s. First in Europe and then in America, powerful

new machines, such as steam engines, were developed

and put into use. These new technologies led to great

increases in the amount and quality of goods that could

be manufactured and the amount of food that could be

harvested. As a result, the quality of life rose substan-

tially and the population began to boom. The so-called

Industrial Revolution was underway.

While the Industrial Revolution enabled people to live

better in many ways, it also increased pollution. For many

years pollution was thought to be an insignificant side

effect of growth and progress. In fact, at one time people

looked on the smokestacks belching black soot as a

healthy sign of economic growth. The reality was that

pollution, along with the increased demands for natural

resources and living space that resulted from the Industrial

Revolution, was beginning to have a significant effect on

the environment.

Twentieth-Century America

For much of the early twentieth century, Americans

accepted pollution as an inevitable cost of economic

progress. After World War II, however, more and more

incidents involving pollution made people aware of

the environmental problems caused by human activities.

Los Angeles’s ‘‘smog,’’ a smoky haze of pollution that

formed like a fog in the city, contributed a new word

to the English language. Swimming holes became so

polluted they were poisonous. Still, little action was

taken.

In the 1960s environmental awareness began to

increase, partly in response to the 1962 publication of

Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin), which exposed the toll of the chemi-

cal pesticide DDT on bird populations. Other signs of the

drastic effects of pollution on the environment became

harder and harder to ignore. For example, in 1969 the

Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio, burst into flames

due to pollutants in the water.

Environmental protection rapidly became very popu-

lar with the public, particularly with the younger genera-

tion. On November 30, 1969, the New York Times carried

a lengthy article reporting on the astonishing increase in

environmental interest. The article’s author, Gladwin

Hill, noted that concern about the environmental crisis

was especially strong on college campuses, where it was

threatening to become even more of an issue than the

Vietnam War.

The Environment 1

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTIVISM. In 1969, according to Opinion Research of

Princeton, New Jersey, only 1.0% of Americans polled

expressed concern about the environment. By 1971 fully

one-quarter reported that protecting the environment was

important. What motivated Americans to this new aware-

ness? The following are among the likely factors:

• An affluent economy and increased leisure time

• The emergence of an ‘‘activist’’ upper middle class

that was college educated, affluent, concerned, and

youthful

• The rise of television, an increasingly aggressive

press, and advocacy journalism (supporting specific

causes)

• An advanced scientific community with increasing

funding, new technology, and vast communication

capabilities

EARTH DAY AND THE BIRTH OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION. The idea for Earth Day began to evolve

beginning in the early 1960s. Nationwide ‘‘teach-ins’’

were being held on campuses across the country to protest

the Vietnam War. Democratic senator Gaylord Nelson of

Wisconsin, troubled by the apathy of American leaders

toward the environment, announced that a grassroots

demonstration on behalf of the environment would be held

in the spring of 1970 and invited everyone to participate.

On April 22, 1970, twenty million people participated in

massive rallies on American campuses and in large cities.

Earth Day went on to become an annual event.

With public opinion loudly expressed by the Earth

Day demonstrations, in 1970 Congress and President

Richard Nixon passed a series of unprecedented laws to

protect the environment and created the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), an organization devoted to set-

ting limits on water and air pollutants and to investigating

the environmental impact of proposed, federally funded

projects. In the years that followed, many more environ-

mental laws were passed, setting basic rules for interaction

with the environment. Most notable among these laws

were the Clean Air Act of 1970 (PL 91-604), the Clean

Water Act of 1972 (PL 92-500), the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (PL 93-205), the Safe Drinking Water Act of

1974 (PL 93-523), and the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 95-510).

THE STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE

UNITED STATES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-

FIRST CENTURY. Since the 1970s the state of the envi-

ronment has continued to be a major political issue of

interest to many Americans. Many activist organiza-

tions, such as Greenpeace and the Natural Resources

Defense Council, have been created to watch over and

protect the environment. Virtually every state has estab-

lished one or more agencies charged with protecting the

environment. Many universities and colleges offer pro-

grams in environmental education. Billions of dollars

are spent every year by state and federal governments

for environmental protection and enhancement. These

efforts have, in turn, led to many improvements in the

state of the environment. Many of the most dangerous

chemicals that once polluted the air and water have

either been banned or their emissions into the environ-

ment greatly reduced. Yet, other environmental pro-

blems have arisen or worsened since 1970, such as the

possibility of global warming and the depletion of

Earth’s natural resources. International conferences

addressing these issues have produced mixed results.

Some studies, such as Gallup polls, have suggested

that concern about the environment declined in the 1990s.

To explain this, many people point to the fact that obvious

dangers, such as rivers on fire and belching smokestacks,

have seen substantial improvement. Those dangers that

remain, such as global warming and ozone depletion in

the atmosphere, are largely invisible, and the public may

not as easily accept or be concerned about their existence.

Another factor in the decline in environmental acti-

vism is money. Many of the cheapest and easiest envir-

onmental problems to fix were resolved in the 1970s,

1980s, and 1990s. Most of the remaining problems at

the end of the century were so large or complicated that

it was believed that tremendous amounts of money would

have to be spent before even modest improvements

would be seen. Many Americans, especially those who

felt their jobs were threatened by environmental regula-

FIGURE 1.1

The Earth, as seen from a U.S. satellite. (U.S. National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.)

2 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

tions, questioned whether these increased costs were

worth the relatively small benefits they would provide.

Despite the support of those who wanted to see further

environmental improvements, such issues were compet-

ing for funds with other pressing issues such as acquired

immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), homelessness,

and starvation in many parts of the world. In addition,

since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, envi-

ronmental issues have been overshadowed by the threat

of terrorism. Homeland security and military operations

in Afghanistan and Iraq became funding priorities.

THE ROLE OF POPULATION IN THEENVIRONMENTAL EQUATION

Earth’s population is believed to have grown more

from 1950 through 2000 than it did during the previous

four million years. For centuries, deaths largely offset

births, resulting in a slow population growth. Beginning

around 1950, high birth rates in developing countries,

coupled with a reduction in mortality rates and reduced

infant mortality (which led to an overall lengthening of

the life span), dramatically impacted population growth.

According to 2003 figures from the United Nations (UN),

between 1950 and 1990 the global population more than

doubled from 2.5 billion to more than 5.0 billion people.

Another billion people are estimated to have been added

between 1990 and 2000.

As shown in Figure 1.2 the vast majority of population

growth is expected in less developed countries. This is

significant to environmental issues because these countries

are, or will be, undergoing their own industrial revolu-

tions—a time when economic development or ‘‘progress’’

generally gets priority over environmental issues.

The growing number of people on Earth increases the

demands on natural resources. More people require more

food, water, fuel, clothing, and other necessities for life.

All of these must be supplied from the planet’s resources

and from the Sun’s energy. These facts—combined with

the realization that the Earth’s resources are limited, not

infinite—pose serious questions about rapid population

growth. Can the world’s resources support its population

while maintaining the environment, or will human needs

overwhelm Earth’s capacity to provide?

Most scientists believe that population growth will

eventually cease. As a nation’s economy develops and its

standards of living rise, its population generally stabi-

lizes. This ‘‘demographic shift’’ has already been

observed in highly industrialized countries such as Japan

and the nations of western Europe where the fertility rate

is generally at or below replacement level. The UN

projects that this slow decline in growth rates will con-

tinue until all regions of Earth have developed high

standards of living, experienced a demographic shift,

and had their populations stabilize. By the time this

occurs, however, Earth’s population is expected to have

reached at least nine billion people.

It is not known if Earth’s resources can support a

population of nine billion. Some believe there is evidence

that population growth is already pressing, or has

exceeded, the capacity of natural resources in many

areas. Environmentalists and others warn that without

conservation, resource protection, and drastic measures

to curb population, humankind and planet Earth might

suffer serious harm. Other analysts do not share these

opinions, however. Some analysts oppose the idea that

natural resources and humankind are in danger and point

to the fact that, at many times throughout history, there

have been those who claimed that industrial development

could not be sustained. For example, at one time it was

feared that, as the world ran out of whale oil for lamps,

great cities would be left in darkness. This scenario, and

other ‘‘doomsday’’ predictions, did not come about

because new technologies averted the expected disasters.

THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION ON THE U.S. ECONOMY

How Government Regulations Work

Since federal and state governments began actively

protecting the environment in the 1970s, they have acted

primarily by creating rules—called regulations—that say

FIGURE 1.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Billi

ons

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

Less developed countries More developed countries

World population growth in more and less developed countries, 1950–2050

SOURCE: “Growth in More, Less Developed Countries,” in GraphicsBank: Population Trends, Population Reference Bureau, Washington,DC, 2003, www.prb.org/presentations/g_growth-MDCs-LDCs.ppt(accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 3

how Americans can affect the environment around them.

In order to get people and organizations to comply with

these regulations, the government fines, imprisons, or

otherwise punishes those who violate them.

Most federal regulations are aimed at controlling the

environmental practices of businesses and industries, as

their behavior is much easier to monitor and control than

that of individual citizens. For example, to reduce air

pollution the government might regulate the lawn mower

industry by not allowing it to make lawn mowers that

release more than a certain amount of pollutants. This is

much easier for the government than the alternative:

checking how much pollution is released when an indi-

vidual mows his or her lawn, and punishing that person if

it is too much.

Attitudes of Business towardEnvironmental Regulation

All environmental regulations interfere with the way

businesses would otherwise operate. They force busi-

nesses to design their products differently, install special

machinery in their factories, or even stop certain activ-

ities entirely. In the most extreme cases, entire industries

might be shut down, such as when the government deter-

mined that the chemical DDT, once widely used as a

pesticide, was too hazardous to human health to be used

at all.

The changes required to comply with environmental

regulations almost always result in smaller profits for

those companies affected by such restrictions. This is

especially true for industries that extract natural

resources, such as mining and logging; industries that

produce a great deal of pollution, such as electrical power

generation; and industries whose products are potentially

hazardous, such as the chemical industry. Compliance

with governmental regulations is a very significant cost

item for some industries.

In November 2002 the U.S. Department of Com-

merce published the results from its latest survey of

manufacturing, mining, and electric utility companies

on their expenses for environmental compliance. In Pol-

lution Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999 the

agency reported that in 1999 manufacturing industries

spent $5.8 billion on pollution abatement capital expen-

ditures (such as equipment) and $11.9 billion on pollution

abatement operating costs.

A breakdown by media type protected is presented in

Table 1.1. Protection of air and water accounted for more

than 80% of the expenditures. As shown in Figure 1.3 the

manufacturing industry paid $14.5 billion, the largest

share (82%) of pollution abatement costs in 1999. The

electric utility industry accounted for 13% of the costs,

followed by mining with 5%. Within the manufacturing

sector the two industries with the highest total costs were

chemicals ($3.8 billion) and petroleum/coal product man-

ufacturing ($1.7 billion).

It is not surprising that business and industry leaders

object to these costs. Some claim that environmental

regulations will make their businesses unprofitable by

driving up prices and production costs, which will in turn

force them to close plants and lay off workers, if not shut

down entirely. As early as the 1970s these sentiments

were finding support among politicians and the general

population, and an antiregulatory movement developed.

TABLE 1.1

Pollution abatement costs and expenditures by media protected in1999

Capital costs Operating costs Total costs

Air $3,463.7 $5,069.1 $8,532.8Water $1,801.9 $4,586.5 $6,388.4Solid waste $361.9 $2,013.3 $2,375.2Multimedia $182.3 $195.5 $377.8

Total $5,809.8 $11,864.4 $17,674.2

SOURCE: Adapted from “Summary of 1999 Survey Results,” in PollutionAbatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999, U.S. Department of Commerce,U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, November 2002, http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/ma200-99.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

FIGURE 1.3

Pollution abatement costs and expenditures, by industry, 1999

SOURCE: Adapted from “Summary of 1999 Survey Results,” in PollutionAbatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999, U.S. Department ofCommerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, November 2002,http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/ma200-99.pdf(accessed July 20,2005)

[$17.7 billion total]

Manufacturing(operating costs)

57%

Manufacturing(capital costs)

25%

Electric utility industry(operating costs)

7%

Electric utility industry(capital costs)

6%Mining

(operating costs)3%

Mining(capital costs)

2%

4 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

DOES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DESTROY

JOBS? By the end of the twentieth century, the large-scale

layoffs that some businesspeople predicted had not come

to pass. Michael Renner, in State of the World 2000 (New

York: Worldwatch Institute and W. W. Norton Company,

2000), states that job loss as a result of environmental

regulation has been relatively limited. According to

Renner, at least as many people have gained jobs, due

to the restrictions, as have lost them. He points out that

environmental regulations have led to the creation of an

entirely new industry that earns its profits by assisting

other businesses with compliance, mostly by helping

them to minimize pollution.

Even for those who accept this positive view of the

overall effects of environmental regulation on business, it

is unquestionable that some industries and their workers

are badly hurt by environmental regulations. Renner con-

tends that policy changes intended to protect the environ-

ment must have a clear and predetermined schedule. This

way workers will know in advance what is expected of

them, what jobs will be in demand, and what training is

needed to get them into those positions. As long as

environmental regulation results in shrinking profits and

loss of jobs, however, attempts to expand such regulation

will certainly be met with opposition from those whose

livelihood would be affected.

The Business of Environmental Protection

In order for the United States and other nations to

meet their environmental goals, an environmental protec-

tion industry has emerged. Its major activities include

pollution control, waste management, cleanup of con-

taminated sites, pollution prevention, and recycling.

Environmental Business International Inc. (EBI) is

a private organization that offers business and market

information to the environmental industry. According

to EBI the U.S. environmental market was largely driven

by major legislation during the 1970s and 1980s.

(See Figure 1.4.) During the 1990s overall economic

growth and adaptation of ISO standards were important

factors driving the market. ISO standards are voluntary

standards developed by the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO). They were adopted by many

industries during the 1990s as a means of showing com-

pliance with certain levels of environmental conduct. The

environmental industry is in a transition phase. In the past

this industry focused on remedial cleanup; in the future it

will be focused more on prevention.

As shown in Figure 1.4 the environmental industry

market underwent tremendous growth between 1970 and

2000. The U.S. market for pollution-control technologies

and other environmental services topped $200 billion in

2000. Growth is expected to slow a little between 2000

and 2010. Table 1.2 details projected growth rates by

sectors within the environmental industry. Wastewater

treatment works and solid waste management are the only

service sectors expected to increase their market shares.

Remediation, hazardous waste management, and related

consulting services are expected to continue to decline.

According to EBI, developed nations represent about

90% of the global pollution-control industry; the United

States alone accounts for approximately 40% of the indus-

try. Pollution-control markets are, however, growing

rapidly in other countries. Expansion in Asian markets will

greatly depend on the region’s economic status. If the

economy worsens, it may lead governments to give the

environment less priority. Also, some governments,

including many in eastern Europe and Russia, have a

legacy of abusive environmental practices that increases

their environmental needs but a lack of funding that limits

an otherwise huge market for cleanup and new technology.

THE ANTIREGULATORY MOVEMENT

Since the mid-1980s dissatisfaction with government

regulation has grown. In 1994 the newly elected Repub-

lican-controlled Congress attempted to strike down a wide

variety of federal regulations, including environmental

regulations that they considered overly burdensome. Bills

were introduced to relax regulations established under the

Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the Superfund

toxic-waste cleanup program, the Safe Drinking Water

Act, and other environmental statutes. Much of that legis-

lation ultimately failed to pass. However, congressional

budget cuts for the agencies responsible for carrying out

these acts meant that many of the laws were not strongly

enforced.

FIGURE 1.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010projected

Billi

on d

olla

rs (n

omin

al)

NEPA,CAA

Economic growth,ISO standards

Environmentallegislation

Services Equipment Resources

U.S. environmental industry market, 1970–2010

SOURCE: Andrew Paterson, “U.S. Environmental Market 1970–2010,” inEnvironmental Market Outlook to 2010, Briefing for EPA-NACEPT,Environmental Business International, San Diego, CA, June 11, 2002

Notes: ISO�International Organization for Standards; NEPA�NationalEnvironmental Policy Act; CAA�Clean Air Act.

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 5

Several factors contributed to this reaction to federal

regulation. During the early days of the environmental

era, the United States was experiencing a post-World

War II economic boom, leading Americans to regard

regulatory costs as sustainable. During the 1970s and

1980s, as economic growth slowed, wages stagnated

and Americans became uncertain about the future. An

increasing number of Americans started to question the

costs of environmental protection. They began to pay

more attention to the business leaders and politicians

who had claimed since the beginning of the environmen-

tal protection movement that regulations would hurt the

economy and cost people jobs. Although the national

economy improved tremendously in the 1990s, it did

not eliminate people’s concerns about the potential nega-

tive effects of environmental regulations on the economy.

The impact of environmental regulations on private

property use has also played a very important role in the

change in attitudes. The Endangered Species Act and the

wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act spurred a grass-

roots ‘‘private property rights’’ movement. Many people

became concerned that these acts, as well as other legislation,

would allow the government to ‘‘take’’ or devalue properties

without compensation. For example, if federal regulations

prohibited construction on a plot of land that was protected by

law, then the owner of that land often felt that the government

was unfairly limiting the use of his or her property. At the

very least, the owner wanted government compensation for

decreasing the monetary value of the land.

Finally, there are those who feel that environmental

regulation by the government, while not necessarily bad,

has gone too far. Many people believe that the federal

government has overstepped its authority and should

allow state and local governments to make their own

rules on environmental issues. Similarly, some people

feel that existing regulations are too strict and should be

relaxed in order to generate economic growth.

LITIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

The courts have been an important forum for devel-

oping environmental policy because they allow citizens

to challenge complex environmental laws and to affect

the decision-making process. Both supporters and oppo-

nents of environmental protection have successfully used

the courts to change environmental policy and law. Suc-

cessful challenges can force the legislature to change

laws or even have the law suspended as unconstitutional.

A lawsuit can also be filed to seek compensation for harm

to a person, property, or an economic interest. Some-

times, lawsuits have prompted the creation of entirely

new laws such as the federal Superfund Law (1980) and

the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976). Even the threat

of a lawsuit, given the bad publicity it can bring, is

sometimes enough to get a business or the government

to change its behavior.

There are many different situations under which an

individual or organization can go to court over environ-

mental laws and regulations. One common occurrence is

for an individual or group to sue the government in order

to block a law or regulation from going into effect. For

example, when the government halted logging in north-

western forests because of threats to endangered owls,

TABLE 1.2

Growth expected in U.S. environmental industry sectors, 1970–2010

Environmental 1970 70–80 80–90 90–00 00–10industry segment $ growth growth growth growth

Services

Analytical services 0.1 300% 314% �26% �33%Wastewater treatment works 4.3 116% 116% 34% 36%Solid waste management 3.2 164% 208% 45% 20%Hazardous waste management 0.1 550% 921% �15% �49%Remediation/industrial services 0.1 550% 1,813% 5% �36%Consulting & engineering 0.3 367% 761% 21% �21%

Equipment

Water equipment and chemicals 3.2 117% 95% 57% 31%Instruments & information systems 0.1 100% 820% 84% 1%Air pollution control equipment 1.0 196% 258% 30% �44%Waste management equipment 2.0 105% 159% 20% 24%Process & prevention technology 0.0 259% 418% 192% 83%

Resources

Water utilities 5.7 109% 67% 53% 25%Resource recovery (recycling) 1.2 283% 197% 29% 28%Environmental energy sources 0.3 420% 15% 87% 82%

U.S. totals $21.4 145% 178% 35% 12%

SOURCE: Andrew Paterson, “Several Service Sectors Declining: Water, Energy Growing,” in Environmental Market Outlook to 2010, Briefing for EPA-NACEPT,Environmental Business International, San Diego, CA, June 11, 2002

6 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

logging companies fought to halt enforcement of those

protections because that would decrease the industry’s

income and cause the loss of jobs.

Some lawsuits are filed not to block an environmen-

tal law or regulation from going into effect but because

the claimants feel that the government owes them com-

pensation for the negative effects of the law. In 1986

David Lucas bought two residential lots on a South

Carolina barrier island. He planned to build houses on

these lots, just as had been done on other nearby lots. At

the time he bought the land this was entirely legal, but in

1988 South Carolina passed the Beachfront Management

Act. Designed to protect the state’s beaches from erosion,

it prohibited new construction on land in danger of erod-

ing, which included the land Lucas owned.

Lucas went to court claiming that the Beachfront

Management Act had violated the Fifth Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution by preventing him from building on

his property. The Fifth Amendment states, among other

things, that no person’s ‘‘private property shall be taken

for public use, without just compensation.’’ Lucas argued

that preventing him from building on his property was

equivalent to taking it, so the government of South Carolina

had to compensate him for it. On June 29, 1992, the U.S.

Supreme Court, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Coun-

cil (505 US 1003), agreed with Lucas in a 7–2 decision, and

South Carolina was ordered to compensate him.

Supporters of environmental protection also have

filed lawsuits. These situations generally occur when

people feel the government is not properly enforcing the

law. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and

Greenpeace have sued the government on many occa-

sions to compel it to officially recognize certain species

as endangered.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—ANEVOLVING ISSUE

The so-called environmental justice issue stems from

concerns that racial minorities are disproportionately sub-

ject to environmental hazards. The EPA defines environ-

mental justice as ‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful

involvement of all people regardless of race, color,

national origin, or income with respect to the develop-

ment, implementation, and enforcement of environmental

laws, regulations, and policies.’’

Examples of environmental injustice include the fol-

lowing claims:

• Low-income Americans, especially minorities, may

be more likely than other groups to live near landfills,

incinerators, and hazardous waste facilities.

• Low-income and African-American children often

have higher than normal levels of lead in their blood.

• Greater proportions of Hispanic Americans and

African-Americans than whites live in communities

that fail to meet air quality standards.

• Higher percentages of hired farm workers in the

United States are minorities that may experience

pesticide-related illnesses as a result of their work.

• Low-income and minority fishermen who use fish as

their sole source of protein are generally not well

informed about the risk of eating contaminated fish

from certain lakes, rivers, and streams.

The environmental justice movement gained national

attention in 1982 with a demonstration against the con-

struction of a hazardous waste landfill in Warren County,

North Carolina, a county with a predominantly African-

American population. A resulting 1983 congressional

study found that, for three of four landfills surveyed,

African-Americans made up the majority of the popula-

tion living nearby and at least 26% of the population in

those communities was below the poverty level. In 1987

the United Church of Christ published a nationwide

study, Toxic Waste and Race in the United States, report-

ing that race was the most significant factor among the

variables tested in determining locations of hazardous

waste facilities.

A 1990 EPA report (Environmental Equity: Reducing

Risk for All Communities) concluded that racial minori-

ties and low-income people bore a disproportionate bur-

den of environmental risk. These groups were exposed to

lead, air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, contami-

nated fish, and agricultural pesticides in far greater fre-

quencies than the general population.

In 1992 the EPA established the Office of Envi-

ronmental Justice to address environmental impacts

affecting minority and low-income communities. In

1994 President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order

12,898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations), requiring federal agencies to develop a

comprehensive strategy for including environmental

justice in their decision making.

In October 2003 the United States Commission on

Civil Rights (USCCR) published the report ‘‘Not in My

Backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as Tools

for Achieving Environmental Justice.’’ The report exam-

ined the level to which various government agencies,

including the EPA, had implemented Executive Order

12,898 and Title VI (the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Agency performance was based on four major

criteria:

• Collecting data on the health and environmental

impacts of agency activities on ‘‘communities of color

and low-income populations’’

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 7

• Incorporating the principles of environmental justice

into agency policies, programs, and activities

• Allowing ‘‘affected communities’’ to participate in

environmental decision-making processes

• Granting ‘‘affected communities’’ access to scientific

data and information related to the enforcement of

Title VI and Executive Order 12,898

The report concluded that the EPA had experienced

‘‘limited success’’ in implementing the principles of

environmental justice, but that ‘‘significant problems

and shortcomings’’ still existed. A lack of commitment

from agency leaders was cited as a major problem.

Only four of the USCCR’s eight commissioners

signed the report. The other four refused to sign noting

in an attached letter that they believed the report was

‘‘based upon a misguided application of federal antidis-

crimination law to complex environmental and public

health problems.’’ The dissenting commissioners

acknowledged that there are legitimate concerns about

the health of people living near ‘‘environmental

hazards.’’ They prefer that these issues be addressed

under environmental laws, rather than civil rights laws.

They complain that ‘‘environmental justice activists seek

to create a federal civil rights claim every time an envir-

onmental or public health problem affects minorities.’’

In March 2004 a federal lawsuit against the chemical

company Monsanto was settled for $300 million. The suit

was spearheaded by a grassroots environmental group

called Citizens against Pollution out of Anniston, Alabama.

It was brought on behalf of 18,477 residents living in poor,

mostly African-American neighborhoods in the city’s west

end. The suit alleged that since the 1960s a Monsanto plant

had discharged large amounts of polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) into a creek running through the area. PCBs are

mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that are now known

to be extremely persistent in the environment and toxic to

life. Lawyers had evidence linking PCB exposure to a

variety of serious illnesses and even deaths suffered by

members of the community over decades.

Without admitting fault, Monsanto agreed to pay

$300 million to settle the case. According to Ellen Barry

in the Los Angeles Times (‘‘A Neighborhood of Poisoned

Dreams,’’ April 13, 2004), the plaintiffs, who were ori-

ginally thrilled with the settlement, were shocked when

they learned the lawyers would receive $120 million of

the money. This left $180 million to be split amongst

thousands of plaintiffs, resulting in an average payout of

only $7,725 per person. A case brought by a different set

of plaintiffs in state court resulted in a settlement of $300

million to be split among 2,500 of them. An additional

$75 million was earmarked toward cleanup efforts and

$25 million was set aside to build a neighborhood health

clinic. In total the lawsuits resulted in a settlement of

nearly $700 million, the largest payout ever in a tort case

(a civil action resulting from a wrongful act) involving

toxic chemicals.

In the spring of 2005 the EPA was forced to cancel a

planned pesticide study after the media accused the

agency of targeting low-income minority children as test

subjects. The Children’s Health Environmental Exposure

Research Study (CHEERS) was supposed to collect data

on children’s exposure to household pesticides and che-

micals. The study called for the monitoring of sixty

young children (age three and less) in and around Jack-

sonville, Florida, with the help of the county health

department. According to the EPA, volunteering families

were to do the following things over a two-year period:

• keep records of their normal pesticide usage

• maintain an activity diary for their child and video-

tape some of the child’s everyday activities with a

supplied video recorder

• collect food and urine samples

• put a small sensor badge on their child for several weeks

• allow periodic visits by EPA researchers to collect

data

The EPA instructions for families noted that they were

to follow their normal pesticide application routine and

were not being asked to apply new or different pesticides

in their homes. In addition to the video camera, each

family was to receive cash compensation for their time.

The EPA began publicizing the CHEERS study and

asking for families to volunteer to participate in the fall

of 2004. The issue became a public relations nightmare

for the agency. Media stories pointed out that the study

area contained many low-income minority neighbor-

hoods. Critics accused the EPA of enticing poor families

to expose their children to pesticides in return for cash

and video cameras. Part of the funding for the study was

to come from the American Chemistry Council, a trade

group representing chemical manufacturers. This also

aroused criticism about the intent of the study.

The issue became highly politicized in March 2005

when confirmation hearings began for Stephen Johnson,

the Bush administration’s choice to head the agency.

Some Senate democrats threatened to block Johnson’s

confirmation unless the study was canceled. The EPA

insisted that the study objectives were being distorted

by the media and for political reasons. However, in April

2005 the EPA canceled the CHEERS study.

‘‘NEW’’ CRIME—ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME

Table 1.3 lists the major environmental and wildlife

protection acts of the federal government. As recently as

the 1980s very few Americans understood that harming

8 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

the environment could be considered a crime. Since that

time, however, a substantial portion of the American

public has begun to recognize the seriousness of envir-

onmental offenses, believing that damaging the environ-

ment is a serious crime and that corporate officials

should be held responsible for offenses committed by

their firms. Even though the immediate consequences of

an offense may not be obvious or severe, environmental

crime is a serious problem and does have victims; the

cumulative costs in damage to the environment and

the toll to humans in illness, injury, and death can be

considerable.

Law enforcement agencies generally believe that

successful criminal prosecution—even the threat of it—

is the best deterrent to environmental crime. Under the

dual sovereignty doctrine, both state and federal govern-

ments can independently prosecute environmental crimes

without violating the double jeopardy or due process

clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

As attitudes toward environmental crimes have chan-

ged, the penalties for such offenses have become harsher.

Federal criminal enforcement has grown from a misde-

meanor penalty for dumping contaminants into waterways

without a permit, to a felony for clandestine (secret)

dumping. Several federal laws now include criminal penal-

ties. Companies, their officials, and staff can be prosecuted

for knowingly violating any one of a number of crimes.

Such crimes include transporting hazardous waste to an

unlicensed facility, storing and disposing of hazardous

waste without a permit, failing to notify of a hazardous

substance release, falsifying documents, dumping into a

wetland, or violating air quality standards.

Figure 1.5 shows the numbers of criminal investiga-

tions conducted by the EPA Criminal Enforcement

Program for fiscal years 2000–04 and the number of

defendants charged with environmental crimes. More

than four hundred investigations took place during

2004, and nearly three hundred defendants were charged

with crimes that year. Nearly eight hundred people were

incarcerated for environmental crimes between 2000

and 2004 and nearly $400 million in fines were paid.

Another $545 million was collected in civil penalties.

(See Figure 1.6.)

Since the 1970s, environmental laws have become

more complicated. The increasing strictness of those laws

may have contributed to the growing incidence of envi-

ronmental violations. First, many businesses have found

compliance increasingly expensive, and many are simply

avoiding the costs even if it means violating the law.

These companies consider the penalties just another

‘‘cost of doing business.’’ Second, businesses and their

legal counsel are becoming increasingly savvy in avoid-

ing prosecution through the use of dummy corporations,

intermediaries, and procedural techniques.

Smuggling and black-market sales of banned hazar-

dous substances also resulted from environmental legis-

lation. In 1997 federal officials reported that the sale of

contraband Freon (a refrigerant used in air conditioning

systems) had become more profitable than the sale of

cocaine at that time. Freon is one of the chlorofluorocar-

bons (CFCs), a class of chemicals known to cause ozone

depletion in the atmosphere. In Mexico, which shares a

two-thousand-mile border with the United States, Freon

is still legal to manufacture and export, but those acti-

vities are banned in the United States. Freon, however,

continues to exist in the cooling systems of many older

model cars in the United States, which means a demand

also exists.

TABLE 1.3

Major federal environmental and wildlife protection acts

Environmental protection acts

Clean Air Act (CAA)—Prevent the deterioration of air qualityClean Water Act (CWA)—Regulate sources of water pollutionComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (CERCLA or Superfund)—Address problems of abandoned hazardous waste sitesEmergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)—Help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazardsFederal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—Control pesticide distribution, sale, and useNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—The basic national charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy.Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)—Prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spillsPollution Prevention Act (PPA)—Reduce the amount of pollution produced via recycling, source reduction, and sustainable agricultureResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—Protect human health and the environment from dangers associated with waste managementSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)—Protect the quality of drinking waterToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—Test, regulate, and screen all chemicals produced in or imported into the U.S.

Wildlife protection acts

Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)—Provide a program for the conservation of bald and golden eaglesEndangered Species Act (ESA)—Conserve the various species of fish, wild life, and plants facing extinctionLacey Act—Control the trade of exotic fish, wildlife, and plantsMigratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)—Protect migratory birds during their nesting season

SOURCE: Adapted from “Major Environmental Laws,” in Guide to Environmental Issues, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement andCompliance Assurance, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 9

Another type of environmental crime gaining atten-

tion, called ‘‘ecoterrorism,’’ occurs when radical environ-

mental groups use economic sabotage to stop what they

see as threats to the environment. The Earth Liberation

Front is blamed for more than six hundred attacks and

nearly $43 million in property damage since the late

1990s. The group is accused of setting fire to a genetics

laboratory, uprooting experimental crops, and damaging

buildings. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has

named the group one of the most dangerous domestic

terrorist groups in America.

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSETO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Environmental issues have never been neatly bound

by national borders. Activities taking place in one coun-

try often have an impact on the environment of other

countries, if not that of the entire Earth. In fact, many of

the most important aspects of environmental protection

involve areas that are not located within any particular

country, such as the oceans, or belong to no one, such

as the atmosphere. In an attempt to deal with these

issues, the international community has held a number

of conferences and developed numerous declarations,

agreements, and treaties. The major ones are listed in

Table 1.4.

A First Major Step—The Stockholm Conference

In 1972 the UN met in Stockholm, Sweden, for a

conference on the environment. Delegates from 113

countries met, with each reporting the state of his or her

nation’s environment—forests, water, farmland, and

other natural resources. The countries represented essen-

tially fell into two groups. The industrialized countries

were primarily concerned about how to protect the envi-

ronment by preventing pollution and overpopulation and

conserving natural resources. The less developed nations

were more concerned about problems of widespread

hunger, disease, and poverty they all faced. They did

FIGURE 1.5

Environmental Protection Agency criminal enforcement program, 2000–04

SOURCE: “Criminal Investigations and Defendants Charged FY 2000–FY 2004,” and “Sentencing Results FY 2000–FY 2004,” in EPA FY 2004 End of YearEnforcement & Compliance Assurance Results, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC,November 15, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2004/fy04results.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Tota

l

Criminal investigations

Fiscal Year (FY)

2000 2001 2002 2003

471 482 484 471425

2004

0

300

400

Tota

l

Defendants charged

Fiscal Year (FY)

200

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

360 372

325

247

293

Year

s

Fiscal year (FY)

Incarceration

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

146

212 215

146

77

250

200

150

100

50

0

Fines and restitution

$ in

mill

ions

Fiscal year (FY)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$122

$95

$62$71

$47

$150

$100

$50

$0

10 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

consider the environment very important, however, and

were willing to protect it as long as doing so did not have

a major negative economic impact on their citizens.

By the end of the two-week meeting, the delegates

had agreed that the human environment had to be pro-

tected, even as industrialization proceeded in the less

developed countries. They established the UN Environ-

ment Program (UNEP), which included Earthwatch, a

program to monitor changes in the physical and biologi-

cal resources of the Earth. The most important outcome

of the conference was awareness of Earth’s ecology as a

whole. For the first time in global history, the environ-

mental problems of both rich and poor nations were put

in perspective. General agreement emerged to protect

natural resources, encourage family planning and popula-

tion control, and protect against the negative effects of

industrialization.

Some Difficulties Facing InternationalEnvironmental Protection

Since the 1972 conference, hundreds of environ-

mental treaties have been signed. From this, one might

assume that great progress has been made, but this is

not truly the case. Most experts believe that interna-

tional cooperation is not keeping pace with the world’s

ever-growing interdependence and the rapidly deterior-

ating condition of much of the environment. Carbon

dioxide (CO2) levels are at record highs, water

shortages exist around the world, fisheries are becom-

ing depleted, and many scientists are warning that large

numbers of species are becoming extinct. The reason

for this is that, while nations agree on the fact that the

environment must be safeguarded, they disagree shar-

ply on the issue of what role each nation should play in

protecting it.

FIGURE 1.6

Injunctive relief

$6.0

$2.9$4.0

$2.0

$0.0

$1.6

FY00

$4.5

FY01

$3.9

FY02 FY03

$4.8

FY04

Judicial Administrative

Total civil penalties

$100

$50

$0

$150

FY00

$84

$55

$29

FY02

$90

$64

$26

FY04

$149

$121

$28

Environmental Protection Agency civil enforcement program,2000–04

SOURCE: “EPA Results of Concluded Enforcement Actions FY 2000–FY 2004,” in EPA FY 2004 End of Year Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Results, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC, November 15, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2004/fy04results.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Supplemental environmental projects

$80

$100

$60

$40

$20

$56

FY00

$89

FY01

$58

FY02

$65

FY03

$48

FY04$0

FY03

$96

$24

$72

FY01

$126

$24

$102

Mill

ions

Billi

ons

Mill

ions

TABLE 1.4

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946)The Antarctic Treaty (1959)Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972)The Stockholm Declaration (1972)London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and

Other Matter (1972)International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL,

1973/1978)Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES,

1974)Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979)The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985)The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987)The Basel Convention on the Movement of Transboundary Hazardous Wastes and Their

Disposal (1989)Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo,

Finland, 1991)United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit, Rio de

Janeiro, 1992)The Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)The Kyoto Protocol (1997)The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)Agenda 21 (1992)The Rio Declaration (1992)Statement on Forest Principles (1992)

The Stockholm Convention on Priority Organic Pollutants (2001)

SOURCE: Created by Kim Masters Evans for Thomson Gale, 2005

Major international conventions, treaties, and declarations relatedto the environment

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (1998)

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 1 1

Less developed nations are generally unwilling to

alter their laws and economy to end environmentally

destructive ways because a shift to environmentally

friendly practices would be too expensive, they claim,

for their economies to handle. Yet the richer, industria-

lized nations generally refuse to alter their own behavior

unless the less developed nations do so as well. Their

reason is not so much the cost of change rather than

believing it unfair that the less developed nations want

them to carry most of the burden of environmental

protection.

The less developed nations respond by pointing out

that the industrialized nations became rich by using the

very same practices they now want the less developed

nations to stop using. They claim it is unfair to be

expected to limit their economic development in ways

that the industrialized nations themselves never would

have done.

This is a difficult disagreement but not an impossible

one to resolve. When both sides are willing to compro-

mise, agreements can be reached. These compromises

usually require the industrialized nations to make bigger

changes in their behavior, and to help the less developed

nations change without too negative an impact on their

economies.

Even agreements like these face many obstacles.

Environmental agreements seldom include a means of

enforcement but rely instead on each signing country to

keep its word. Faced with the actual, immediate costs of

implementing environmental agreements, many countries

eventually back down from their commitments. United

States representatives have signed many international

agreements. However, U.S. participation is not officially

authorized unless and until these agreements are ratified

by the U.S. Senate. As a result, as of 2005, the United

States is a signatory party on many international agree-

ments but is not yet abiding by some of them. Most

international treaties related to the environment are set

up so that the requirements do not become binding until a

specified minimum number of parties (countries) have

ratified the agreements.

1992 EARTH SUMMIT. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio

de Janeiro, Brazil, is an example of a conference where

compromises were made and agreements reached but

little change actually resulted. Mounting global concern

for the environment prompted the UN to convene the

summit meeting. Approximately 180 governments parti-

cipated, making it one of the largest and most important

environmental summits ever. As with prior environmen-

tal summits, the conference was split between industria-

lized and developing nations.

The main accomplishments of the Earth Summit

were pacts on global warming and biodiversity. President

George H. W. Bush attended the summit and, while there,

signed the global warming treaty for the United States.

President Clinton signed the biodiversity treaty in 1993.

These agreements came about largely because the indus-

trialized nations also agreed to commit 0.7% of their

gross national products by 2000 to assist developing

countries with compliance.

Problems arose soon after the summit ended. Partici-

pating countries submitted annual reports to the fifty-three-

nation UN Commission on Sustainable Development

(CSD), a standing body set up to implement the Rio

agreements. The CSD concluded in 1994 that most coun-

tries were failing to provide the money and expertise

necessary to implement the plans set at Rio. Chairman of

the CSD, Klaus Toepfer of Germany, reported that the

world’s efforts to finance the goals had fallen ‘‘signifi-

cantly short of expectations and requirements.’’

By 1996 a number of national governments, includ-

ing the United States, had prepared plans for environ-

mental protection and submitted them to the CSD.

Hundreds of municipalities had also written plans of

action. The CSD once again found, however, that other

issues had crowded out environmental concerns. As

developed and less developed nations alike worried about

the potential effects of implementing the Rio agreements,

they found reasons to delay implementation and reduce

funding for those programs that had been implemented.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. The World Trade

Organization (WTO) is an international organization

whose purpose is to encourage free trade between its

members. Most of the world’s nations are members.

Although the WTO was officially founded in 1995, it is

the result of decades of international cooperation under

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The WTO continues to administer the free trade system

established under GATT.

One of the primary missions of the WTO is to elim-

inate barriers to free trade. Doing so can have a negative

effect on environmental protection, however, because

laws designed to protect the environment often have the

effect of restricting trade. If the WTO finds that a mem-

ber nation is restricting trade in violation of GATT, other

members are permitted to raise their tariffs (import taxes)

on goods from that nation until the barriers to trade are

eliminated. Most of the time nations quickly change their

laws to eliminate barriers to trade, rather than suffer high

taxes.

Since it has forced many environmental laws to be

weakened over the years, the WTO is greatly disliked by

many environmentalists in the United States. Also, there

are groups that think the organization’s power over inter-

nal U.S. affairs is too great. When the WTO met in

Seattle, Washington, in 1999, tens of thousands of acti-

12 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

vists, including environmental activists, protested in the

city. This massive protest succeeded in overshadowing

the WTO meeting itself and drew public attention to the

problems—environmental and otherwise—with free

trade organizations. This was due in no small part to the

violent rioting and property damage caused by some

protesters.

Americans are not the only ones who take issue with

some of the WTO’s actions regarding the environment.

For example, Europeans opposed to genetically modify-

ing food, a procedure in widespread use in the United

States by 2002, wanted restrictions placed on the sale of

U.S. food in Europe, but such restrictions would violate

GATT and invite retaliation by the United States.

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. The

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed

in 1994, is another major free trade agreement with the

potential to negatively impact environmental protection

in the United States. Members of NAFTA include the

United States, Canada, and Mexico, and the purpose of

the agreement is to eliminate trade barriers—such as

most tariffs, investment restrictions, and import quo-

tas—between these three countries. While its scope is

much smaller than the WTO, NAFTA has an even greater

impact on the three member countries than GATT.

A significant difference between NAFTA and GATT

is that NAFTA is the first treaty of its kind ever to be

accompanied by an environmental protection agreement.

To discourage countries from weakening environmental

standards in the name of increasing foreign trade, the

United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(NAAEC). Under NAAEC, a member country can be

challenged if it or one of its states fails to enforce its

environmental laws. A challenge can be brought by one

of the member nations, or any interested party (such as an

environmental protection group) can petition the NAAEC

commission. If the commission finds a member country

is showing a ‘‘persistent pattern of failure . . . to enforce

its environmental law,’’ that country may be fined. If the

fines are not paid, the other members are permitted to

suspend NAFTA benefits in an amount not exceeding the

amount of the assessed fine.

Even with NAAEC, some U.S. environmentalists and

state officials feared that NAFTA could result in the

weakening of numerous humane laws and the reversal

of thirty years of advances in animal protection and

environmental cleanup. In response, Congress provided

more protection for state laws and included more envir-

onmental language than in any previous trade agreement.

The implementing legislation for NAFTA in the United

States allows states much input and requires that they

receive notification of actions that may affect them. In

addition, during NAFTA discussions, the Border Envir-

onment Cooperation Commission and the North Amer-

ican Development Bank were created. Independent of

NAFTA itself, these agencies are intended to ensure that

policy discussions are open and fairly enforced, to con-

sider allegations that a country is not enforcing environ-

mental laws, to help communities finance environmental

infrastructures, and to resolve disputes, particularly those

that cross borders.

Despite all these measures designed to make sure that

NAFTA does not trample on environmental protection,

environmentalists still see the need for concern. They point

out that U.S. laws designed to protect certain animals could

be challenged as barriers to free trade under NAFTA. They

also point to the increased pollution in Mexico and along its

border with the United States that has resulted from the

increase in trade between these two countries.

PUBLIC OPINION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Quality of the Environment

In March 2005 the Gallup Organization conducted its

annual poll regarding environmental issues. As shown in

Figure 1.7, participants were asked to rate the overall quality

of the U.S. environment as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.

Only 4% of those asked gave the environment an excellent

rating. Another 37% rated the environment in good condi-

tion, while 48% considered it in fair condition and 10% rated

it in poor condition. In general the breakdown is similar to

that obtained in polls dating back to 2001.

Another question from Gallup’s 2005 Environment

poll asked if people believed the quality of the environ-

ment as a whole was getting better, getting worse, or

staying the same. In 2005 a majority of respondents

(63%) expressed the pessimistic view that the environ-

ment is getting worse. Another 29% believed that the

environment is improving, and 6% thought it is about

the same. This breakdown has remained relatively con-

stant since the question was first asked in 2001.

Grading the Environmental Movement

As part of its 2005 poll, Gallup asked people to rate

the overall performance of the environmental movement.

As shown in Figure 1.8 a majority of those asked (69%)

felt that the movement had done more good than harm,

while 28% thought it had done more harm than good.

Environmental Protection Efforts

Gallup also asked poll participants to rate their level

of trust in the ability of various entities to protect the

quality of the nation’s environment. These entities are

listed below along with the percentage of respondents

expressing a ‘‘great deal’’ of trust in them.

• Local environmental organizations (26%)

• National environmental organizations (25%)

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 13

• Federal environmental agencies, like the EPA (22%)

• State environmental agencies (16%)

• Small businesses (15%)

• The Democratic Party (15%)

• Local government agencies (11%)

• The U.S. Congress (11%)

• The Republican Party (9%)

• Large corporations (7%)

Rating the Government’s Role

In general, the results from Gallup’s 2005 Envir-

onment poll indicate dissatisfaction with the govern-

ment’s role in protecting the environment. In 2005 a

majority of those asked (58%) felt that the government

was doing too little in this regard. More than a third

(34%) thought the government was doing about the

right amount, and 5% believed the government was

doing too much. The percentage of people who believe

the government is doing too little to protect the

environment has decreased since 1992 when 68%

expressed this view.

Slightly more than half of those asked (52%) said

that the Bush administration was maintaining the nation’s

environmental policies at about the same level as they

had been historically. Another 40% felt that the admini-

stration had weakened those policies, and 5% thought

that policies had been strengthened.

Personal Participation

Despite an apparent dissatisfaction with government

actions regarding the environment, there is no indication

that Americans feel more compelled to become actively

involved in environmental issues. Only 16% of the

people polled considered themselves active participants

in the environmental movement. Far more (49%) were

sympathetic to the movement but not active. Another

28% expressed neutral feelings about it and 5% were

unsympathetic. These numbers are quite similar to those

obtained in Gallup environment polls dating back to the

year 2000.

In 2005 only 7% of those asked belonged to any large

national or international environmental organizations.

Slightly more respondents (12%) belonged to environ-

mental groups or organizations in their local community,

region, or state.

FIGURE 1.8

SOURCE: Adapted from “All things considered, do you think theenvironmental movement in this nation has done more good than harm,or more harm than good? Would you say it has done—definitely moregood than harm, probably more good than harm, probably more harmthan good, or definitely more harm than good?” in Environment, TheGallup Organization, Princeton, NJ, April 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci�1615 (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright © 2005 The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permissionof The Gallup Organization.

Public opinion on the success of the environmentalmovement, April 2005“ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, DO YOU THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTIN THIS NATION HAS DONE MORE GOOD THAN HARM, OR MORE HARM THANGOOD?”

No opinion3%

More harm than good

28%More good than harm

69%

FIGURE 1.7

SOURCE: Adapted from “How would you rate the overall quality of theenvironment in this country today—as excellent, good, only fair, orpoor?” in Environment, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ,April 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci�1615(accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright © 2005 The Gallup Organization.Reproduced by permission of The Gallup Organization.

Public opinion on the quality of the environment, March 2005“HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT INTHIS COUNTRY TODAY—AS EXCELLENT, GOOD, ONLY FAIR, OR POOR?”

Good37%

Excellent4%

No opinion1%

Poor10%

Only fair48%

14 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

Competing Interests: Environment, Energy, and Economy

For many years the Gallup Organization has polled

people about which should take priority: the environment

or economic growth. The vast majority of polls conducted

between 1984 and 2000 showed strong support for the

environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth.

In all of these polls at least 58% of the people asked agreed

with this view. The tide began to turn during the early

2000s as economic growth became a higher priority.

The March 2005 poll showed that 53% of those

asked believed that environmental protection should be

given priority even if it risked curbing economic growth.

More than one third (36%) felt that economic growth

should be given priority even if it meant that the environ-

ment would suffer to some extent. According to Gallup, a

small percentage (7%) advocated giving equal priority to

environmental protection and economic growth.

The percentage breakdown was very similar for a

poll question regarding development of U.S. energy sup-

plies versus environmental protection. Gallup found in

2005 that 52% of respondents felt that protection of the

environment should have priority, even if it might limit

the amount of energy supplies, such as oil, coal, and gas,

that the nation could produce. Another 39% of people

thought that development of energy supplies should have

priority over the environment. A small percentage (4%)

indicated that the two should have equal priority.

Americans Rank Their Concerns

In March 2005 Gallup asked poll participants to rate

their level of worry regarding twelve social and political

issues. (See Figure 1.9.) The availability and affordability

of healthcare garnered the most concern with 60% of

respondents expressing a great deal of worry about it. It

was followed by social security, crime and violence, drug

use, terrorism, energy, the economy, and hunger and

homelessness. The environment ranked ninth with 35%

of those asked expressing a great deal of worry about it.

Concern was greatest among people aged eighteen to

twenty-nine years and those that classified themselves

as ‘‘nonwhite.’’

In another question, poll respondents were asked

to project what is likely to be the most important problem

facing the nation in twenty-five years. The environment

ranked third in this poll behind Social Security and the

economy.

In Gallup’s 2002 and 2003 environmental polls they

asked participants to rate various environmental issues in

regard to the amount of concern they feel about them: a

great deal, a fair amount, a little, or none. The ten issues

assessed were as follows:

• Acid rain

• Air pollution

• Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste

• Damage to the Earth’s ozone layer

• Extinction of plant and animal species

• Greenhouse effect (global warming)

• Loss of tropical rain forests

• Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for

household needs

• Pollution of drinking water

• Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs

Pollsters found that pollution of drinking water had

the highest percentage of respondents expressing a great

deal of concern. (See Figure 1.10.) It topped the list with

53%, followed by pollution of rivers, lakes, and reser-

voirs with 48%, and contamination of soil and water by

toxic waste, also with 48%. In general, water-related

issues garnered the most amount of concern.

FIGURE 1.9

SOURCE: Rick Blizzard, “Concern About Healthcare in the United States,” in Healthcare Concerns Whites, Life-and-Death Matter forBlacks, Gallup Corporation, Princeton, NJ, April 12, 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci�15835 (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright © 2005 The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permission of The Gallup Organization.

Public opinion on the problems facing the country, March 2005“NEXT I’M GOING TO READ A LIST OF PROBLEMS FACING THE COUNTRY. FOREACH ONE, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THISPROBLEM A GREAT DEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL?FIRST, HOW MUCH DO YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT…?”

Hunger and homelessness

The availability andaffordability of healthcare 60%

Social security 48%

Crime and violence 46%

Drug use 42%

The possibility of futureterrorist attacks in the U.S. 41%

The availability andaffordability of energy 39%

The economy 38%

37%

The quality of theenvironment 35%

Illegal immigration 33%

Unemployment 27%

Race relations 16%

Percentage saying “great deal”

The Environment The State of the Environment—An Overview 15

How Reliable Are Polls on Environmental Issues?

Some experts suggest that opinion polls are an unre-

liable guide to how voters actually feel about environ-

mental issues. Although polls of Americans indicate that

concern for environmental issues is substantial, this same

level of concern does not manifest itself when it comes to

actual voting and purchasing decisions. Some observers

suggest that people often claim in polls that they are

interested in environmental issues because they are trying

to give the pollster the answer that he or she wants to

hear. In other words, they are giving what they think is

the ‘‘right’’ answer. In actuality, respondents may be

more interested in other issues and, in the voting booth,

may vote other than their poll answers would indicate.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Teaching about the Environment in Schools

Many states require schools to incorporate environ-

mental concepts, such as ecology, conservation, and

environmental law, into many subjects at all grade levels.

Some even require special training in environmentalism

for teachers. Between 1992 and 2003 the EPA gave

grants to more than twenty-seven hundred such projects

at a cost of more than $32 million.

Although this mandating of environmental educa-

tion pleases environmentalists, and studies have shown

that most Americans support environmental education,

some people have protested. Critics claim that most

environmental education in the schools is based on

flawed information, biased presentations, and question-

able objectives. Critics also say it leads to brainwashing

and pushing a regulatory mind-set on students. Some

critics contend that, at worst, impressionable children

are being trained to believe that the environment is in

immediate danger of catastrophe because of consump-

tion, economic growth, and free market capitalism.

Lacking Basic Knowledge

In May 2004 the National Environmental Education

and Training Foundation (NEETF), a private nonprofit

organization, published a report titled ‘‘Understanding

Environmental Literacy in America: And Making It a

Reality’’ (http://www.neetf.org/roper/ELR.pdf). The report

summarizes the NEETF’s findings on the depth of know-

ledge of environmental issues by American students and

adults. It is based on polls and studies conducted by a

variety of organizations, including the NEETF, Roper

Starch Worldwide, and National Geographic.

The report notes that overall knowledge among

adults regarding ‘‘simple’’ environmental topics was gen-

erally good. However, the author states that ‘‘the average

adult American, regardless of age, income or level of

education, mostly fails to grasp essential aspects of envi-

ronmental science, important cause/effect relationships or

even basic, but multi-step, concepts, such as runoff pollu-

tion, power generation and fuel use, water flow patterns

or ecosystem dynamics.’’

Researchers found that media sources, such as television

and newspapers, were the primary source of environmental

information for both children and adults. According to the

NEETF, the media’s influence is powerful, even though

most media outlets provide ‘‘superficial information’’ that

‘‘sometimes confuses the public and seldom ever truly edu-

cates.’’ The public’s reliance on the media for environmental

education is blamed for the persistence of commonly held

but mistaken beliefs that the NEETF calls environmental

myths, such as the idea that diapers fill landfills (when in

reality paper products account for 50 times more waste).

The NEETF report estimates that 80% of Americans

believe in incorrect and outdated environmental myths.

Less that one third (32%) demonstrated ‘‘basic aware-

ness’’ of environmental topics. Only 12% of those tested

passed a ‘‘basic’’ quiz on energy topics. The NEETF

concludes that environmental literacy is very poor in

the United States due to ‘‘shallow, disorganized and

inadequate education on the environment.’’

FIGURE 1.10

Americans expressing a great deal of concern about environmental problems, 2002–03I’M GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. AS I READ EACH ONE, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREAT DEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL.

Percentage saying “a great deal”

Pollution of drinking water 53%

Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs

48%

Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste

48%

Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for household needs

47%

Air pollution 39%

Extinction of plant and animal species

36%

The loss of tropical rain forests 35%

Damage to the Earth’s ozone layer

33%

The “greenhouse effect” or global warming

26%

Acid rain 20%

SOURCE: Darren K. Carlson, “Concern About Environmental Problems,”in Water Worries Deluge Environmental Concerns, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ, April 6, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/ content/print.aspx?ci�11227 (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright ©2004 by The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permission of TheGallup Organization.

16 The State of the Environment—An Overview The Environment

CHAPTER 2

A I R Q U A L I T Y

THE AIR PEOPLE BREATHE

According to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the average person breathes in more than three

thousand gallons of air each day. Because air is so essen-

tial to life, it is important that it be free of pollutants.

Throughout the world poor air quality contributes to

hundreds of thousands of deaths and diseases each year,

not to mention dying forests and lakes and the corrosion

of stone buildings and monuments. Air quality is also

important to quality of life and recreation because air

pollution causes haze that decreases visibility during out-

door activities.

Air pollutants are generated by natural and anthro-

pogenic (human-related) sources. Fossil fuels and chemi-

cals have played a major role in society’s pursuit of

economic growth and higher standards of living. How-

ever, burning fossil fuels and releasing toxic chemicals

into the air alter Earth’s chemistry and can threaten the

very air on which life depends.

THE HISTORY OF AIR POLLUTIONLEGISLATION

Air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels was a

problem in urban areas of England as long ago as the

fourteenth century. In 1307 King Edward I banned the

burning of coal in London ‘‘to avoid the sulfurous

smoke’’ and commanded Londoners to burn wood

instead. The ban was short-lived, however, as a wood

shortage forced the city to switch back to coal. Historians

record that future British monarchs also tried unsuccess-

fully to curtail the use of coal to reduce air pollution.

The onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late

1700s was accompanied by a tremendous increase in

the use of fossil fuels and air pollution in England and

the United States. Major U.S. cities began passing smoke

ordinances during the late 1800s. Air pollution control

remained a local issue for several more decades.

By the late 1940s smog had become a serious problem

in many urban areas. Extensive industrial growth during

World War II, a boom in car ownership, and unregulated

outdoor burning were the primary culprits. Los Angeles

and other large U.S. cities suffered from ‘‘smog attacks’’

during hot summer months. In 1952 London experienced

an episode of smog so severe that thousands of people

prematurely died from respiratory illnesses aggravated by

poor air quality. The incident was a wake-up call for many

governments. Air pollution legislation was quickly passed

in England and across Europe.

U.S. Air Pollution Legislation

In the United States concerns about smog led to

passage of the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. It

provided grants to public health agencies to research the

threats posed to human health by air pollution. In 1963

the first Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed. It set aside

even more grant money for research and data collection

and encouraged development of emissions standards for

major sources of pollution. The act was amended several

times through the remainder of the decade to expand

research priorities and local air pollution control agencies

and set national emission standards for some sources.

THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970. In 1970 the CAA

received a major overhaul. It required the newly estab-

lished EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Stan-

dards (NAAQS) for major pollutants. These standards are

divided into two classes:

• Primary Standards are designed to protect public

health, with special focus on so-called ‘‘sensitive’’

populations including children, the elderly, and peo-

ple with chronic respiratory problems, such as asthma.

• Secondary Standards are designed to protect the over-

all welfare of the public by reducing air pollution that

impairs visibility and damages resources, such as

crops, forests, animals, monuments, and buildings.

The Environment 1 7

State environmental agencies have to prepare State

Implementation Plans to show how they plan to achieve

compliance with the NAAQS. Counties that meet

NAAQS for a particular pollutant are called attainment

areas for that pollutant; counties that do not meet

NAAQS are called nonattainment areas.

The revised CAA also required the setting of

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu-

tants (NESHAPs) and resulted in New Source Perform-

ance Standards (NSPS). These are technology-based

standards that apply when certain types of facilities are

first constructed or undergo major modifications.

Although NSPS are set by the EPA, state governments

are responsible for enforcing them.

In 1977 the CAA was amended again. The major

change was expansion of a program called Prevention

of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The PSD program is

designed to ensure that new facilities built in attainment

areas do not significantly degrade the air quality.

THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990. In 1990

the CAA was substantially revised to better address three

issues of growing concern: acid rain, urban air pollution

(particularly smog), and emissions of toxic air pollutants.

In addition, a national permits program was established,

and enforcement and compliance procedures were

strengthened. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAAA; PL 101–549) included new and innovative

approaches to air pollution legislation. Market-based pro-

grams allow businesses more choices in how they

achieve pollution control goals. Economic incentives

were also included to reduce the reliance on regulations

to obtain certain goals. An outline of the major sections

of the CAA is included in Table 2.1.

THE CLEAR SKIES CONTROVERSY. In 2002 President

George W. Bush proposed his Clear Skies initiative to set

caps on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and

mercury from power plants. Although Clear Skies legis-

lation was introduced in Congress in 2002 and 2003, it

was not passed. A revised version of the Clear Skies Act

was introduced in January 2005 but was still under con-

sideration as of July 2005. According to the EPA Web

site, the legislation would cut power plant emissions of

the targeted pollutants by 70% and eliminate thirty-five

million more tons of these pollutants over the next decade

than would be expected under the existing Clean Air Act.

However, environmental groups are opposed to the

proposed Clear Skies Act, because it would institute a

‘‘cap-and-trade’’ system. This would set overall caps on

emissions but allow utility companies operating below

emission limits to sell ‘‘credits’’ to other companies having

trouble meeting the limits. Although a similar system is

used to control emissions that cause acid rain, critics believe

that this approach is not appropriate for more potent air

pollutants, such as mercury. They fear that the cap-and-

trade system would allow utility plants in some areas to

release unacceptably high levels of these pollutants.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR AIR POLLUTANTS?

The CAAA of 1990 established NAAQS for six

major air pollutants:

• carbon monoxide (CO)

• lead (Pb)

• nitrogen oxides (NOx)

• ozone (O3)

• particulate matter (PM)

• sulfur oxides (SOx)

These are called the priority or criteria pollutants and

are identified as serious threats to human health. The

CAAA required states to develop plans to implement and

maintain the NAAQS. The states can have stricter rules than

the federal program but not more lenient ones. In addition,

regulations developed under the CAAA cover nearly two

hundred chemical substances classified as hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs). HAPs are also called air toxics.

The EPA has documented air pollution trends in the

United States annually since 1973. As of June 2005 the

latest complete report available presents data through

2002. Preliminary data for 2003 and 2004 are available

on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

2005/econ-emissions.html.

The EPA reports two kinds of trends for priority

pollutants: emissions and air quality concentrations. Emis-

sions are calculated estimates of the total tonnage of these

pollutants released into the air annually. Air quality con-

centrations are based on data collected at thousands of

monitoring sites around the country. The EPA maintains

a database called the National Emission Inventory that

characterizes the emissions of air pollutants in the United

States based on data input from state and local agencies.

From 1970 to 2004 total emissions of the six priority

pollutants decreased by 54%. This occurred even as the

TABLE 2.1

Clean Air Act list of titles

• Title I—Air Pollution Prevention And Control• Title II—Emission Standards For Moving Sources• Title III—General• Title IV—Acid Deposition Control• Title V—Permits• Title VI—Stratospheric Ozone Protection

SOURCE: “Clean Air Act Table of Contents,” in Clean Air Act, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 2005, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaq_caa.html/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

18 Air Quality The Environment

United States experienced massive increases in gross domes-

tic product and vehicle miles traveled and moderate

increases in overall energy consumption and population.

Table 2.2 compares emissions of the principal air pollutants

for various years between 1970 and 2004. The table shows

that emissions have declined for each pollutant. However,

there is still much work to be done to clear the air. The EPA

estimates that during 2004 nearly 140 million tons of air

pollutants were emitted in the United States.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas cre-

ated when the carbon in certain fuels is not burned completely.

These fuels include coal, natural gas, oil, gasoline, and wood.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. In 2004 approximately

eighty-seven million tons of CO were emitted into the air.

As shown in Table 2.2, CO emissions have decreased by

56% since 1970. Transportation has historically been the

largest source of CO emissions. Figure 2.1 shows the pri-

mary sources of CO emissions from 1983 to 2002. In 2003

highway vehicles accounted for 55% of known CO emis-

sions, and off-highway vehicles, such as bulldozers and

forklifts, accounted for 23%. Fires produced another

12% of CO emissions. From 1993 through 2003 forest

fires (planned and unplanned) have contributed 5–14% of

the nation’s carbon monoxide emissions each year. Non-

transportation fuel combustion, industrial processes, and

miscellaneous other sources are also minor contributors of

CO emissions (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/pdfs/

CONational.pdf ).

AIR QUALITY. Air quality concentrations of CO from

1983 to 2002 are shown in Figure 2.2 based on monitor-

ing data from 205 sites around the country. Over this time

period CO concentrations decreased by 65%. In 2002 the

average measured CO concentration at the monitoring

sites was just under three parts per million (three parts

CO per million parts of air).

Despite these improvements there are still areas of

the country with air quality concentrations of CO that are

‘‘persistently’’ above the NAAQS. These nonattainment

TABLE 2.2

EPA estimates of national air pollutant emissions, 1970–2004

1970 1975 1980 1985a 1990 1995 2000a 2004b

Carbon monoxide (CO) 197.3 184.0 177.8 169.6 143.6 120.0 102.4 87.2Nitrogen oxides (NOx)c 26.9 26.4 27.1 25.8 25.2 24.7 22.3 18.8Particulate matter (PM)d

PM10 12.21 7.0 6.2 3.6 3.2 3.1 2.3 2.5PM2.5e NA NA NA NA 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.9

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 31.2 28.0 25.9 23.3 23.1 18.6 16.3 15.2Volatile organic compounds

(VOC) 33.7 30.2 30.1 26.9 23.1 21.6 16.9 15.0Leadf 0.221 0.16 0.074 0.022 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003

Totalsg 301.5 275.8 267.2 249.2 218.2 188.0 160.2 138.7

aIn 1985 and 1996 EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions. Between 1970 and 1975, EPA revised its methods for estimating particulate matter emissions. bThe estimates for 2004 are preliminary.cNOx estimates prior to 1990 include emissions from fires. Fires would represent a small percentage of the NOx emissions.dPM estimates do not include condensable PM, or the majority of PM2.5 that is formed in the atmosphere from ‘precursor’ gases such as SO2 and NOx.eEPA has not estimated PM2.5 emissions prior to 1990.fThe 1999 estimate for lead is used to represent 2000 and 2003 because lead estimates do not exist for these years.gPM2.5 emissions are not added when calculating the total because they are included in the PM10 estimate.

SOURCE: “National Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates (Fires and Dust Excluded) for Major Pollutants,” in Air Emissions Trends—Continued Progress Through2004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 2005, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Millions of tons per year

FIGURE 2.1

Carbon monoxide emissions, 1983–2002

SOURCE: Adapted from “CO Emissions, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findingson National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,Washington, DC, August 2003

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

140,000

120,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Thou

sand

sho

rt to

ns

In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency refinedits methods for estimating emissions

Fire emissions not available for 2002

83 85 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 41% decrease1993–02: 21% decrease

Fires

Fuel combustion

Industrial processes

Transportation

The Environment Air Quality 19

areas are designated as having ‘‘serious’’ or ‘‘moderate’’

CO pollution depending on the air quality concentrations.

As of April 2005 Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Spokane,

Washington, were classified serious CO nonattainment

areas.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. CO is a dangerous gas

that enters a person’s bloodstream through the lungs. It

reduces the ability of blood to carry oxygen to the body’s

cells, organs, and tissues. The health danger is highest for

people suffering from cardiovascular diseases.

Lead

Lead is a metal that can enter the atmosphere via

combustion or industrial processing of lead-containing

materials.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. The EPA reports that three

thousand tons of lead were emitted into the air during

2004. (See Table 2.2.) Lead emissions declined by 99%

between 1970 and 2004. Prior to 1985 the major source of

lead emissions in the United States was the leaded gasoline

used in automobiles. Conversion to unleaded gasoline

produced a dramatic reduction in lead emissions, as shown

in Figure 2.3. As a result, transportation has virtually been

eliminated as a source of lead emissions. Industrial pro-

cesses (chiefly metals smelting and battery manufacturing)

are responsible for the bulk of lead emissions.

AIR QUALITY. Air quality concentrations of lead

based on monitoring data from forty-two sites from

1983 to 2002 are shown in Figure 2.4. Despite great

progress in lead reduction, there are still two lead non-

attainment areas in the country as of April 2005. These

locations are East Helena, Montana, and Herculaneum,

Missouri.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. Lead is a particularly

dangerous pollutant because it accumulates in the blood,

bones, and soft tissues of the body. It can adversely affect

the nervous system, kidneys, liver, and other organs.

FIGURE 2.2

Conc

entra

tion,

par

ts p

er m

illio

n

[Based on annual second maximum 8-hour average]

16205 sites

NAAQS*

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

Average

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

083 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 65% decrease1993–02: 42% decrease

Carbon monoxide air quality concentrations, 1983–2002

*National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SOURCE: “CO Air Quality, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findings on NationalAir Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington,DC, August 2003

FIGURE 2.3

Lead emissions, 1982–2002

Shor

t ton

s

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

082 85 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency refinedits methods for estimating emissions.

1982–02: 93% decrease1993–02: 5% decrease

Fuel combustion Industrial processes Transportation

SOURCE: “Lead Emissions, 1982–2002,” in Latest Findings on NationalAir Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington,DC, August 2003

FIGURE 2.4

0.6

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.4

[Based on annual maximum quarterly average]

42 sites

NAAQS*

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

1.0

0.8

Conc

entra

tion,

�g/

m3

0.2

0.083 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 94% decrease1993–02: 57% decrease

Lead air quality, 1983–2002

*National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SOURCE: “Lead Air Quality, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findings on NationalAir Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington,DC, August 2003

Average

20 Air Quality The Environment

Excessive concentrations are associated with neurologi-

cal impairments, mental retardation, and behavioral dis-

orders. Even low doses of lead can damage the brains and

nervous systems of fetuses and young children. Atmo-

spheric lead that falls onto vegetation poses an ingestion

hazard to humans and animals.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish-brown gas that

forms in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxide (NO) is oxi-

dized. Inhalation of even low concentrations of NO2 for short

time periods can be harmful to the human body’s breathing

functions. Longer exposures are considered damaging to the

lungs and may cause people to be more susceptible to certain

respiratory problems, such as infections.

The chemical formula NOx is used collectively to

describe NO, NO2, and other nitrogen oxides.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. As shown in Table 2.2

there were 18.8 million tons of NOx emitted during

2004. Emissions have decreased by 30% since 1970.

Most of this improvement occurred during the late

1990s and early 2000s as shown in Figure 2.5.

NO2 primarily comes from burning fuels such as

gasoline, natural gas, coal, and oil. The exhaust from

highway vehicles is the major source of NOx, accounting

for 36% of emissions during 2003. Fuel combustion in

power plants, homes, and businesses accounted for 22%

of NOx emissions. Other major sources include off-high-

way vehicles (20%) and fuel combustion at industrial

facilities (13%). Industrial processes and miscellaneous

sources were minor contributors.

The EPA notes that despite the overall decrease in NOx

emissions in this country, emissions from off-highway

engines increased dramatically between 1970 and 2004.

These are engines in tractors, lawn mowers, construction

and industrial equipment, off-road recreational vehicles,

boats, trains, and airplanes. In July 2005 the EPA adopted

amendments to its nonroad and highway diesel fuel regula-

tions.

AIR QUALITY. NO2 is a major precursor of smog and

also contributes to acid rain and haze. It can also undergo

reactions in the air that lead to the formation of particu-

late matter and ozone. Figure 2.6 illustrates the air quality

concentrations of NO2 based on monitoring data from

125 sites around the country from 1983 to 2002. Over

this time period NO2 concentrations decreased by 21%.

In 2002 the average measured NO2 concentration at the

monitoring sites was approximately 0.02 parts per mil-

lion. As of April 2005 all U.S. counties attained the EPA

standards for NO2 air quality.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. NOx reacts with ammo-

nia and water droplets in the atmosphere to form nitric

acid and other chemicals that are potentially harmful to

human health. Inhalation of these particles can interfere

with respiratory processes and damage lung tissue. Par-

ticles inhaled deeply into the lungs can cause or aggra-

vate respiratory conditions such as bronchitis and

emphysema.

FIGURE 2.5

Nitrogen oxide emissions, 1983–2002Th

ousa

nd s

hort

tons

30,000 In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency refinedits methods for estimating emissions.

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

083 85 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 15% decrease 1993–02: 12% decrease

Fuel combustion Industrial processes

Transportation Miscellaneous

SOURCE: “NO5 Emissions, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findings on NationalAir Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington,DC, August 2003

FIGURE 2.6

[Based on annual arithmetic average]

Conc

entra

tion,

par

ts p

er m

illio

n

Nitrogen oxides air quality, 1983–2002

*National Ambient Air Quality Standards

0.06 125 sites

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

Average

NAAQS*0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.083 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 21% decrease1993–02: 11% decrease

SOURCE: “NOx Air Quality, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findings on NationalAir Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington,DC, August 2003

The Environment Air Quality 21

Ozone

Ozone is a gas naturally present in Earth’s upper

atmosphere. Approximately 90% of Earth’s ozone lies

in the stratosphere at altitudes greater than about twenty

miles. Ozone molecules at this level absorb ultraviolet

(UV) radiation from the sun and prevent it from reaching

the ground. Thus, stratospheric ozone (the ‘‘ozone

layer’’) is good for the environment. Tropospheric (or

ground-level) ozone, on the other hand, is a potent air

pollutant with serious health consequences. It is the most

complex, pervasive, and difficult to control of the six

priority pollutants.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. Unlike other air pollu-

tants, ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the

air. It forms mostly on sunny, hot days due to complex

chemical reactions that take place when the atmosphere

contains other pollutants, primarily volatile organic com-

pounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides. Such pollutants are

called ozone precursors because their presence in the

atmosphere leads to ozone creation.

VOCs are carbon-containing chemicals that easily

become vapors or gases. Paint thinners, degreasers, and

other solvents contain a great number of VOCs, which

are also released from burning fuels such as coal, natural

gas, gasoline, and wood.

VOC emissions dropped by 55% from 1970 to 2004.

(See Table 2.2.) Most of the decline occurred in industrial

processing and transportation sources. In 2003 solvents

and highway vehicles each accounted for 28% of the

emissions. Off-highway vehicles produced another 16%

of emissions. All other sources were minor contributors.

AIR QUALITY. Ozone has different health and environ-

mental effects depending on the time of exposure. The EPA

monitors average eight-hour and one-hour ozone levels and

sets different standards for each. Ozone concentrations can

vary greatly from year to year depending on the emissions

of ozone precursors and weather conditions.

As shown in Figure 2.7, the average national ozone

concentration, based on an eight-hour average, decreased

by 21% between 1980 and 2003. Between 1980 and 2003

the average one-hour concentration decreased by 29%.

(See Figure 2.8.)

As of April 2005 there were dozens of locations

around the country classified as nonattainment for ozone

air quality. Two areas were classified as ‘‘extreme’’ non-

attainment for the one-hour ozone standard: Los Angeles

and the San Joaquin Valley in California. Locations clas-

sified as ‘‘severe’’ nonattainment are located in and

around Chicago, Houston, Milwaukee, New York City,

Atlanta, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Philadelphia, Sacra-

mento, Washington, D.C., Ventura County, California,

and southeastern desert areas of California. The Los

Angeles area was the only location classified as ‘‘severe’’

nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard. These

exceedances affected more than one hundred million

people. Ozone has, by far, the largest nonattainment area

of any of the six priority pollutants.

OZONE CONTRIBUTES TO SMOG. Ground-level ozone

is the primary component in smog. Smog, a word made

up by combining ‘‘smoke’’ and ‘‘fog,’’ is probably the

most well-known form of air pollution. It retards crop and

tree growth, impairs health, and limits visibility. When

FIGURE 2.7

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

90th percentile

10th percentile Mean

National standard

1980–2003: �21%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Trends in eight-hour ozone air quality, 1980–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 8.8-Hour Ozone Air Quality Trend, 1980–2003, Basedon 3-Year Rolling Averages of Annual Fourth Highest Daily Maximum8-Hour Ozone Concentrations,” in The Ozone Report: MeasuringProgress through 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, April 2004, http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/pdfs/2003ozonereport.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Conc

entra

tion,

par

ts p

er m

illio

n

155 monitoring sites

FIGURE 2.8

Trends in one-hour ozone air quality, 1980–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 6. One-Hour Ozone Air Quality Trend, 1980–2003,Based on Running Fourth Highest Daily Maximum 1-Hour OzoneValue Over 3 Years,” in The Ozone Report: Measuring ProgressThrough 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC, April 2004, http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/pdfs/2003ozonereport.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.2090th percentile

10th percentile Mean

1980–2003: �29%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Conc

entra

tion,

par

ts p

er m

illio

n

155 monitoring sites

National standard

22 Air Quality The Environment

temperature inversions occur (the warm air stays near the

ground instead of rising) and winds are calm, such as

during the summer, smog may hang over a huge area for

days at a time. As traffic and other pollution sources add

more pollutants to the air, the smog gets worse. Wind

often blows smog-forming pollutants away from their

sources; this is why smog frequently can be more serious

miles away from where the pollutants were created.

Most people associate dirty air with cities and the

areas around them. There is good reason for this,

because some of the worst smog in the country occurs

in such urban areas as Los Angeles, California—a city

known for its air quality problems. In a major industrial

nation such as the United States, however, smog is not

limited just to cities. The Great Smoky Mountains,

located in western North Carolina and eastern Tennes-

see, are seeing more air pollution. Harmful emissions

from various coal-burning facilities located outside the

mountain range, as well as pollution from motor vehi-

cles, are damaging the mountains’ environment.

Ground-level ozone is harmful to ecosystems, parti-

cularly vegetation. Ozone exposure reduces forest yields

by stunting the growth of seedlings and increasing stres-

ses on trees. Such damage can take years to become

evident. Between 1993 and 2002 the EPA monitored

ozone levels based on eight-hour average concentrations

at twenty-eight national parks around the country. The

results indicated that ozone levels increased at eighteen

of the parks, remained unchanged at four other parks, and

decreased at six parks.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. Even the smallest

amounts of ozone can cause breathing difficulties. Ozone

exposure can cause serious problems with lung functions,

leading to infections, chest pain, and coughing. Accord-

ing to the EPA, ozone exposure is linked with increased

emergency room visits and hospital admissions due to

such respiratory problems as lung inflammation and

asthma. Ozone causes or aggravates these problems, par-

ticularly in people working outdoors, the elderly, and

children. Children are especially susceptible to the harm-

ful effects of ozone because they spend a great deal of

time outside and because their lungs are still developing.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), the percentage of American children

with asthma more than doubled between 1980 and 2003.

In 1980 approximately 3.7% of all children age seventeen

and younger suffered from asthma. By 2003 this figure

had climbed to 9%. In general asthma levels are greater

among children that live in inner cities, areas also prone

to higher concentrations of ozone, smog, and other air

pollutants. Long-term exposure of any age group to mod-

erate levels of ozone is thought to cause irreversible lung

damage due to premature aging of the tissues.

The EPA maintains an Air Quality Index (AQI) as a

means for warning the public when air pollutants exceed

unhealthy levels. AQI values range from zero to five

hundred. Higher values correspond to greater levels of

air pollution and increased risk to human health. An AQI

value of one hundred is assigned to the concentration of

air pollutant equal to its NAAQS. For example, the aver-

age eight-hour ozone level considered unhealthy is 0.08

parts per million (ppm). Table 2.3 shows the ozone AQI.

Index values are commonly reported during summertime

radio and television newscasts to warn people about the

dangers of ozone exposure.

In State of the Air: 2005 (Spring 2005), the American

Lung Association assessed the quality of air in U.S.

communities. The organization’s list of the twenty-five

metropolitan areas with the worst ozone pollution is

shown in Table 2.4. More than ninety-six million people

populate these areas.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter (PM) is the general term for the mix-

ture of solid particles and/or liquid droplets found in the air.

Primary particles are those emitted directly to the atmo-

sphere—for example, dust, dirt, and soot (black carbon).

Secondary particles form in the atmosphere due to complex

chemical reactions among gaseous emissions and include

sulfates, nitrates, ammoniums, and organic carbon com-

pounds. For example, sulfate particulates can form when

sulfur dioxide emissions from industrial facilities and power

plants undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The EPA tracks two sizes of particulate matter: PM10

and PM2.5. PM10 are all particles less than or equal to ten

TABLE 2.3

Air Quality Index (AQI): Ozone

Index Level of health values concern Cautionary statements

0–50 Good None51–100* Moderate Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting

prolonged outdoor exertion.101–150 Unhealthy for Active children and adults, and people with respiratory

sensitive groups disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

151–200 Unhealthy Active children and adults, and people with respiratorydisease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children,should limit outdoor exertion.

201–300 Very unhealthy Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

301–500 Hazardous Everyone should avoid all outdoor exertion.

*Generally, an AQI of 100 for ozone corresponds to an ozone level of 0.08 parts per million (averaged over 8 hours).

SOURCE: “Air Quality Index (AQI): Ozone,” in Air Quality Index—A Guideto Air Quality and Your Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, June 2000

The Environment Air Quality 23

micrometers in diameter. This is roughly one-seventh the

diameter of a human hair and small enough to be

breathed into the lungs. PM2.5 are the smallest of these

particles (less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in dia-

meter). PM2.5 is also called fine PM. The particles ran-

ging in size between 2.5 and ten micrometers in diameter

are known as coarse PM. Most coarse PM is primary

particles, while most fine PM is secondary particles.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. The EPA tracks trends in

direct PM emissions from certain anthropogenic sources,

mainly fuel combustion at power plants and in homes and

businesses, industrial processes, and transportation

exhaust. These are called ‘‘traditionally inventoried

sources.’’ As shown in Table 2.2, direct PM10 emissions

from these sources declined dramatically between 1970

and 2004.

The EPA believes that the bulk of PM10 in the atmos-

phere comes from fugitive dust and agricultural and

forestry practices that stir up soil. Fugitive dust is dust

thrown up into the air when vehicles travel over unpaved

roads and during land-disturbing construction activities

such as bulldozing. In 2002 these sources were estimated

to account for 85% of all PM10 emissions as shown in

Figure 2.9. However, these sources are not as great a

concern to air quality as the traditionally inventoried

sources. This is because soil, dust, and dirt thrown up

into the air does not typically travel far from its original

location or climb very far into the atmosphere.

Direct emissions of PM2.5 also declined between

1990 and 2004. (See Table 2.2.) Most PM2.5 is not

comprised of primary particles from direct emissions

but of secondary particles that form in the atmosphere.

The EPA tracks secondary PM2.5 particle types at moni-

toring sites around the country. Data collected in 2001

and 2002 indicate that sulfates, ammonium, and carbon

are the principal secondary particles found in the eastern

part of the nation. These pollutants are largely associated

with coal-fired power plants. In western states (particu-

larly California), carbon and nitrates comprise most of

the secondary particles. On a national level, secondary

PM2.5 concentrations are generally higher in urban areas

than in rural areas.

AIR QUALITY. When PM hangs in the air, it creates a

haze, limiting visibility. PM is one of the major compo-

nents of smog and can have adverse effects on vegeta-

tion and sensitive ecosystems. Long-term exposure

to PM can damage painted surfaces, buildings, and

monuments.

Figure 2.10 shows the historical trend in PM10 air

quality based on data collected by the EPA from 434

TABLE 2.4

The American Lung Association’s list of the 25 metropolitan areaswith the worst ozone pollution, 2005

2005 rank* Metropolitan statistical areas

1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California2 Bakersfield, California3 Fresno-Madera, California4 Visalia-Porterville, California5 Merced, California6 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas7 Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Truckee, California-Nevada8 Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas9 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, New York-New Jersey-Connecticut-Pennsylvania

10 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland11 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, Washington DC-Maryland-

Virginia-West Virginia12 Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina-South Carolina13 Hanford-Corcoran, California14 Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, Ohio15 Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee16 Modesto, California17 Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania18 Youngstown-Warren-East Liverpool, Ohio-Pennsylvania19 Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, Ohio20 Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan20 Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, New York22 Sheboygan, Wisconsin22 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin24 El Centro, California25 Lancaster, Pennsylvania

*Cities are ranked by using the highest weighted average for any county within that metropolitan area.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 2b. People at Risk in 25 Most Ozone-PollutedCities,” in State of the Air 2005, American Lung Association, New York, NY,Spring 2005, http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/sota05/SOTA05_final.pdf(accessed August 4, 2005)

FIGURE 2.9

Emissions of particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter, 2002

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure 2-43. National Direct PM10 Emissions bySource Category, 2002,” in Air Trends: More Details on Lead, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards, Washington, DC, December 3, 2003

Other combustion

5%

Traditionally inventoried

10%

Fugitive dust 63%

Agriculture & forestry

22%

24 Air Quality The Environment

monitoring sites. Between 1988 and 2003 PM10 concen-

trations decreased by 31%. As of April 2005 the EPA

reported that dozens of areas around the country were

nonattainment for PM10 concentrations. Areas classified

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment were in southern California and

parts of Nevada, Arizona, and Washington.

In 1999 the EPA began nationwide tracking of PM2.5

air quality concentrations. Between 1999 and 2003 these

concentrations decreased by 10% based on data collected

from 780 monitoring sites. (See Figure 2.11.) Under the

Clean Air Act, states with nonattainment areas must sub-

mit to the EPA by 2008 a plan for reducing air pollutant

emissions that lead to the formation of PM2.5 particles in

the atmosphere. The plan must list the enforceable mea-

sures to be taken and provide a schedule to become

attainment as quickly as possible.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. PM can irritate the nos-

trils, throat, and lungs and aggravate respiratory condi-

tions such as bronchitis and asthma. PM exposure can

also endanger the circulatory system and is linked with

cardiac arrhythmias (episodes of irregular heartbeats) and

heart attacks. PM2.5 particles are the most damaging,

because their small size allows them access to deeper

regions of the lungs. These small particles (less than or

equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) have been linked

with the most serious health effects in humans. Particu-

lates pose the greatest health risk to those with heart or

lung problems, the elderly, and especially children, who

are particularly susceptible due to the greater amount of

time they spend outside and the fact that their lungs are

not fully developed.

Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a gas composed of sulfur and

oxygen. The chemical formula SOx is used collectively to

describe sulfur oxide, SO2, and other sulfur oxides.

EMISSIONS AND SOURCES. One of the primary

sources of sulfur dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels

containing sulfur. Coal (particularly high-sulfur coal

common to the eastern United States) and oil are the

major fuel sources associated with SO2. Power plants

have historically been the main source of SO2 emissions.

Some industrial processes and metal smelting also cause

SO2 to form.

From 1940 to 1970 SO2 emissions increased as a

result of the growing use of fossil fuels, especially coal,

in industry and power plants. Since 1970 total SO2

emissions have dropped because of greater reliance on

cleaner fuels with lower sulfur content and the increased

use of pollution control devices, such as scrubbers, to

clean emissions. Between 1970 and 2004, SO2 emis-

sions decreased by 51%, according to the EPA. (See

Table 2.2.)

Fuel combustion in power plants has traditionally

produced the majority of sulfur dioxide emissions. In

2003 this source accounted for 68% of SO2 emissions.

FIGURE 2.10

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 89 99 00 01

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

1988–2003: 31% decrease1999–2003: 7% decrease

02 03

434 monitoring sites

Average

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8988

Air quality for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers indiameter, 1988–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 12. National PM10 Air Quality,” in The ParticlePollution Report: Understanding Trends Through 2003, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 2004,http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pmreport03/pmlooktrends_2405.pdf#page�1 (accessed August 4, 2005)

Conc

entra

tion,

�g/

m3

FIGURE 2.11

99 00 01 02 03

30

20

10

0

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

780 monitoring sites

Air quality for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers indiameter, 1999–2003

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure 13. National PM2.5 Air Quality,” in The Particle Pollution Report: Understanding Trends Through 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 2004, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pmreport03/pmlooktrends_2405.pdf#page�1 (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: Ammonia is a contributor to PM2.5 formation. However, because ofuncertainty in ammonia emission estimates, its trends are not shown here.

Conc

entra

tion,

�g/

m3

10% decrease

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

Average

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

The Environment Air Quality 25

Fuel combustion at industrial facilities contributed

another 14%. All other sources were minor contributors

(http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/pdfs/SO2National.pdf ).

AIR QUALITY. Trends in air quality concentrations

of SO2 are shown in Figure 2.12. The average concen-

tration fell by 54% between 1983 and 2002. As of April

2005 the EPA reported seventeen nonattainment areas

around the country for SO2. These included locations in

Montana, Utah, New Jersey, West Virginia, Pennsylvania,

Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, and Indiana.

SO2 is a major contributor to acid rain, haze, and

particulate matter. Acid rain is of particular concern

because acid deposition harms aquatic life by lowering

the pH (level of acidity; a lower value indicates more

acid) of surface waters, impairs the growth of forests,

causes depletion of natural soil nutrients, and corrodes

buildings, cars, and monuments. Acid rain is largely

associated with the eastern United States because eastern

coal tends to be higher in sulfur content than coal mined

in the western United States.

In 1990 the U.S. Congress established the Acid Rain

Program under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments. The program called for major reductions

in SO2 and NOx emissions from certain coal-fired power

plants and other combustion units generating electricity

around the country. The program set two emissions goals:

• Reduce SO2 emissions by approximately half by 2010

compared to the emissions released in 1980 (i.e., from

17.3 million tons per year to 8.95 million tons per

year) and maintain a cap of 8.95 million tons per year

after 2010

• Achieve a two million ton reduction in NOx emissions

compared to the NOx emissions projected for 2000 if

the program had not been implemented (i.e., from 8.1

million tons per year to 6.1 million tons per year)

The program expects to meets its goals by tightening

annual emission limits on thousands of power plants

around the country.

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS. Inhaling sulfur dioxide

in polluted air can impair breathing in those with

asthma or even in healthy adults who are active out-

doors. As with other air pollutants, children, the elderly,

and those with preexisting respiratory and cardiovascu-

lar diseases and conditions are most susceptible to

adverse effects from breathing this gas. Table 2.5 sum-

marizes the main sources and health risks of all the

priority pollutants.

Clean Air Interstate Rule

In March 2005 the EPA issued the Clean Air Inter-

state Rule (CAIR) to tackle problems in the eastern

United States with air pollutants that move across state

boundaries. The CAIR puts permanent caps on emissions

of NOx and SO2 in twenty-eight eastern states and the

District of Columbia. The rule is projected to reduce SO2

emissions by more than 70% and reduce NOx emissions

by more than 60% compared to 2003 levels. Control of

these pollutants is expected to reduce the formation of

fine particulate matter, acid rain, and ground-level ozone

across the country.

FIGURE 2.12

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) air quality, 1983–2002

*National Ambient Air Quality Standards

[Based on annual arithmetic average]

244 sites

NAAQS*

10% of sites have concentrations below this line

90% of sites have concentrations below this line

Average

0.04

Conc

entra

tion,

par

ts p

er m

illio

n

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.0083 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

1983–02: 54% decrease1993–02: 39% decrease

SOURCE: “SO2 Air Quality, 1983–2002,” in Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washington, DC, August 2003

TABLE 2.5

Air pollutants, health risks, and contributing sources

Pollutants Health risks Contributing sources

Ozone* (O3) Asthma, reduced respiratory Cars, refineries, dry function, eye irritation cleaners

Particulate matter Bronchitis, cancer, lung Dust, pesticides(PM-10) damage

Carbon monoxide Blood oxygen carrying capacity Cars, power plants, (CO) reduction, cardiovascular and wood stoves

nervous system impairmentsSulphur dioxide Respiratory tract impairment, Power plants,

(SO2) destruction of lung tissue paper millsLead (Pb) Retardation and brain damage, Cars, nonferrous

esp. children smelters, battery plants

Nitrogen dioxide Lung damage and respiratory Power plants, cars, (NO2) illness trucks

*Ozone refers to tropospheric ozone, which is hazardous to human health.

SOURCE: Fred Seitz and Christine Plepys, “Table 1. Criteria Air Pollutants,Health Risks, and Sources,” in Monitoring Air Quality in Healthy People2000, Healthy People 2000—Statistical Notes, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD,September 1995

26 Air Quality The Environment

The program is to be carried out using the cap-and-

trade system. Such a system sets overall caps on emis-

sions but allows companies operating below emission

limits to sell ‘‘credits’’ to other companies that are having

trouble meeting the limits. The EPA predicts that full

implementation of CAIR in 2015 will provide up to

$100 billion in annual health benefits and prevent seven-

teen thousand premature deaths yearly. Improvements are

expected in visibility within southeastern national parks,

which have been plagued by smog in recent years.

Air Toxics

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also referred to as

air toxics, are pollutants that can cause severe health

effects and/or ecosystem damage. Serious health risks

linked to HAPs include cancer, immune system disorders,

neurological problems, reproductive effects, and birth

defects. The Clean Air Act (CAA) lists 188 substances

as HAPs and targets them for regulation in section 112

(b) (1). The air toxics program complements the NAAQS

program. Examples of HAPs are benzene, dioxins,

arsenic, beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride.

Major sources of HAP emissions include transporta-

tion vehicles, construction equipment, power plants,

factories, and refineries. Some air toxics come from

common sources. For example, benzene emissions are

associated with gasoline. Air toxics are not subject to

intensive national monitoring; the EPA and state envi-

ronmental agencies monitor air toxic levels at approxi-

mately three hundred sites nationwide.

In 2003 the EPA launched the National Air Toxic

Trend Site (NATTS) network. It is designed to follow

trends in high-risk air toxics such as benzene, chromium,

and formaldehyde. In March 2005 the EPA Office of

Inspector General reported on the progress made by the

NATTS program (‘‘Progress Made in Monitoring Ambi-

ent Air Toxics, but Further Improvements Can Increase

Effectiveness,’’ March 2, 2005). The report noted twenty-

three national sites had been set up to perform NATTS

monitoring. The EPA has also awarded grants to state and

local environmental agencies to conduct short-term mon-

itoring of air toxics. The report recommended that the

EPA focus more attention on locating NATTS monitors

in areas of the country where air toxics are estimated to

have the highest health risks.

NATIONAL AIR TOXIC ASSESSMENT. In May 2002 the

EPA released the latest findings from its National Air

Toxic Assessment. The data, which are for 1996, show

that approximately 4.6 million tons of air toxics were

released into the air, down from a baseline value of six

million tons for 1990–93. Air toxics were emitted from

many sources, including industrial and mobile (vehicles

and nonroad equipment) sources. The known carcinogens

posing the greatest risks to human health were benzene

and chromium. The suspected carcinogen showing the

greatest risk was formaldehyde.

THE TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY. The Toxics

Release Inventory (TRI) was established under the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know

Act of 1986. The TRI program requires annual reports

on the waste management activities and toxic chemical

releases of certain industrial facilities using specific

toxic chemicals. The TRI list includes more than 650

toxic chemicals.

In May 2005 the 2003 Toxics Release Inventory

(TRI) Public Data Release Report was published. There

were nearly 4.44 billion pounds of chemical releases

reported by covered facilities during 2003. The vast

majority of the releases (88%) were on-site releases to

air, land, and water. The remainder were off-site releases

(when a facility sends toxic chemicals to another facility

where they are then released). On-site air emissions

amounted to 1.59 billion pounds and accounted for 40%

of the total.

CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE. Mercury is a hazardous

air pollutant that can fall out of the atmosphere into water

supplies where it is absorbed by fish and shellfish. Con-

sumption of contaminated fish and shellfish is the pri-

mary source of mercury exposure to humans.

Figure 2.13 shows the primary sources of mercury

emissions to air in the United States for 1990, 1996, and

1999. Emissions from medical waste incinerators and

municipal waste combustors declined significantly over

this time period. Emissions from miscellaneous sources,

such as gold mines and industrial operations, experienced

modest decreases. This leaves coal-fired boilers at elec-

tric utility plants as the largest single source of mercury

emissions.

In March 2005 the EPA issued the Clean Air

Mercury Rule (CAMR) to limit and reduce mercury

emissions from coal-fired power plants. The CAMR

program will be based on a cap-and-trade system that

will be fully implemented by 2018 and should reduce

mercury emissions to fifteen tons per year. According to

the EPA, the United States is the only country in the

world that regulates mercury emissions from utilities.

THE AUTOMOBILE’S CONTRIBUTIONTO AIR POLLUTION

Highway vehicles are the major source of the air

pollutants CO, NOx, and VOCs. According to the Trans-

portation Energy Data Book: Edition 24 (http://cta.ornl.

gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter06.pdf ), the United

States leads the world in car ownership. In 2002 there

were nearly 850 vehicles per one thousand people in the

United States. This rate has more than doubled since 1960,

when there were approximately 400 vehicles per one

The Environment Air Quality 27

thousand people. With industrialization occurring in many

developing countries, an increase in global automobile use

and the emissions that accompany them is inevitable.

American states that do not meet CAA standards

must do something to bring emissions into compliance

with national standards. Because of California’s extreme

air pollution problems, the Clean Air Act Amendments

(CAAA) allowed states to set stricter emission standards

than those required by the amendments, which California

did. These included strict new laws on automobile pollu-

tion. The remaining forty-nine states were given the

option of choosing either the standards of California or

the federal CAAA.

States have the freedom to cut their emissions in

whatever manner they choose. Some states have tougher

tests for auto emissions than others. In some major metro-

politan areas, particularly in the Northeast, owners of cars

and light trucks are required to pay for exhaust emission

tests. For those that do not pass, repairs must be made to

bring them into compliance.

One of the major failings in reducing auto-induced

smog is that efforts have focused on reducing tailpipe

emissions instead of eliminating their formation in the

first place. Automakers have shown that they can adapt

to tighter emission standards by introducing lighter

engines, fuel injection, catalytic converters, and other

technological improvements. Some experts believe,

however, that efforts could be better spent by drastically

reducing emissions and promoting alternative energy as

well as alternative transportation such as mass transit

systems, carpools, and bicycles.

Reformulated Gasoline

Reformulated gasoline (RFG) is gasoline that con-

tains added oxygen. This process produces a lower-

octane fuel and usually an increase in price. Oxygenation

of fuel makes combustion more complete. Incomplete

fuel combustion is a major cause of carbon monoxide

(CO) emissions. RFG is specially blended to have lower

concentrations of certain volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) in order to reduce ozone formation and emissions

of air toxins. Although RFG combustion results in lower

CO emissions, higher carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

result due to the presence of additional oxygen.

The most frequently used oxygenates in RFG are

ethanol and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). Fuel

ethanol is derived from fermented agricultural products

such as corn. More than 99% of fuel ethanol is produced

in the United States, primarily in the corn-growing

regions of the Midwest. MTBE is a chemical compound

made from methanol and isobutylene.

The CAA standards that went into effect in 1995

required those areas with the worst polluted air to sell

RFG. Denver, Colorado, known for its ‘‘brown cloud’’ of

pollution, enacted the nation’s first oxygenated fuels pro-

gram—an entire winter period during which all fuels sold

at gas stations were required to have a 3% oxygen con-

tent. Other areas voluntarily chose to participate in RFG

programs. By the early 2000s RFG accounted for more

than one-third of all gasoline sold.

MTBE was historically dominated as the RFG oxy-

genator of choice. MTBE demand has fallen, primarily

due to environmental concerns. It is very soluble in

water and therefore tends to migrate to water supplies.

As of August 2003 the U.S. Geological Survey reported

that MTBE was found in source water four to five times

more often in RFG areas than in non-RFG areas. As of

June 2005 MTBE use is banned or severely limited in

approximately half the states, including New York and

California. MTBE bans are expected to greatly increase

use of fuel ethanol in RFG.

Beginning in the late 1990s, customer complaints

about gasoline prices caused many areas that had volun-

tarily opted to sell RFG to back out. Even before these

FIGURE 2.13

Sources of atmospheric mercury emissions, 1990, 1996, and 1999

Other (Gold mines, institutional boilers, chlorine production, hazardous waste incineration, etc.)

Medical waste incinerators

Municipal waste combustors

Utility coal boilers

SOURCE: “Mercury Emissions Have Dropped 45% Since 1990,” in Clean Air Mercury Rule: Charts and Tables, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/pdfs/ slide1.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 emissions

1996 emissions

1999 emissions

51.25

31.78

40.47

72.76

196 tons

51.05

56.73

49.73

63.56

221 tons

47.91

58.21

1.6

4.9

112 tons

Tons

per

yea

r

28 Air Quality The Environment

price spikes occurred, many states were concerned about

the effects of RFG requirements on gasoline prices. In

1999 California asked the federal government for a

waiver from the oxygenate requirement. Such a waiver

would allow the state to temporarily use non-RFG in case

of RFG supply and distribution problems. In 2001 the

waiver was denied. Over the next several years waivers

were requested by several other states and again by

California. In 2005 the EPA denied waiver requests from

California, Connecticut, and New York.

Government Regulation—Corporate Average FuelEconomy Standards

In 1973 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo that pro-

vided a painful reminder to Americans of how depen-

dent the country had become on foreign sources of fuel.

Congress passed the 1975 Automobile Fuel Efficiency

Act (PL 96–426), which set the initial Corporate Aver-

age Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

CAFE standards required each domestic automaker

to increase the average mileage of the new cars sold to

27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 1985. Under CAFE rules

automakers could still sell the big, less efficient cars

with powerful eight-cylinder engines, but to meet aver-

age fuel efficiency rates they also had to sell smaller,

more efficient cars. Automakers that failed to meet

each year’s CAFE standards were required to pay fines.

Those who managed to surpass the rates earned credits

that they could use in years when they fell below CAFE

requirements.

The CAFE standard was lowered during the mid- to

late 1980s and then raised back to 27.5 mpg for 1990

model automobiles. In 1996 a standard of 20.7 mpg was

established for light trucks. This category includes pickup

trucks, minivans, and SUVs.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT), automobile manufacturers achieved an average

29.5 mpg fuel economy for model year 2003 cars, thus

meeting the standard. Likewise, the average light truck

fuel economy was 21.7 mpg, also above the standard.

In 2003 the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration issued a rule setting new CAFE stan-

dards for light trucks produced in model years 2005–07.

The standard increased to 21.0 mpg for 2005, to 21.7 mpg

for 2006, and to 22.2 mpg for 2007.

‘‘Real World’’ Estimates of Fuel Economy

Fuel economy rates calculated by DOT for compar-

ison to CAFE standards are not the same as rates reported

to consumers on new vehicle labels or commonly pub-

lished by the EPA or U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

in fuel economy guides. DOT CAFE rates are calculated

based on laboratory data and take into account credits

issued to manufacturers for alternative fuel capabilities

and other factors. Rates published by the EPA and DOE

are approximately 15% lower, as they reflect only actual

‘‘real world’’ experience.

According to the 2004 EPA report Light-Duty

Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends:

1975 through 2004, ‘‘real world’’ average estimates

of fuel economy for model year 2004 cars and light

trucks were 24.6 mpg and 17.9 mpg, respectively.

Figure 2.14 shows average ‘‘real world’’ fuel economy

rates for model years 1975 through 2004. The com-

bined rate for both cars and trucks decreased during the

1990s because of increased demand for light trucks,

particularly SUVs.

Market Factors

In 1985 cars accounted for nearly 80% of new sales.

By 2004 their market share had fallen to around 50%.

Sales of SUVs and minivans increased dramatically over

the same time period. These light trucks have lower fuel

economy rates than cars. Also, many states have

increased interstate speed limits since the 1980s. This

has also lowered overall fuel efficiency.

FIGURE 2.14

30

25

20

15

101975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Model year

Vehicle fuel economy by model, 1975–2004

SOURCE: “Karl H. Hellman and Robert M. Heavenrich, “Adjusted FuelEconomy by Model Year (Three-Year Moving Average),” inLight-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975Through 2004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofTransportation and Air Quality, Washington, DC, April 2004,http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r04001.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Mile

s pe

r gal

lon

Cars Both Trucks

The Environment Air Quality 29

SUVs and minivans fall under less stringent emis-

sions standards than automobiles because they originated

as modifications of light-truck bodies and are classified

as trucks. Automakers and buyers of trucks and SUVs

oppose tightening restrictions on emissions of these vehi-

cles, although critics contend that new SUVs are more

like cars than trucks in design.

U.S. industry officials claim that increasing fuel effi-

ciency is not cost effective. With each mile added in

efficiency, the costs to obtain that improvement increase

to the point that it is no longer cost effective. This is the

same objection that is made, in general, about cleaning

up many environmental hazards—that the first and most

drastic improvements are the least expensive and there-

after cleanup becomes more costly.

Alternative Fuels

The DOE defines alternative fuels as those that are

‘‘substantially non-petroleum and yield energy security

and environmental benefits.’’ The DOE recognizes all of

the following as alternative fuels:

• Compressed or liquefied natural gas

• Coal-derived liquid fuels

• Liquefied petroleum gas

• Alcohol fuels (mixtures that contain at least 70%

alcohol)

• Bio fuels (fuels derived from biological materials)

• Electricity

• Solar energy

• Hydrogen

Table 2.6 summarizes information for the major

alternative fuels related to their physical state, sources,

environmental impacts, and availability.

Although these fuels offer advantages, their use may

substitute one problem for another. For example, the

alcohol fuel methanol reduces ozone formation but

increases formaldehyde, a human carcinogen, and is

twice as toxic as gasoline if it comes in contact with the

skin. Engines require twice as much methanol as gasoline

to travel a similar distance. Natural gas reduces hydro-

carbons and CO but increases NOx.

The DOE reports that more than half a million alter-

native fuel vehicles (AFVs) were in use in the United

States in 2004. (See Table 2.7.) Most relied on liquefied

petroleum gas (35%), followed by alcohol fuel containing

at least 85% ethanol (27%), compressed natural gas

(26%), and electricity (10%).

ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND THE MARKETPLACE. AFVs

cannot become a viable transportation option unless a fuel

supply is readily available. Ideally, the infrastructure for

supplying alternative fuels will be developed simulta-

neously with the vehicles. As of June 2005 there were just

over five thousand of these stations around the country.

Most of them (62%) provide liquefied petroleum gas,

followed by compressed natural gas (16%), electricity

(11%), and Ethanol85 (6%). California and Texas together

account for slightly more than one-third of all the stations.

Market success of alternative fuels and AFVs

depends on public acceptance. People are accustomed to

using gasoline as their main transportation fuel, and it is

readily available. As federal and state requirements for

alternative fuels increase, so should the availability of

such fuels as well as their acceptance by the general

public. In the long run, electricity and hydrogen seem

the most promising of the alternative fuels for vehicles.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES—PROMISE AND REALITY. The

electric vehicle (EV) is not a new invention. Popular

during the 1890s, the quiet, clean, and simple vehicle

was expected to dominate the automotive market of the

twentieth century. Instead, it quietly disappeared as auto-

makers chose to invest billions of dollars in the internal

combustion engine. It has taken a century, but the EV has

returned.

The primary difficulty with EVs lies in inadequate

battery power. The cars have a range of seventy to one

hundred miles on a single charge and must be recharged

often. In addition, EVs are expensive. Despite their high

price, EVs have many advantages, including low noise,

simple design and operation, and low service and main-

tenance costs. Over time the cost gap between cars that

pollute and EVs that do not will narrow. With advances

in battery development, the gap could close entirely.

HYDROGEN-FUELED VEHICLES ON THE HORIZON.

Hydrogen is the simplest naturally occurring element

and can be found in materials such as water, natural

gas, and coal. For decades advocates of hydrogen have

promoted it as the fuel of the future—abundant, clean,

and cheap. Hydrogen researchers from universities,

laboratories, and private companies claim that their

industry has already produced vehicles that could be

ready for consumers if problems of fuel supply and

distribution could be solved. Other experts contend that

economics and safety concerns will limit hydrogen’s

wider use for decades.

In 2002 the DOE formed a government-industry

partnership called Freedom Cooperative Automotive

Research (FreedomCAR). The goal of FreedomCAR is

to develop highly fuel-efficient vehicles that operate

using hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources.

Industrial partners in the venture include Ford, General

Motors, and Daimler-Chrysler. FreedomCAR research

takes place at facilities operated by the DOE’s National

Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado.

30 Air Quality The Environment

TA

BLE

2.6

Char

acte

ristic

s of

maj

or a

ltern

ativ

e fu

els

Com

pres

sed

natu

ral

Liqu

ified

nat

ural

Li

quef

ied

petro

leum

M

etha

nol

Gaso

line

No. 2

die

sel

Biod

iese

lga

s (C

NG)

Elec

trici

tyEt

hano

l (E8

5)Hy

drog

enga

s (L

NG)

gas

(LPG

)(M

85)

Mai

n fu

el s

ourc

eCr

ude

oil

Crud

e oi

lSo

y be

an o

il,Un

derg

roun

dCo

al; h

owev

er,

Corn

, gra

ins,

or

Natu

ral g

as,

Unde

rgro

und

A by

-pro

duct

of

Natu

ral g

as, c

oal,

was

te c

ooki

ng o

il,re

serv

esnu

clea

r, na

tura

lag

ricul

tura

l was

tem

etha

nol,

and

rese

rves

petro

leum

or

, woo

dy

anim

al fa

ts, a

ndga

s, h

ydro

elec

tric,

othe

r ene

rgy

refin

ing

or n

atur

al

biom

ass

rape

seed

oil

and

rene

wab

leso

urce

sga

s pr

oces

sing

reso

urce

s ca

n al

so b

e us

edPh

ysic

al s

tate

Liqu

idLi

quid

Liqu

idCo

mpr

esse

d ga

sN/

ALi

quid

Com

pres

sed

Liqu

idLi

quid

Liqu

idga

s or

liqu

idTy

pes

of v

ehic

les

All t

ypes

of

Man

y ty

pes

of

Any

vehi

cle

that

Man

y ty

pes

ofNe

ighb

orho

odLi

ght-d

uty

No v

ehic

les

are

Med

ium

and

Ligh

t-dut

yM

ostly

av

aila

ble

toda

yve

hicl

e ru

ns o

n di

esel

vehi

cle

clas

ses

elec

tric

vehi

cles

,ve

hicl

es, m

ediu

mav

aila

ble

for

heav

y-du

ty tr

ucks

vehi

cles

, whi

ch

heav

y-du

ty

clas

ses

vehi

cles

clas

ses

toda

y—no

bicy

cles

, lig

ht-

and

heav

y-du

tyco

mm

erci

al s

ale

and

buse

sca

n be

fuel

ed w

ithbu

ses

are

mod

ifica

tions

are

duty

veh

icle

s,tru

cks

and

buse

s—ye

t, bu

t som

epr

opan

e or

av

aila

ble

need

ed fo

r up

tom

ediu

m a

nd h

eavy

thes

e ve

hicl

es a

reve

hicl

es a

re b

eing

gaso

line,

med

ium

5% b

lend

s. M

any

duty

truc

ks a

ndfle

xibl

e fu

elle

ased

for

and

heav

y-du

tyen

gine

s al

sobu

ses

vehi

cles

that

can

dem

onst

ratio

ntru

cks

and

com

patib

le w

ithbe

fuel

ed w

ith E

85pu

rpos

esbu

ses

that

run

up to

20%

ble

nds

(eth

anol

),on

pro

pane

gaso

line,

or a

nyco

mbi

natio

n of

the

two

fuel

s En

viro

nmen

tal

Prod

uces

Pr

oduc

es h

arm

ful

Redu

ces

CNG

vehi

cles

can

EVs

have

zer

oE-

85 v

ehic

les

can

Zero

regu

late

dLN

G ve

hicl

es c

anLP

G ve

hicl

es c

anM

-85

vehi

cles

can

impa

cts

of b

urni

ngha

rmfu

lem

issi

ons;

parti

cula

te

dem

onst

rate

ta

ilpip

e em

issi

ons;

dem

onst

rate

aem

issi

ons

for f

uel

dem

onst

rate

ade

mon

stra

te a

dem

onst

rate

ath

e fu

elem

issi

ons;

how

ever

, die

sel

mat

ter a

nd

a re

duct

ion

how

ever

, som

e25

% re

duct

ion

ince

ll-po

wer

edre

duct

ion

in o

zone

60%

redu

ctio

n in

40%

redu

ctio

n in

how

ever

, an

d di

esel

veh

icle

sgl

obal

war

min

g in

ozo

ne fo

rmin

g am

ount

of

ozon

e-fo

rmin

gve

hicl

es, a

nd o

nly

form

ing

emis

sion

soz

one-

form

ing

ozon

e-fo

rmin

gga

solin

ear

e ra

pidl

yga

s em

issi

ons

emis

sion

sem

issi

ons

can

beem

issi

ons

NOx

emis

sion

sco

mpa

red

to s

ome

emis

sion

sem

issi

ons

and

gaso

line

impr

ovin

g an

dco

mpa

red

toco

mpa

red

to s

ome

cont

ribut

ed to

com

pare

d to

poss

ible

for

conv

entio

nal f

uels

,co

mpa

red

toco

mpa

red

tove

hicl

es

emis

sion

s ar

eco

nven

tiona

lco

nven

tiona

l po

wer

gen

erat

ion

refo

rmul

ated

inte

rnal

how

ever

, HC

refo

rmul

ated

refo

rmul

ated

are

rapi

dly

bein

g re

duce

ddi

esel

; how

ever

, fu

els,

how

ever

, ga

solin

eco

mbu

stio

nem

issi

ons

may

be

gaso

line

gaso

line

impr

ovin

g an

d es

peci

ally

with

NOx

emis

sion

s HC

em

issi

ons

engi

nes

oper

atin

gin

crea

sed

emis

sion

s ar

eaf

ter-

treat

men

tm

ay b

e in

crea

sed

may

be

incr

ease

don

hyd

roge

nbe

ing

redu

ced

devi

ces

Fuel

ava

ilabi

lity

Avai

labl

e at

all

Av

aila

ble

at s

elec

tAv

aila

ble

in b

ulk

Mor

e th

an 1

,100

Mos

t hom

es,

Mos

t of t

he E

-85

Ther

e ar

e on

ly a

Publ

icLN

GLP

G is

the

mos

tM

etha

nol r

emai

nsfu

elin

g st

atio

nsfro

m a

n CN

G st

atio

ns c

ango

vern

men

tfu

elin

g st

atio

ns a

resm

all n

umbe

r of

stat

ions

are

acce

ssib

lea

qual

ified

fuel

ing

stat

ions

incr

easi

ngbe

foun

d ac

ross

faci

litie

s, fl

eet

loca

ted

in th

ehy

drog

en s

tatio

nslim

ited

(onl

y 35

alte

rnat

ive

fuel

inal

tern

ativ

e fu

el a

snu

mbe

r of

the

coun

try.

gara

ges,

and

Mid

wes

t, bu

t in

acro

ss th

e co

untr

y.na

tiona

lly),

LNG

the

U.S.

The

re a

rede

fined

by

EPAc

t,su

pplie

rs. T

here

Calif

orni

a ha

s th

ebu

sine

sses

hav

eal

l, ap

prox

imat

ely

Mos

t are

ava

ilabl

eis

ava

ilabl

em

ore

than

3,3

00bu

t it i

s no

tar

e 22

sta

tes

high

est

adeq

uate

ele

ctric

al15

0 st

atio

ns a

refo

r priv

ate

use

thro

ugh

seve

ral

stat

ions

nat

ion

com

mon

ly u

sed

that

hav

e so

me

conc

entra

tion

ofca

paci

ty fo

rav

aila

ble

in 2

3on

ly.su

pplie

rs o

fw

ide.

biod

iese

l CN

G st

atio

ns.

char

ging

, but

,st

ates

cryo

geni

c liq

uids

stat

ions

Ho

me

fuel

ing

will

spec

ial h

ooku

p or

avai

labl

e be

ava

ilabl

e in

the

upgr

ades

may

be

to th

e pu

blic

fall

of 2

005.

requ

ired.

Mor

eth

an 6

00 e

lect

ricch

argi

ng s

tatio

nsar

e av

aila

ble

inCa

lifor

nia

and

Arizo

na.

SOU

RC

E: A

dapt

ed f

rom

Alt

erna

tive

Fue

ls C

ompa

riso

n C

hart

, U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f E

nerg

y, N

atio

nal R

enew

able

Ene

rgy

Lab

orat

ory,

Alte

rnat

ive

Fuel

s D

ata

Cen

ter,

Gol

den,

CO

, 200

5, h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ere.

ener

gy.g

ov/a

fdc/

pdfs

/afv

_inf

o.pd

f (a

cces

sed

Aug

ust 4

,200

5)

The Environment Air Quality 31

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President

George W. Bush announced the creation of the

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI). This $1.2 billion pro-

gram is designed to develop the technology needed

for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells

by the year 2020. Fuel cells designed for transporta-

tion vehicles and home/business use are to be devel-

oped. The HFI has three primary missions as part of

its goals:

• Lower the cost of hydrogen production to make it cost

effective with gasoline production by the year 2010

• Develop hydrogen fuel cells that provide the same

vehicle range (at least three hundred miles of travel)

as conventional gasoline fuel tanks

• Lower the cost of hydrogen fuel cells to be compar-

able in cost with internal combustion engines

The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that hydro-

gen fuel cell vehicles will reach the mass consumer

market in 2020.

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES (HYBRIDS). Many

experts believe that the most feasible solution in the near

future is to produce vehicles that use a combination of

gasoline and one of the alternative fuel sources. These are

called advanced technology vehicles or hybrid vehicles.

Figure 2.15 depicts a hybrid automobile that relies on a

small internal combustion engine and electricity (from bat-

teries).

Table 2.8 provides information about the various

hybrid vehicles for sale in the United States as of

December 2004. Manufacturers continue research on

hybrid cars, which they hope will eventually satisfy

American tastes and pocketbooks and provide even

greater fuel efficiency.

THE COST OF AIR POLLUTION ANDPOLLUTION CONTROL

Air quality plays a major and complex role in public

health. Among the factors that must be considered are the

levels of pollutants in the air, the levels of individual

exposure to these pollutants, individual susceptibility to

toxic substances, and exposure time related to ill effects

from certain substances. Blaming health effects on specific

pollutants is also complicated by the health impact of

nonenvironmental causes (such as heredity or poor diet).

TABLE 2.7

Number of alternative fuel vehicles in use, 1995–2004

Average annual percentage change

Fuel type 1995 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004a 1995–2004

LPG 172,806 177,183 181,994 185,053 187,680 190,438 194,389 1.3%CNG 50,218 78,782 100,750 111,851 120,839 132,988 143,742 12.4%LNG 603 1,172 2,090 2,576 2,708 3,030 3,134 20.1%M85 18,319 19,648 10,426 7,827 5,873 4,917 4,592 �14.3%M100 386 200 0 0 0 0 0 �100.0%E85b 1,527 12,788 87,570 100,303 120,951 133,776 146,195 66.0%E95 136 14 4 0 0 0 0 �100.0%Electricity 2,860 5,243 11,830 17,847 33,047 45,656 55,852 13.0%

Total 246,855 295,030 394,664 425,457 471,098 510,805 547,904 9.3%

a2004 data are based on plans or projections.bDoes not include flex-fuel vehicles.

SOURCE: Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, “Table 6.1. Estimates of Alternative Fuel Vehicles in Use, 1995–2004,” in Transportation Energy Data Book:Edition 24, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning, Budget Formulation and Analysis, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DC,December 2004, http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter06.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

FIGURE 2.15

Diagram of a hybrid-electric vehicle

1 – Engine

2 – Transmission

3 – Electric motor

4 – Power electronics

5 – Fuel tank

6 – Battery pack

SOURCE: Model Year 2002 Fuel Economy Guide, U.S. Department ofEnergy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,October 2001

1

2

3

45

6

32 Air Quality The Environment

Scientists do know that air pollution is related to a

number of respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, pul-

monary emphysema, lung cancer, bronchial asthma, eye

irritation, weakened immune system, and premature lung

tissue aging. In addition, lead contamination causes neu-

rological and kidney disease and can be responsible for

impaired fetal and mental development. The American

Lung Association estimates the annual health costs of

exposure to the most serious air pollutants at $40 to $50

billion.

Like most environmental issues, pollution involves

limits. There is only so much air to receive automobile

emissions and so much land on which freeways can be

built. Many transportation analysts think that interest in

public transportation is long overdue. Several major

cities, including San Francisco, Chicago, and New York,

have had positive environmental results with mass transit

systems.

A major problem with the effort to reduce air pollu-

tion further—as well as some other types of pollution—is

that most of the relatively cheap fixes have already been

made, and many economists argue that the expensive

ones may not be worth the price. The very premise of

cleanup—that air pollution can be reduced to levels

where it no longer poses any health risk at all—is ques-

tioned not just by industry but by observers as well.

Virtually all gains in the war on ozone have been

achieved by reducing auto emissions. The costs for future

air quality improvements, from some points of view, may

exceed the value of any improvement, and the disparity

may only get worse over time. However, some sources

believe that there are other technologically easy—if poli-

tically unpopular—steps that could be taken to improve

air quality. Such steps would include forcing light trucks,

minivans, and SUVs to meet the same smog standards as

standard passenger cars.

Other possible improvements could come from

changes in ‘‘grandfather’’ clauses—that is, loopholes that

exempt companies from compliance with laws because

the companies existed prior to the law. Power plants rank

first in grandfathered emissions. Other top industries

affected by grandfather clauses include aluminum smel-

ters, oil refineries, and carbon-black plants.

THE CLEAN AIR ACT—A HUGE SUCCESS

In 1970 the U.S. Congress passed the landmark

CAA, proclaiming that it would restore urban air quality.

It was no coincidence that the law was passed during a

fourteen-day Washington, D.C., smog alert. The act was

amended several times over the following decades,

including a massive overhaul in 1990 resulting in the

CAAA. Although the act has had mixed results, and

many goals remain to be met, most experts credit it with

making great strides toward cleaning up the air.

The CAAA encouraged states to pursue market-

based approaches to improve air quality. One such pro-

gram, the Accelerated Vehicle Retirement program,

commonly known as Cash for Clunkers, provides

economic incentives for the owners of highly polluting

vehicles to retire their automobiles from use or repair

TABLE 2.8

Sales and specifications of available advanced technology vehicles as of 2004

Fuel economy Passenger (city/hwy) Emissions rating capacity Cargo capacity Price

2005 Honda Insight CVTa 57/56 SULEV-2 2 16.3 ft3 $21,3802005 Toyota Prius CVTa 60/51 AT-PZEV 5 16.1 ft3 $20,8752005 Honda Civic Hybrid CVT SULEVa 48/47 ULEV 5 10.1 ft3 $19,8002005 Ford Escape Hybrid

2WD 36/31 AT-PZEV 5 27.6 ft3 $26,3804WD 33/29 $28,005

2005 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid2WD 18/21 ULEV 5 56.9 ft3 $30,3454WD 17/19 $31,835

2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid2WD 18/21 ULEV 5 43.5 ft3 $28,1324WD 17/19

Calendar year sales in the U.S. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004b

2005 Honda Insight CVTa 17 3,788 4,726 2,216 1,168 5702005 Toyota Prius CVTa 0 5,562 15,556 20,119 24,627 41,838

Note: SULEV�Super ultra low emission vehicle. AT-PZEV�Advanced technology partial zero emission vehicle.aSpecifications are for the model containing a continuously variable transmission (CVT).bSales through October 2004.

SOURCE: Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, “Table 6.5. Sales and Specifications of Available Advanced Technology Vehicles,” in Transportation EnergyData Book: Edition 24, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning, Budget Formulation and Analysis, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,Washington, DC, December 2004, http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter06.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Air Quality 33

them. The program gives pollution credits to private

corporations for contributing funding to car dealers to

entice car owners to trade in their old vehicles.

Resistance to CAAA Gets Federal Concessions

During the mid- to late 1990s, a number of states

began balking at the strict auto emissions testing that

seemed necessary to comply with the CAAA. Under the

law, if a reduction does not come from auto emissions, it

would have to be made up by other sources—for exam-

ple, smokestack industries. The states are free to imple-

ment whatever methods they choose to cut pollution, but

most states with serious air quality problems had pre-

viously chosen, with EPA encouragement, the stricter car

inspection programs. This meant that many states were

faced with testing that a great number of consumers

considered overly restrictive and expensive.

The EPA had counted on enforcing the program

through sanctions specified by the CAAA, which

included cutting off highway money and other federal

aid to the states. Some state legislatures, however,

seemed willing to forego this aid in what some consi-

dered an act of civil disobedience. Rather than provoking

a confrontation with the states, the EPA chose to allow

greater flexibility in auto emissions testing.

In The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970

to 1990 (1997), the first report mandated by the CAA on

the monetary costs and benefits of controlling pollution,

the EPA concluded that the economic value of clean air

programs was forty-two times greater than the total costs

of air pollution control during the twenty-year period.

The study found that numerous positive consequences

occurred in the U.S. economy because of CAA programs

and regulations. The CAA affected industrial production,

investment, productivity, consumption, employment, and

economic growth. In fact, the study estimated that total

agricultural benefits from the CAA were almost $10

billion. The EPA compared benefits to direct costs or

expenditures. The total costs of the CAA were $523

billion for the twenty-year period; total benefits equaled

$22.2 trillion—a net benefit of approximately $21.7

trillion.

In Two Decades of Clean Air: EPA Assesses Costs

and Benefits (1998), the National Conference of State

Legislatures used data from the EPA analysis and found

that the act produced major reductions in pollution that

causes illness and disease, smog, acid rain, haze, and

damage to the environment.

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amend-

ments of 1990 (2000), the second mandated review of the

CAA and the most comprehensive and thorough review

ever conducted, showed similar results. Using a sophisti-

cated array of computer models and the latest cost data,

the EPA found that, by 2010, the act will have prevented

twenty-three thousand Americans from dying prema-

turely and averted more than 1.7 million asthma attacks.

The CAA will prevent sixty-seven thousand episodes of

acute bronchitis, ninety-one thousand occurrences of

shortness of breath, 4.1 million lost work days, and

thirty-one million days in which Americans would have

had to restrict activity because of illness. Another twenty-

two thousand respiratory-related hospital admissions will

be averted, as well as forty-two thousand admissions for

heart disease and forty-eight hundred emergency room

visits.

The EPA estimated that the benefits of CAA pro-

grams in reduction of illness and premature death alone

will total about $110 billion. By contrast, the study found

that the cost of achieving these benefits was only about

$27 billion, a fraction of the value of the benefits. In

addition, the study reported that there were other benefits

that scientists and economists cannot quantify and

express in monetary terms, such as controlling cancer-

causing air toxins and bringing benefits to crops and

ecosystems by reducing pollutants.

At the same time, many cities are still not in com-

pliance with the law. One reason efforts to clean the air

have been only partly successful is that they have focused

on specific measures to combat individual pollutants

rather than addressing the underlying social and eco-

nomic structures that create the problem—for example,

the distance between many Americans’ residences and

their places of work.

Trading Pollution Credits

In another federal concession, the CAAA created

pollution ‘‘credits,’’ a free-market innovation that

allowed companies that keep their emissions below stan-

dards to sell or trade their credits on the open market to

other companies that do not keep their emissions below

standards. This is often viewed essentially as permission

to pollute. Companies can also choose to retire their

credits permanently and thus reduce the potential of

further pollution.

THE ANTIREGULATORY REBELLION

The dissatisfaction with government regulation that

developed in the 1980s grew even stronger in the 1990s.

The Republican-led Congress took steps to put the brakes

on what it considered growing environmental regulation.

As a result, the funding was cut for environmental pro-

tection—including the CAA, the CAAA, the Clean Water

Act (PL 92–500), the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93–

523), and other environmental statutes. Subsequent fiscal

budgets continued those cuts by many millions of dollars.

The CAA requires the EPA to review public health

standards at least every five years to ensure they

reflect the best current science. In 1997—in response

34 Air Quality The Environment

to what many consider compelling scientific evidence

of the harm caused to human health by ozone and fine

particles—the EPA issued new, stricter air quality

standards for ozone and PM.

This was the first revision in ozone standards in

twenty years and the first-ever standard for fine particu-

lates. The provisions tightened the standard for ground-

level ozone from the level of 0.12 parts per million (ppm)

at the highest daily measurement to 0.08 ppm average

over an eight-hour period. The new PM standard included

particles larger than 2.5 microns in diameter instead of

the original standard of those larger than ten microns.

However, in May 1999 a three-judge federal appeals

panel overturned the new standards. The EPA appealed,

but in October 1999 the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia refused to overturn the decision. In

January 2000 the American Lung Association petitioned

the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. The

Supreme Court ruled in February 2001 that the EPA

had the authority under the CAA to set the new standards.

Claims that the EPA’s decision was arbitrary and capri-

cious and not supported by evidence were struck down by

the D.C. Circuit Court in late May 2002.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT AIR POLLUTION

Every year the Gallup Organization conducts a poll

on the environment around the time of the nation’s

celebration of Earth Day. In the March 2004 poll

participants were asked about their level of concern

related to particular environmental problems. (See Table

2.9). The results showed that 39% of those asked

expressed a great deal of concern about air pollution,

compared with 30% who expressed a fair amount of

concern. Another 23% indicated a little concern, and

8% expressed no concern.

The percentage of poll respondents indicating a great

deal of concern about air pollution has dropped dramati-

cally in recent years from a high of 63% in 1989. In a poll

conducted in 2003 Gallup asked people their opinion

about some specific environmental proposals to help the

nation’s energy situation. The results indicated that peo-

ple strongly favor tougher enforcement of environmental

regulations and higher emissions standards for automo-

biles and business and industry sources.

TABLE 2.9

Public concern about air pollution, 1989–2004“PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREATDEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL. AIR POLLUTION?”

Great Fair Only a Not at Nodeal amount little all opinion% % % % %

2004 Mar 8–11 39 30 23 8 *2003 Mar 3–5 42 32 20 6 *2002 Mar 4–7 45 33 18 4 *2001 Mar 5–7 48 34 14 4 *2000 Apr 3–9 59 29 9 3 *1999 Apr 13–14 52 35 10 3 *1999 Mar 12–14 47 33 16 4 *1997 0ct 27–28 42 34 18 5 11991 Apr 11–14 59 28 10 4 *1990 Apr 5–8 58 29 9 4 *1989 May 4–7 63 24 8 4 *

SOURCE: “Please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a greatdeal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. Air pollution?” in Poll Topicsand Trends: Environment, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ, March17, 2004, www.gallup.com (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright © 2004 byThe Gallup Organzation. Reproduced by permission of The Gallup Organization.

The Environment Air Quality 35

CHAPTER 3

T H E EN H A N C E D G R E E N H O U S E E F F E C TA N D C L I M A T E C H A N G E

WHAT IS CLIMATE?

Climate and weather are not the same thing. Both

describe conditions in the lower atmosphere—for exam-

ple, wet or dry, cold or warm, stormy or fair, and cloudy

or clear. Weather is the short-term local state of the

atmosphere. Weather conditions can change from

moment to moment and can differ in two places that are

relatively close together. Climate describes the average

pattern of weather conditions experienced by a region

over a long period of time. For example, Florida has a

warm climate but can experience days and even weeks of

cold weather.

Earth’s climate as a whole has not changed much for

a few thousand years. In general, most of the planet has

been warm enough for humans, animals, and plants to

thrive. This was not so in the distant past when the

climate fluctuated between long periods of cold and

warmth, each lasting for many thousands of years. Scien-

tists are not sure what triggered these major climate

changes. A variety of factors are believed to be involved,

including movement of the tectonic plates, changes in

Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and variations in atmo-

spheric gases.

Scientists believe that the last ice age occurred about

eighteen thousand years ago. During this period ice

sheets and glaciers spread to cover vast regions of the

Earth, including most of North America and Europe.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the average temperature of the Earth during the

last ice age was only 7 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it

is today. This shows the enormous effects that minor

changes in global temperature can cause.

Earth’s temperature depends on a delicate balance of

energy inputs and outputs, chemical processes, and phy-

sical phenomena. As shown in Figure 3.1 solar radiation

passes through Earth’s atmosphere and warms the Earth.

The Earth emits infrared radiation. Some outgoing infra-

red radiation is not allowed to escape into outer space but

is trapped beneath the atmosphere. The amount of energy

that is trapped depends on many variables. One major

factor is atmospheric composition. Some gases, such as

water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4),

act to trap heat beneath the atmosphere in the same way

that glass panels trap heat in a greenhouse. The panels

allow sunlight into the greenhouse, but prevent heat from

escaping.

Earth’s surface temperature is about 60 degrees Fah-

renheit warmer than it would be if natural greenhouse

gases were not present. Without this natural warming

process, Earth would be much colder and could not

sustain life as it now exists.

It is necessary, however, to distinguish between

the ‘‘natural’’ and a possible ‘‘enhanced’’ greenhouse

effect. The natural greenhouse effect provides a warm

atmosphere for Earth that is necessary for life. The

theory behind the enhanced greenhouse effect is that

human activities can load the atmosphere with too

much carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

This could increase Earth’s temperature above that

expected from the natural greenhouse effect, an effect

known as global warming. Such a temperature increase

would be accompanied by major climatic changes.

The primary human activities linked to the enhanced

greenhouse effect are the burning of fossil fuels (mainly

coal and oil) and their derivatives (such as gasoline), and

destruction of large amounts of vegetation that normally

absorb carbon dioxide. (See Figure 3.2.)

GREENHOUSE GASES

Greenhouse gases are gases in the atmosphere that allow

shortwave radiation (sunlight) from the Sun to pass through

to Earth but absorb and reradiate longwave infrared radiation

(heat) coming from the Earth’s surface. This process serves to

The Environment 37

warm the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). The tropos-

phere extends from the Earth’s surface to approximately five

to eight miles above the surface, as shown in Figure 3.3.

Water Vapor

Scientists know that water vapor is the most preva-

lent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to the

Environmental Health Center of the National Safety

Council, water vapor comprises as much as 2% of the

atmosphere and is responsible for approximately two-

thirds of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists believe,

however, that humans have little to no influence on the

amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is

part of the natural water cycle that takes place on and

around the Earth. Water evaporates from the surface,

condenses into clouds, and then returns to the surface as

precipitation. The water cycle is also a heat cycle, trans-

ferring heat around the Earth and back and forth between

the surface and the atmosphere. Water vapor cycles

quickly through the atmosphere, lingering for a few days

at most.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a heavy colorless gas that

comprises approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere. Car-

bon dioxide is a respiration product from all living things

(plants, animals, and humans). It is also released during

the decay or combustion of organic materials. Huge

amounts of carbon dioxide are cycled back and forth

between the oceans and the atmosphere. Likewise, vege-

tation absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. The result of

all these processes is a global carbon cycle that maintains

carbon dioxide at suitable levels in the atmosphere to

sustain a natural greenhouse effect.

Prior to the 1800s humans had little impact on

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The Industrial

Revolution ushered in widespread use of fossil fuels,

primarily coal, oil, and natural gas. Combustion of

FIGURE 3.1

Role of radiation in greenhouse effect

Some of the infrared radiation passesthrough the atmosphere, and some isabsorbed and re-emitted in alldirections by greenhouse gasmolecules. The effect of this is to warmthe earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere.

Some solar radiationis reflected by theearth and theatmosphere

Solarradiationpassesthroughthe clearatmosphere

SOURCE: “The Greenhouse Effect,” in Global Warming Kid’s Site:Greenhouse Effect, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, July 12, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Most radiation is absorbedby the earth’s surfaceand warms it

Infrared radiationis emitted from the earth’s surface

FIGURE 3.2

Greenhouse effect

Ozone layer shields the Earth from thesun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Space

Atmosphere

SOURCE: Looking at the Earth from Space, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, 1994

TrappedIR radiation

Incoming energy(ultraviolet light)

Outgoing energy(infrared heat)

Reflected energy

38 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

these carbon-loaded fuels releases large amounts of

carbon dioxide. The burning of fossil fuels by industry

and motor vehicles is, by far, the leading source of

CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for

95% of the nation’s emission of greenhouse gases in

2003. (See Table 3.1.) Other anthropogenic (human-

caused) sources include deforestation, burning of bio-

mass (combustible organic materials, such as wood

scraps and crop residues), and certain industrial pro-

cesses. The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is

estimated to be fifty to two hundred years.

THE ROLE OF THE FORESTS AS CARBON SINKS. For-

ests act as sinks, or repositories, absorbing and storing

carbon. Trees naturally absorb and neutralize CO2,

although scientists do not agree on the extent to which

forests can soak up excess amounts. The increasing levels

of CO2 in the atmosphere might conceivably be tolerated

in Earth’s normal CO2 cycle if not for the additional

complicating factor of deforestation. The burning of the

Amazon rain forests and other forests has had a twofold

effect: the immediate release of large amounts of CO2

into the atmosphere from the fires, and the loss of trees to

neutralize the CO2 in the atmosphere. (See Figure 3.4.)

THE ROLE OF THE OCEANS AS CARBON SINKS. The

oceans are, by far, the largest reservoir of carbon in the

carbon cycle. Oceanographers and ecologists disagree

over the carbon cycle–climate connection and over the

ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2. Some scientists believe

that the oceans can absorb one to two billion tons of CO2

a year, about the amount the world emitted in 1950. Until

scientists can more accurately determine how much CO2

can be buffered by ocean processes, the extent and speed

of disruption in the carbon supply remains unclear.

Methane

Methane (CH4) is a colorless gas found in trace

(extremely small) amounts in the atmosphere. It is the

primary component of natural gas—the gas trapped

beneath the Earth’s crust that is mined and burned for

energy. Methane is an important component of green-

house emissions, second only to CO2. (See Figure 3.5.)

While there is less methane in the atmosphere, scientists

believe that it may be much more effective at trapping

heat in the atmosphere than CO2. During the 1900s

methane’s concentration in the atmosphere more than

doubled. Scientists generally attribute those increases to

human sources, such as landfills, natural gas systems,

agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater

treatment.

As shown in Table 3.1, methane emissions from

landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation

accounted for two-thirds of total U.S. emissions in 2003.

Enteric fermentation is a natural digestive process that

occurs in domestic animals, such as cattle and sheep, and

releases methane. Growing markets for beef and milk

products are driving a booming livestock business.

Humans contribute to atmospheric methane levels

through activities that concentrate and magnify biological

decomposition. This includes landfilling organic materi-

als, raising livestock, cultivating rice in paddies, collect-

ing sewage for treatment, and constructing artificial

wetlands. In addition, methane is a byproduct of the

combustion of biomass and is vented (intentionally and

unintentionally) during the extraction and processing of

fossil fuels. It also results from incomplete combustion of

fossil fuels. Methane is believed to break down in the

atmosphere after approximately nine to fifteen years.

Ozone

Ozone (O3) is a blue-tinted gas naturally found in

Earth’s atmosphere. Approximately 90% of the ozone is

in the stratosphere, the atmospheric layer lying above the

troposphere. The so-called ozone layer absorbs harmful

ultraviolet radiation from the Sun to prevent it from

reaching the ground. Scientists believe that stratospheric

ozone is being depleted by the introduction of certain

industrial chemicals, primarily chlorine and bromine.

This depletion has serious consequences in terms of

ultraviolet radiation effects and probably lessens the

warmth-trapping capability of ozone at this level.

Tropospheric ozone is the primary component in

smog, a potent air pollutant. It is not emitted directly into

the air but forms due to complex reactions that occur

when other air pollutants, primarily volatile organic com-

pounds and nitrogen oxides, are present. Primary sources

of these ozone precursors include industrial chemical

processes and fossil fuel combustion. The atmospheric

lifetime of ozone ranges from weeks to months.

FIGURE 3.3

Mesosphere

Troposphere

Stratosphere

Ozonelayer

Infraredradiation

Infraredradiation

Layers of the atmosphere

SOURCE: “Regions of the Atmosphere,” in Stratospheric Ozone:Monitoring and Research in NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC,April 24, 2001, http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/regions.jpeg(accessed August 4, 2005)

�80˚F

0˚F

60˚F

~50 km (30 miles)

~8 km (5 miles)

~9–12 km (5.5–7.5 miles)

UV/visible sunlight

Mt Everest ~9 km

(5.5 miles)

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 39

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a colorless gas found in trace

amounts in the atmosphere. Soils naturally release the gas as

a result of bacterial processes called nitrification and deni-

trification. Soils found in tropical areas and moist forests are

believed to be the largest contributors. Oxygen-poor waters

and sediments in oceans and estuaries are also natural

sources. Although N2O makes up a much smaller portion

of greenhouse gases than CO2, it is much more (perhaps 310

times more) powerful than CO2 at trapping heat. Agriculture

is and has been the major source of N2O emissions in the

United States, followed by energy and industrial sources. As

shown in Table 3.1 agricultural soil management accounted

for 67% of total N2O emissions during 2003.

Humans have significantly increased the release of

nitrous oxide from soils through use of nitrogen-rich

fertilizers. Other anthropogenic sources include combus-

tion of fossil fuels and biomass, wastewater treatment,

TABLE 3.1

Trends in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, in teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Teragrams CO2 Equivalent), 1990 and1997–2003

Gas/source 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

CO2 5,009.6 5,580.0 5,607.2 5,678.0 5,858.2 5,744.8 5,796.8 5,841.5

Fossil fuel combustion 4,711.7 5,263.2 5,278.7 5,345.9 5,545.1 5,448.0 5,501.4 5,551.6Non-energy use of fuels 108.0 120.3 135.4 141.6 124.7 120.1 118.8 118.0Iron and steel production 85.4 71.9 67.4 64.4 65.7 58.9 55.1 53.8Cement manufacture 33.3 38.3 39.2 40.0 41.2 41.4 42.9 43.0Waste combustion 10.9 17.8 17.1 17.6 18.0 18.8 18.8 18.8Ammonia production and urea

application 19.3 20.7 21.9 20.6 19.6 16.7 18.6 15.6Lime manufacture 11.2 13.7 13.9 13.5 13.3 12.8 12.3 13.0Natural gas flaring 5.8 7.9 6.6 6.9 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.0Limestone and dolomite use 5.5 7.2 7.4 8.1 6.0 5.7 5.9 4.7Aluminum production 6.3 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.7 4.1 4.2 4.2Soda ash manufacture and

consumption 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1Petrochemical production 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.8Titanium dioxide production 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0Phosphoric acid production 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4Ferroalloys 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4Carbon dioxide consumption 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.3Land-use change and forestry

(sinks)a (1,042.0) (930.0) (881.0) (826.1) (822.4) (826.9) (826.5) (828.0)International bunker fuelsb 113.5 109.9 114.6 105.3 101.4 97.9 89.5 84.2Biomass combustionb 216.7 233.2 217.2 222.3 226.8 200.5 207.2 216.8

CH4 605.3 579.5 569.1 557.3 554.2 546.8 542.5 545.0

Landfills 172.2 147.4 138.5 134.0 130.7 126.2 126.8 131.2Natural gas systems 128.3 133.6 131.8 127.4 132.1 131.8 130.6 125.9Enteric fermentation 117.9 118.3 116.7 116.8 115.6 114.5 114.6 115.0Coal mining 81.9 62.6 62.8 58.9 56.2 55.6 52.4 53.8Manure management 31.2 36.4 38.8 38.8 38.1 38.9 39.3 39.1Wastewater treatment 24.8 31.7 32.6 33.6 34.3 34.7 35.8 36.8Petroleum systems 20.0 18.8 18.5 17.8 17.6 17.4 17.1 17.1Rice cultivation 7.1 7.5 7.9 8.3 7.5 7.6 6.8 6.9Stationary sources 7.8 7.4 6.9 7.1 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.7Abandoned coal mines 6.1 8.1 7.2 7.3 7.7 6.9 6.4 6.4Mobile sources 4.8 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7Petrochemical production 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5Iron and steel production 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0Agricultural residue burning 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8Silicon carbide production � � � � � � � �International bunker fuelsb 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

N2O 382.0 396.3 407.8 382.1 401.9 385.8 380.5 376.7

Agricultural soil management 253.0 252.0 267.7 243.4 263.9 257.1 252.6 253.5Mobile sources 43.7 55.2 55.3 54.6 53.2 49.0 45.6 42.1Manure management 16.3 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.8 18.0 17.9 17.5Human sewage 13.0 14.7 15.0 15.4 15.6 15.6 15.7 15.9Nitric acid 17.8 21.2 20.9 20.1 19.6 15.9 17.2 15.8Stationary sources 12.3 13.5 13.4 13.5 14.0 13.5 13.5 13.8Settlements remaining

settlements 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0Adipic acid 15.2 10.3 6.0 5.5 6.0 4.9 5.9 6.0N2O product usage 4.3 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8Waste combustion 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5Agricultural residue burning 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4Forest land remaining forest

land 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4International bunker fuelsb 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 as

40 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

and certain manufacturing processes, particularly the pro-

duction of nylon and nitric acid. Nitrous oxide has an

atmospheric lifetime of approximately 120 years.

Engineered Gases

Engineered gases are synthetic gases specially

designed for modern industrial and commercial purposes.

They are also known as ‘‘high GWP gases,’’ because they

have a high global warming potential compared with

carbon dioxide. They include hydrofluorocarbons

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluor-

ide (SF6).

TABLE 3.1

HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 91.2 121.7 135.7 134.8 138.9 129.5 138.3 137.0

Substitution of ozone depleting substances 0.4 46.5 56.6 65.8 75.0 83.3 91.5 99.5Electrical transmission and distribution 29.2 21.7 17.1 16.4 15.6 15.4 14.7 14.1HCFC-22 production 35.0 30.0 40.1 30.4 29.8 19.8 19.8 12.3Semiconductor manufacture 2.9 6.3 7.1 7.2 6.3 4.5 4.4 4.3Aluminum production 18.3 11.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 4.0 5.2 3.8Magnesium production and processing 5.4 6.3 5.8 6.0 3.2 2.6 2.6 3.0

Total 6,088.1 6,677.5 6,719.7 6,752.2 6,953.2 6,806.9 6,858.1 6,900.2

Net emissions (sources and sinks) 5,046.1 5,747.5 5,838.8 5,926.1 6,130.8 5,980.1 6,031.6 6,072.2

� Does not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2 Eq.aSinks are only included in net emissions total, and are based partially on projected activity data. Parentheses indicate negative values (or sequestration).bEmissions from international bunker fuels and biomass combustion are not included in totals.Note: Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

SOURCE: “Table ES-2. Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Tg CO2 Eq.),” in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990–2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 15, 2005, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4ZS/$File/05_complete_report.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Trends in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks, in teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Teragrams CO2 Equivalent), 1990 and1997–2003 [CONTINUED]

Gas/source 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

FIGURE 3.4

As plants and trees grow,photosynthesis—involving the interaction ofsunlight, chlorophyll ingreen leaves, carbondioxide (CO2) and water(H2O)—results in a netremoval of CO2 from the airand the release of oxygen(O2) as a by-product. Also,moisture is released to theair throughevapotranspiration.

The effect of forests on carbon dioxide concentrations

SOURCE: “Figure 2a” and “Figure 2b,” in Biosphere, NASA Facts,National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space FlightCenter, Greenbelt, MD, April 1998

When forests die anddecay, or are burned,the biomass isoxidized and CO2 isreturned to the air.

Chlorophyll

H2O

H2O

SunlightO2

CO2

O2CO2

FIGURE 3.5

HFCs, PFCs & SF6 2%

N2O 5%CH4

8%

CO2

85%

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure ES-4, 2003 Greenhouse Gas Emissionsby Gas,” in Inventory of U.S Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990–2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 15, 2005, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/ UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4ZS/$File/05_complete_report.pdf accessed August 4, 2005)

Greenhouse gas emissions, by gas, 2003

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 41

HFCs are chemicals that contain hydrogen, fluorine,

and carbon. They are popular substitutes in industrial

applications for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are

commonly used in cooling equipment, fire extinguishers,

as propellants, and for other uses. They are one of the

culprits blamed for depletion of stratospheric ozone.

PFCs are a class of chemicals containing fluorine and

carbon. They also are increasingly used by industry as

substitutes for ozone-depleting CFCs. SF6 is a colorless,

odorless gas commonly used as an insulating medium in

electrical equipment and as an etchant (an etching agent)

in the semiconductor industry.

Although emissions of these chemicals are very

small in comparison with other greenhouse gases, they

are of particular concern because of their long life in the

atmosphere. PFCs and SF6 have atmospheric lifetimes of

thousands of years and are actually far more potent

greenhouse gases than CO2 per unit of molecular weight.

Indirect Greenhouse Gases

There are several gases considered indirect green-

house gases because of their effects on the chemical

environment of the atmosphere. These gases include

reactive nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO),

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Most of their

emissions are from anthropogenic sources, primarily

combustion and industrial processes.

CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERE

Earth’s atmosphere was first compared to a

glass vessel in 1827 by the French mathematician

Jean-Baptiste Fourier. In the 1850s British physicist

John Tyndall tried to measure the heat-trapping proper-

ties of various components of the atmosphere. By the

1890s scientists had concluded that the great increase in

combustion in the Industrial Revolution had the poten-

tial to change the atmosphere’s load of CO2. In 1896 the

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius made the revolution-

ary suggestion that human activities could actually

disrupt this delicate balance. He theorized that the rapid

increase in the use of coal that came with the Industrial

Revolution could increase CO2 concentrations and cause

a gradual rise in temperatures. For almost six decades

his theory stirred little interest.

In 1957 studies at the Scripps Institute of Oceano-

graphy in California suggested that, indeed, half the CO2

released by industry was being permanently trapped in

the atmosphere. The studies showed that atmospheric

concentrations of CO2 in the previous thirty years were

greater than in the previous two centuries and that the gas

had reached its highest level in 160,000 years. Scientists

can estimate the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere long ago

by testing air pockets in ice sheets believed to have

formed around the same time.

Findings in the 1980s and 1990s provided more disturb-

ing evidence of atmospheric changes. Scientists detected

increases in other, even more potent gases that contribute

to the greenhouse effect, notably chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-

11 and -12), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and halocarbons

(CFCs, methyl chloroform, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons).

In May 2005 the EPA reported that the average

atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased from 280

parts per million (ppm) in preindustrial times to 372.3

ppm in 2003. Likewise, the average methane level

increased from approximately 700 parts per billion

(ppb) in the year 1750 to a value of 1,750 ppb in the

early 2000s. Increases in these gases over the past two

decades are shown in Figure 3.6 for carbon dioxide and

Figure 3.7 for methane. These data were collected by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) from its Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics

Laboratory (CMDL). The CMDL is headquartered in

Boulder, Colorado, and operates observatories in Barrow,

Alaska; Trinidad Head, California; Mauna Loa, Hawaii;

Samoa; and the South Pole. The agency compiles long-

term records on air quality and solar radiation data.

Scientists agree that atmospheric concentrations of

gases known to play a role in the natural greenhouse

effect are increasing. There is still disagreement about

whether this increase has affected global temperatures.

A RECENT WARMING TREND

Scientists do not know how much the global tem-

perature has varied on its own in the relatively recent

past (about one thousand years). Temperature records

FIGURE 3.6

Global average

Year

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03

Trend in global average carbon dioxide concentration

SOURCE: Adapted from “Carbon Dioxide Measurements: NOAA CMDLCarbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases,” in Carbon Cycle Greenhouse GasesFigures, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administrations, Climate Monitoring and DiagnosticsLaboratory, Boulder, CO, May 2004, http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures/co2trend_global (accessed August 4, 2005)

370

360

350

340

CO2 (

ppm

)

42 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

based on thermometers go back only about 150 years.

Investigators have turned, therefore, to ‘‘proxy’’ (indir-

ect) means of measuring past temperatures. These

methods include chemical evidence of climatic change

contained in fossils, corals, ancient ice, and growth

rings in trees.

In 1998 Drs. Michael E. Mann and Raymond S.

Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst

and Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona

at Tucson surveyed proxy evidence of temperatures in the

Northern Hemisphere since 1400. They discovered that

the twentieth century was the warmest century of the past

six hundred years. They concluded that the warming

trend seems to be closely connected to the emission of

greenhouse gases by humans. Some experts, however,

question whether studies of proxy evidence will ever be

reliable enough to yield valuable information on global

warming.

Three international agencies have compiled long-

term data on surface temperatures—the British Meteor-

ological Office in Bracknell, United Kingdom, the

National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North

Carolina, and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space

Studies in New York. Temperature measurements from

these organizations reported that the 1990s were the

warmest decade of the twentieth century and the warmest

decade since humans began measuring temperatures in

the mid-nineteenth century. The average global surface

temperature was approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit war-

mer than at the turn of the twentieth century, and this rise

increased more rapidly since 1980.

According to NASA, the 1998 meteorological year

was the warmest year recorded since the late 1800s. (See

Figure 3.8.) A meteorological year runs from the begin-

ning of winter to the end of autumn. The second-, third-,

and fourth-warmest years were 2002, 2003, and 2004,

respectively. There has been a strong warming trend over

the past three decades. Scientists do not know if this trend

is part of a natural climate cycle or the result of an

enhanced greenhouse effect.

OTHER INFLUENCES ON EARTH’S CLIMATE

Besides the greenhouse effect there are many other

natural and anthropogenic factors that affect Earth’s

climate. Some of the major factors are discussed

below.

The Effects of Clouds on Global Temperature

Surprisingly little is known about clouds—where

they occur, their role in energy and water transfer, and

their ability to reflect solar heat. Earth’s climate main-

tains a balance between the energy that reaches Earth

from the Sun and the energy that radiates back from

Earth into space. Scientists refer to this as Earth’s ‘‘radia-

tion budget.’’ The components of Earth’s system are the

planet’s surface, atmosphere, and clouds.

FIGURE 3.8

�.4

�.2

.0

.2

.4

.6

Year

Global land � ocean surface

SOURCE: Adapted from “Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies [BasePeriod 1951–80] Global Land & Ocean Surface,” in Datasets & Images:GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Global Temperature Trends: 2004Summation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GoddardInstitute for Space Studies, New York, NY, May 19, 2005, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/Fig.1.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Trend in annual global mean temperatures, 1880–2004

Tem

pera

ture

ano

mal

y (˚

C)

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Annual mean 5-year mean

FIGURE 3.7

SOURCE: Adapted from “Methane Measurements: NOAA CMDL CarbonCycle Greenhouse Gases,” in Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Figures,U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory,Boulder, CO, May 2004, http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg _figures/ch4trend_global (accessed August 4, 2005)

Year

Note: Global average atmospheric methane mixing ratios (black line) determinedusing measurements from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) cooperative airsampling network. The gray line represents the long-term trend.

CH4 (

parts

per

bill

ion)

Global average methane concentrations, 1984–2003 Global average

85 86 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 0384 87 02

1,750

1,725

1,700

1,675

1,650

1,625

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 43

Different parts of Earth have different capacities to

reflect solar energy. Oceans and rain forests reflect only a

small portion of the Sun’s energy. Deserts and clouds, on

the other hand, reflect a large portion of solar energy. A

cloud reflects more radiation back into space than the sur-

face would in the absence of clouds. An increase in cloudi-

ness can also act like the panels on a greenhouse roof.

NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise is a satellite-based

program that includes numerous scientific studies of

clouds. These studies have revealed that:

• The effect of clouds on climate depends on the

balance between the incoming solar radiation and

the absorption of Earth’s outgoing radiation.

• Low clouds have a cooling effect because they are

optically thicker and reflect much of the incoming

solar radiation out to space.

• High, thin cirrus clouds have a warming effect

because they transmit most of the incoming solar

radiation while also trapping some of Earth’s radia-

tion and radiating it back to the surface.

• Deep convective clouds have neither a warming nor a

cooling effect because their reflective and absorptive

abilities cancel one another.

Another Possible Warming Culprit—Solar Cycles

Scientists have known for centuries that the Sun goes

through cycles; it has seasons, storms, and rhythms of

activity with sunspots and flares appearing in cycles of

roughly eleven years. Some scientists contend that these

factors play a role in climate change on Earth. Some

research, though sketchy and controversial, suggests that

the Sun’s variability could account for some, if not all, of

global warming to date. The biggest correlation occurred

centuries ago—between 1640 and 1720—when sunspot

activity fell sharply and Earth cooled about 2 degrees

Fahrenheit. (The Sun is brighter when sunspots appear

and dimmer when they disappear.)

The Effects of the Oceans on Temperature

Oceans have a profound effect on global temperature,

because of their huge capacity to store heat and because

they can moderate levels of atmospheric gases. Covering

more than 70% of Earth and holding 97% of the water on

the planet’s surface, oceans function as huge reservoirs of

heat. Ocean currents transport this stored heat and dis-

solved gases so that different areas of the world serve as

either sources or sinks (repositories) for these compo-

nents. While scientists know a great deal about oceanic

and air circulation, they are less certain about the ocean’s

ability to store additional CO2 or about how much heat it

will absorb.

The top eight feet of the oceans hold as much heat as

Earth’s entire atmosphere. As ocean waters circulate

globally, heat is transferred from low altitudes to high

altitudes, from north to south, and vertically from surface

to deep oceans and back. But how is this heat appor-

tioned? If heat is able to circulate through the entire

oceanic depth range, the process could take centuries

and the world’s oceans could serve to buffer or delay

global warming. Researchers are working to determine

that possibility, but it remains one of many unanswered

questions.

The Effects of El Nino and La Nina

For centuries fishermen in the Pacific Ocean off

the coast of South America have known about the

phenomenon called El Nino. Every three to five years,

during December and January, fish in those waters vir-

tually vanish, bringing fishing to a standstill. Fishermen

gave this occurrence the name ‘‘El Nino,’’ which means

‘‘the Child,’’ because it occurs around the celebration of

the birth of Jesus, the Christ child. Although originating

in the Pacific, the effects of El Nino are felt around the

world. Computers, satellites, and improved data gather-

ing have found that the El Nino phenomenon has been

responsible for drastic climate change.

An El Nino occurs because of interactions between

atmospheric winds and sea surfaces. In normal years,

trade winds blow from east to west across the eastern

Pacific. They drag the surface waters westward across the

ocean, causing deeper, cold waters to rise to the surface.

This upwelling of deep ocean waters carries nutrients

from the bottom of the ocean that feed fish populations

in the upper waters.

In an El Nino the westward movement of waters

weakens, causing the upwelling of deep waters to cease.

The resulting warming of the ocean waters further weak-

ens trade winds and strengthens El Nino. Without upwel-

ling, the nutrient content of deep waters is diminished,

which in turn causes the depletion of fish populations.

The warm waters that normally lie in the western waters

of the Pacific shift eastward. This turbulence creates

eastward weather conditions, in which towering cumulus

clouds reach high into the atmosphere with strong verti-

cal forces and the weakening of normal east-to-west trade

winds. An El Nino is the warm phase of a phenomenon

known as ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation), which

can also include a cold phase known as a La Nina.

According to the NOAA (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/

tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html#recent), El Ninos occurred

during 1986–1987, 1991–1992, 1993, 1994, and 1997–

1998. These events disrupted the ocean-atmosphere sys-

tem in the Pacific Ocean with subsequent effects on

weather around the planet. The NOAA notes that El

Ninos result in increased rainfall and flooding in the

southern United States and parts of South America and

drought conditions in the western Pacific region.

44 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

The Effects of Volcanic Activity on Temperature

Volcanic activity, such as the 1991 eruption of the

Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines, can tem-

porarily reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching

the Earth. Volcanoes spew vast quantities of particles

and gases into the atmosphere, including sulfur dioxide

(SO2) that combines with water to form tiny super-

cooled droplets. The droplets create a long-lasting

global haze that reflects and scatters sunlight, reducing

energy from the Sun and preventing its rays from

heating the Earth, thereby causing the planet to cool.

Figure 3.9 is a graph compiled by the CMDL based on

data from the Mauna Loa, Hawaii, observatory. It shows

how solar radiation was dramatically reduced by the

Pinatubo eruption. The eruption reduced solar radiation

by more than 3% compared to the baseline amount

occurring in 1958.

This effect also happened in 1982, when eruption of

the El Chichon volcano in Mexico depressed global tem-

peratures for about four years. In 1815 a major eruption

of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia produced serious

weather-related disruptions, such as crop-killing summer

frosts in the United States and Canada. It became known

as the ‘‘year without a summer.’’ On the other hand, for

several years following the Tambora eruption people

around the world commented on the beautiful sunsets,

which were caused by the suspension of volcano-related

particulate matter in the atmosphere.

The Effects of Aerosols

Aerosols are extremely tiny particles and/or liquid

droplets that disperse in the atmosphere. Primary nat-

ural sources include volcanoes, forest fires, soil, sand,

dust, sea salt, and scores of biological organisms and

refuse (bacteria, pollen, dead skin cells, dander, spores,

fungi, marine plankton, etc.). Aerosols are also pro-

duced by numerous fuel combustion and industrial

processes.

Aerosols in the atmosphere scatter and absorb radia-

tion. They also modify the formation and water content

of clouds. Aerosols linger for only weeks to months in the

troposphere and are returned to Earth in precipitation.

Although their exact effects on climate are not well

understood, it is believed that aerosols have a local and

temporary cooling effect on the atmosphere.

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITYTAKES ACTION

The World Meteorology Organization Speaks Up

At the world’s first ecological summit, the 1972

Stockholm Conference, climate change was not even

listed among the threats to the environment. Many earth

scientists and meteorologists, however, were becoming

alarmed about growing evidence supporting the notion of

an enhanced greenhouse effect. In 1979 the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO) established its

World Climate Programme to collect data and research

FIGURE 3.9

1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

1

0

�1

�2

�3

�4

�5

EI Chichon

Agung

Monthly means with 5 month smoother

PinatuboPerc

ent c

hang

e

Year

SOURCE: “Net Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa Observatory, Relative to 1958, Showing the Effects of Major Volcanic Eruptions. Annual Variations Are Due to Transport of Asian Dust and Air Pollution to Hawaii,” in Climate Forcing, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, CO, undated, http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Changes in solar radiation caused by volcanic eruptions, 1958–2003

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 45

the complex components of the Earth’s climate system.

The WMO is a nongovernmental agency under the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

At a 1979 conference the WMO acknowledged that

‘‘man’s activities on Earth may cause significant

extended regional and even global changes of climate’’

(16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the

Climate Convention, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Geneva, Switzerland, December 2004). This was

the first major step in the response of the international

community to the threat of global warming. Other major

milestones are listed in Table 3.2.

In 1985 representatives of the WMO, UNEP, and the

International Council for Science met in Austria to dis-

cuss the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases in climate change. They predicted that rising levels

of these gases would cause an increase in the global

temperature during the first half of the twenty-first

century.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 1988 the WMO and UNEP established the Inter-

governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The

IPCC set up three working groups to assess available

scientific information on climate change, estimate the

expected impacts of climate change, and formulate stra-

tegies for responding to the problem. The first IPCC

assessment report was issued in 1990.

Several signs of climate change were noted by the

IPCC in its report:

• The average warm-season temperature in Alaska had

risen nearly three degrees Fahrenheit in the previous

fifty years.

• Glaciers had generally receded and become thinner on

average by about thirty feet in the previous forty

years.

• There was about 5% less sea ice in the Bering Sea

than in the 1950s.

• Permafrost was thawing, causing the ground to sub-

side, opening holes in roads, producing landslides and

erosion, threatening roads and bridges, and causing

local floods.

• Ice cellars in northern villages had thawed and

become useless.

• More precipitation was falling as rain than snow in

northern areas, and the snow was melting faster, caus-

ing more running and standing water.

The IPCC report was the most comprehensive sum-

mary of climate-change science to date. It represented the

input of approximately four hundred international scien-

tists and acknowledged that global warming was a real

threat to the Earth’s climate.

Using computer models, IPCC researchers predicted

that the global mean temperature would increase by 0.3

degrees Celsius (0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade

during the twenty-first century. They also predicted that

the global mean sea level would rise by six centimeters

(2.4 inches) per decade. However, the scientists noted

that there were a number of uncertainties in their assump-

tions based on lack of data.

The United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (1992)

In 1992 the United Nations adopted the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). The UNFCCC was an international agree-

ment presented for signatures at the 1992 Earth Summit

in Rio de Janeiro. The stated objective of the agreement

was as follows:

Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame

sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to

climate change, to ensure that food production is not

threatened and to enable economic development to

proceed in a sustainable manner.

The agreement set specific goals for developed coun-

tries to track and publish detailed inventories of their

greenhouse gas emissions. These countries were also

expected by the year 2000 to reduce emissions to 1990

levels.

TABLE 3.2

International treaties related to climate change

1979

1985

1988

19901992

19941995

1996199720012005

SOURCE: Created by Kim Masters Evans for Thomson Gale, 2005

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) holds first World Climate Conference and establishes World Climate Programme to collect data and research the earth’s climate system.The WMO, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and International Council for Science (ICSU) hold conference on the role of carbon dioxide in climate variations.WMO and UNEP establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).IPCC publishes First Assessment Report.IPCC publishes Supplement to First Assessment Report.United Nations adopts United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and presents it for signatures at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.IPCC publishes Special Report.IPCC publishes Second Assessment Report.First Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-1) is held in Berlin. The Berlin Mandate to the UNFCCC is adopted.COP-2 is held in Vienna.COP-3 is held in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC is adopted.IPCC publishes Third Assessment Report.Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC goes into effect.COP-11 and First Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP-1) to be held in December 2005.

46 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

The UNFCCC was signed by 143 countries. Many

environmentalists criticized the treaty as too weak

because it did not establish specific targets that govern-

ments must meet. The treaty did not include specific

targets mainly because then-President George H. W.

Bush, representing the United States, refused to accept

them. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1994. Critics,

however, complain that adherence to the measures has

been disappointing even among those nations that origin-

ally signed.

Supporters of a global warming strategy advocate

limiting the emissions of the four main greenhouse gases

and recommend a gradual transition away from fossil

fuels, which currently provide about three-quarters of

the world’s energy.

In 1995, 120 parties to the global warming treaty met

in Berlin in what is known as the Berlin Mandate to

determine the success of existing treaties and to embark

on discussions of emissions after 2000. Differences per-

sisted along north–south lines, with developing countries

making essentially a moral argument for requiring more

of the richer nations. They pointed out that the richer

nations are responsible for most of the pollution. The

Berlin talks essentially failed to endorse binding time-

tables for reductions in greenhouse gases.

A Landmark Judgment—The 1995 IPCC Report

In 1995 the IPCC reassessed the state of knowledge

about climate change. The panel reaffirmed its earlier

conclusions and updated its forecasts, predicting that, if

no further action is taken to curb emissions of greenhouse

gases, temperatures would increase 1.44 degrees to 6.30

degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The panel concluded that the

evidence suggested a human influence on global climate.

The cautiously worded statement was a compromise

following intense discussions. Nonetheless, it was a land-

mark conclusion because the panel, until then, had main-

tained that global warming and climate changes could

have been the result of natural variability.

The Kyoto Protocol (1997)

In December 1997 delegates from 166 countries met

in Kyoto, Japan, at the UN Climate Change Conference

to negotiate actions to reduce global warming. Some

developed nations, including the United States, wanted

to require all countries to reduce their emissions. Devel-

oping countries, however, felt the industrialized nations

had caused, and were still causing, most global warming

and therefore should bear the brunt of economic sacri-

fices to clean up the environment. Even within the indus-

trialized community, the European Union criticized the

United States for lagging behind in reducing emissions,

as it had previously pledged.

The conference developed an agreement known as

the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. Different targets for

different countries, tailored to their economic and social

circumstances, were used to get around the impasse

between nations. (See Table 3.3.) Overall the treaty is

expected to effect a total reduction in greenhouse gas

emissions of at least 5% during the commitment period

of 2008–12 compared with 1990 levels.

The treaty also set up an emission trading system that

allowed countries exceeding their pollution limits to pur-

chase on an open market ‘‘credits’’ from countries that

pollute less. This provision was viewed as necessary to

TABLE 3.3

Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the KyotoProtocol

Reduction target Country (percent)

Australia �8.0Austria (R) �13.0Belgium (R) �7.5Bulgaria (R) �8.0Canada (R) �6.0Croatia �5.0Czech Republic (R) �8.0Denmark (R) �21.0Estonia (R) �8.0European Community (R)* �8.0Finland (R) 0.0France (R) 0.0Germany (R) �21.0Greece (R) �25.0Hungary (R) �6.0Iceland (R) �10.0Ireland (R) �13.0Italy (R) �6.5Japan(R) �6.0Latvia (R) �8.0Liechtenstein �8.0Lithuania (R) �8.0Luxembourg (R) �28.0Monaco �8.0Netherlands (R) �6.0New Zealand (R) 0.0Norway (R) �1.0Poland (R) �6.0Portugal (R) �27.0Romania (R) �8.0Russia 0.0Slovakia (R) �8.0Slovenia (R) �8.0Spain (R) �15.0Sweden (R) �4.0Switzerland (R) �8.0Ukraine 0.0United Kingdom (R) �12.5United States �7.0

Notes:(R)�Country has ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol.*European Union member countries renegotiated their individual targets under the EUShared Burden Agreement, which was agreed to in 1998 and reaffirmed in the ratificationof the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

SOURCE: “Table 17. Quantified Emissions Reduction Targets Under theKyoto Protocol by Country,” in International Energy Outlook: 2004, U.S.Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office ofIntegrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, DC, April 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo04/environmental_tables.html (accessedAugust 4, 2005)

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 47

U.S. congressional approval. The developing nations

feared that such a trading system would allow rich coun-

tries to buy their way into compliance rather than make

unpopular emissions cuts. Enforcement mechanisms were

not agreed to, nor did developing nations commit to

binding participation.

The treaty was set up to take effect when two condi-

tions were met:

• It was ratified by at least fifty-five countries.

• The ratifying countries accounted for at least 55% of

carbon dioxide emissions based on 1990 levels.

In March 2001 President George W. Bush indicated

that the United States would not ratify the treaty because it

would cost an estimated $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs

to comply. In 2002 the treaty was ratified by major entities

including the European Union, Japan, China, Canada, and

India. It came into effect in February 2005 following

ratification by Russia in late 2004. As of May 2005 the

treaty had been ratified by more than 150 nations. The

notable exceptions are the United States and Australia.

The IPCC’s 2001 Assessment Report

The IPCC issued its third assessment report in 2001.

It actually comprised four reports: Climate Change 2001:

The Scientific Basis, Climate Change 2001: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability, Climate Change 2001:

Mitigation, and Climate Change 2001: The Synthesis

Report. The IPCC’s assessment covered the adaptability

and vulnerability of North America to climate change

impacts likely to occur from global warming. Among

the suggested possible effects of global warming were:

• Expansion of some diseases in North America

• In coastal areas, increased erosion, flooding, and loss

of wetlands

• Risk to ‘‘unique natural ecosystems’’

• Changes in seasonal snowmelts, which would have

effects on water users and aquatic ecosystems

• Some initial benefits for agriculture, but those bene-

fits would decline over time and possibly ‘‘become a

net loss’’

Next IPCC Update Due in 2007

The IPCC plans to publish its fourth major assess-

ment report in 2007. At meetings held in Paris during

2003, seven themes were selected for focus in the report:

• risk and uncertainty

• regional integration

• water

• key vulnerabilities

• adaptation and mitigation

• sustainable development

• technology

International Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released its

International Energy Annual 2003 in July 2005. The

report presents data collected on CO2 emissions related

to fossil fuel use around the world. The United States was

responsible for the largest portion (23%) of such emis-

sions in 2003, followed by Western Europe (15%) and

China (14%). (See Figure 3.10.) The western European

countries responsible for most of that region’s CO2 emis-

sions were Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and

France.

The DOE predicts that CO2 emissions from develop-

ing countries could actually surpass those from industria-

lized countries before 2020. (See Figure 3.11.) This trend

is attributed to increased use of coal in developing coun-

tries, particularly China and India, while developed coun-

tries rely increasingly on natural gas.

SOME RESEARCHERS QUESTION THE CAUSESOF GLOBAL WARMING

Some scientists believe that major climate events

should be viewed in terms of thousands of years, not just

a century. A record of only the past century may indicate,

FIGURE 3.10

World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption andflaring of fossil fuels, 2003

SOURCE: Adapted from “H.1co2 World Carbon Dioxide Emissionsfrom the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980–2003,” inInternational Energy Annual: 2003, U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis andForecasting, Washington, DC, July 2005, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/ international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls (accessed August 4, 2005)

United States23%

WesternEurope15%

Central and South America

4%

Mexico2%

Canada2%

Russia6%

China14%

Africa4%

Middle East5%

Other EasternEurope

6%

Japan5%India

4%

Other Asia10%

48 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

but not prove, that a major change has occurred. Is it

caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, or is it

natural variability?

Among the claims of critics of global climate warm-

ing are:

• Climate has been known to change dramatically

within a relatively short period without any human

influence.

• Temperature readings already showed increased tempera-

tures before CO2 levels rose significantly (before 1940).

• Natural variations in climate may exceed any human-

caused climate change.

• Some of the increase in temperatures can be attributed

to sunspot activity.

• If warming should occur, it will not stress Earth; it

may even have benefits, such as for agriculture, and

may delay the next ice age.

• Reducing emissions will raise energy prices, reduce

gross domestic product, and produce job losses.

• While clouds are crucial to climate predictions, so

little is known about them that computer models

cannot produce accurate predictions.

In 2000 a handful of scientists at the Oregon Institute

of Science and Medicine began a drive to collect the

signatures of other scientists on a petition reading in part:

‘‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse

gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause

catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and dis-

ruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is sub-

stantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric

carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects on the

natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.’’ As

of June 2005 the so-called Petition Project claims to have

collected more than 19,700 signatures, including 17,100

from scientists, mostly with advanced degrees.

In October 2003 Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett,

and Colin Campbell, researchers from the University of

Uppsala in Sweden, disputed the IPCC’s predictions of

extreme temperature change due to CO2 emissions.

According to Andy Coghlan in his article ‘‘‘Too Little’

Oil for Global Warming’’ in the journal New Scientist

(October 5, 2003, http://www.newscientist.com/article.

ns?id=dn4216), the researchers noted that their data show

that the world’s oil and gas supplies will be depleted long

before atmospheric CO2 concentrations build to sufficient

levels to make a major difference in Earth’s climate.

THE UNITED STATES GOES ITS OWN WAY

President George H. W. Bush’s administration

(1989–1993) opposed precise deadlines for CO2 limits,

arguing that the extent of the problem was too uncertain

to justify painful economic measures. However, in 1989

the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

was established and later authorized by Congress in the

Global Change Research Act of 1990.

When President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he

joined the European Community in calling for overall

emissions to be stabilized at 1990 levels by 2000, but

this goal was not met. In October 1993 the United States,

under the UNFCCC, released The Climate Change Action

Plan detailing the nation’s response to climate change.

The plan included a set of measures by both government

and the private sector to lay a foundation for the nation’s

participation in world response to the climate challenge.

The Action Plan called for measures to reduce emis-

sions for all greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.

However, the U.S. economy grew at a more robust rate

than anticipated, which led to increased emissions.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress did not provide full fund-

ing for the actions contained in the plan.

Even though the United States had a comprehensive

global warming program in place, Congress was reluctant

to take steps to reduce emissions. However, the Clinton

administration implemented some policies that did not

FIGURE 3.11

0

World carbon dioxide emissions by region, 1990–2025

SOURCE: “Figure 72. World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region,1990–2025,” in International Energy Outlook: 2004, U.S. Departmentof Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of IntegratedAnalysis and Forecasting, Washington, DC, April 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2004).pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: EE/FSU is Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union.

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

History Projections

Total

Industrializedcountries

Developingcountries

EE/FSU

Mill

ion

met

ric to

ns

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 49

require congressional approval. These included tax incen-

tives and investments focusing on improving energy effi-

ciency and renewable energy technologies, coordinating

federal efforts to develop renewable fuels technology,

and requiring all federal government agencies to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.

President Clinton also established the U.S. Climate

Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty

about global climate change science and identify priori-

ties for public investments.

After President George W. Bush took office in 2001

he established a new cabinet-level management structure

to oversee government investments in climate change

science and technology. Both the U.S. Climate Change

Research Initiative and the USGCRP were placed under

the oversight of the Interagency Climate Change Science

Program (CCSP), which reports integrated research spon-

sored by thirteen federal agencies. The CCSP is overseen

by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the

Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of

Management and Budget.

In June 2002 the George W. Bush administration

released the third National Communication of the Uni-

ted States of America under the UNFCCC. The U.S.

Climate Action Report—2002 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/

oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublica-

tionsUSClimateActionReport.html) acknowledged that

greenhouse gases resulting from human activities were

accumulating in the atmosphere and that they were

causing air and ocean temperatures to increase. It did

not rule out, however, the still-unknown role of natural

variability in global warming. In addition, the report

reiterated that the administration planned to reduce the

nation’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the fol-

lowing decade through a combination of existing regu-

lations and voluntary, incentive-based measures.

The report also projected levels of U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions through the year 2020. As shown in Figure

3.12 these emissions are expected to increase by 32%

between 2000 and 2020. However, the rate of increase

per five-year interval is expected to decrease over the

entire projection period. This slowdown is expected to be

implemented by developing and implementing cleaner

technologies and fuel substitutions. The vast majority

of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to be carbon

dioxide. The breakdown of these emissions by sector

projected for 2020 is shown in Figure 3.13. Transporta-

tion is expected to account for 36% of all CO2 emissions

in 2020. In 2000 transportation accounted for 32% of

CO2 emissions.

In July 2003 the CCSP published two major

reports: Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change

Science Program and The U.S. Climate Change

Science Program: Vision for the Program and Highlights

FIGURE 3.13

Projected sources of carbon dioxide emissions, 2020

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 5-3. U.S. CO2 Emissions by Sector andSource: 2000–2020 (Tg CO2),” in U.S. Climate Action Report—2002,U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, May 2002, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNQ76/$File/ch5.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Commercial18%

Residential18%

Transportation36%

Industrial28%

FIGURE 3.12

Projected U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, by gas, 2000–20

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure 5-2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions byGas: 2000–2020,” in U.S. Climate Action Report—2002, U.S.Department of State, Washington, DC, May 2002, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNQ76/$File/ch5.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

[In teragrams of CO2 equivalent]

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

High global warmingpotential gases

Nitrous oxidesMethaneCO2

50 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

of the Scientific Strategic Plan (both can be found

at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003).

Together these documents outline the approach the CCSP

plans to take to achieve its five main scientific goals:

• Improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present

climate and environment, including its natural vari-

ability, and improve understanding of the causes of

observed variability and change

• Improve quantification of the forces bringing about

changes in the Earth’s climate and related systems

• Reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s

climate and related systems may change in the future

• Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of differ-

ent natural and managed ecosystems and human sys-

tems to climate and related global changes

• Explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving

knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related

to climate variability and change

In May 2005 the Associated Press reported that the

mayors of more than one hundred U.S. cities have agreed

to abide by the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol in an

attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions in their cities

by 2012. The effort was spearheaded by Seattle mayor

Greg Nichols who received support from the mayors of

other large cities, including New York City, Los Angeles,

San Francisco, Boston, and Denver.

U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Table 3.1 shows trends for the 1990s and early 2000s

in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks (repositories,

such as forests, that absorb and store carbon). As noted in

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:

1990–2003, major sources of greenhouse gas emissions

are listed below with their contributions to the overall

2003 emissions:

• Electricity generation at power plants (34%)

• Transportation (27%)

• Industry (19%)

• Agriculture (7%)

• Commercial (7%)

• Residences (6%)

Emissions from most sources have increased since

1995. During the late 1990s emissions from industry

began to decline and continued that trend into the early

2000s. The EPA attributes the decline to a shift in the

overall U.S. economy from a focus on manufacturing

industries to service-based businesses. Agricultural emis-

sions are predominantly nitrogen-based, rather than car-

bon-based. Residential emissions are mainly due to CO2

generated from combustion of fossil fuels (such as oil)

for heating purposes.

The EPA reported that CO2 accounted for 85% of

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2003.

(See Figure 3.5.) Methane (CH4) was second with 8% of

the total, followed by nitrous oxide (N2O) with 5% and

other greenhouse gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluor-

ide (SF6), with 2%.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF AWARMING CLIMATE

Rising Sea Level

According to the EPA, global sea levels have risen

by four to eight inches over the last century. The increase

is attributed to melting mountain glaciers, expansion of

ocean water in response to rising temperatures, melting of

the polar ice sheets, and surface discharge of groundwater

that has been pumped out of the ground. The sea level

along much of the U.S. coast is rising more rapidly than

in the rest of the world.

More than half the population of the United States

lives within fifty miles of a coastline. A rising sea level

would narrow or destroy beaches, flood wetland areas,

and either submerge or force costly fortification of shore-

line property. Figure 3.14 shows areas along the southeast

coast that could be vulnerable to rising sea levels because

they lie at low elevations.

Higher water levels would increase storm damage,

and many coastal cities worldwide would be flooded.

Some islands, such as the Philippines, have already seen

encroachment. Residents of the Maldives, islands that lie

on average three feet above sea level in the Indian Ocean,

are already erecting artificial defenses, such as break-

waters made of concrete, to fend off rising seas.

Rising sea levels threaten millions of people living

on oceanic islands and in low-lying areas of Bangladesh,

parts of Japan, and coastal China. Rising waters could

also intrude on inland rivers, threatening fresh water

supplies and increasing the salt content of groundwater

as the sea encroaches on freshwater aquifers (naturally

occurring underground water reservoirs).

Fluctuating Rainfall Patterns

Warmer temperatures may increase the evaporation

rate, thereby increasing atmospheric water vapor and

cloud cover, which in turn may affect regional rainfall

patterns. Some areas might receive far more rain, while

others receive far less than normal. Most experts believe

Africa will be the most vulnerable to climate change

because its economy depends largely on rain-fed agricul-

ture, and many farmers are too poor and ill equipped to

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 51

adapt. Australia and Latin America could also be subject

to severe drought.

The Effect of Increased Temperatures on Humans

Extra heat alone would be enough to kill some people.

Some deaths would occur directly from heat-induced strokes

and heart attacks. Air quality also deteriorates as tempera-

tures rise. Hot, stagnant air contributes to the formation of

atmospheric ozone, the main component of smog, which

damages human lungs. Poor air quality can also aggravate

asthma and other respiratory diseases. Increasing ultraviolet

rays can increase the incidence of skin cancers, diminish the

function of the human immune system, and cause eye pro-

blems such as cataracts. Higher temperatures and added

rainfall could create ideal conditions for the spread of a host

of infectious diseases by insects, including mosquito-borne

malaria, dengue fever, and encephalitis.

Decreasing Biological Diversity

Biological diversity is also predicted to suffer from

global warming. Loss of forests, tundra (arctic plains), and

wetlands could irrevocably damage ecosystems. Some

species that live in precise, narrow bands of temperature

and humidity may find their habitats wiped out altogether.

Rising seas could cover coastal mangrove swamps, caus-

ing the loss of many species, including the Bengal tiger.

Plants and animals of the far north, like the polar bear and

the walrus, could die out for lack of an acceptably cold

environment. Many species cannot migrate rapidly enough

to cope with climate change at the projected rate.

Some Possible Positive Effects

There are several possible positive consequences of

global warming. Agriculture in colder climates could

benefit. Milder winters could reduce the number of cold-

weather deaths, as well as the cost of snow clearance and

heating. Northern waters could remain open longer for

navigation, and the Arctic Ocean might become ice-free,

opening a new trade route between Europe and Asia.

COMPUTER MODELS

Computer models are widely used to predict the

effects on Earth’s climate of increasing concentrations

of greenhouse gases. However, different models can pro-

vide quite different estimates due to uncertainty about the

many variables involved.

In January 2005 British researchers reported results

from a modeling experiment conducted on more than

95,000 personal computers around the world (D. A. Stein-

forth et al, ‘‘Uncertainty in Predictions of the Climate

Response to Rising Levels of Greenhouse Gases,’’

Nature, London: Nature Publishing Group, January 27,

2005). The project climateprediction.net allows people to

download climate model software onto their personal com-

puters. The software runs in the background when the

computers are not busy with other tasks. The study found

that models predicted global temperature increases ranging

from approximately 2 degrees Celsius to 11 degrees Cel-

sius (3.6–19.8 degrees Fahrenheit) if atmospheric levels of

carbon dioxide doubled.

FIGURE 3.14

100 miles

Below 1.5 meters 1.5–3.5 meters Above 3.5 meters

SOURCE: James G. Titus and Charlie Richman, “Gulf Coast and Florida,” in Maps of Lands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise—on the Gulf Coast, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2001

Areas of the Gulf Coast lying at low elevations that are vulnerable to sea level rise

52 The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The Environment

In June 2005 researchers reported that ocean tem-

perature measurements indicate the Earth is absorbing

more solar radiation than it reflects back to space (James

Hansen et al, ‘‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation

and Implications,’’ Science, Washington DC: American

Association for the Advancement of Science, June 3,

2005). Computer modeling predicted that the Earth’s

temperature will increase by approximately 1 degree

Fahrenheit over the next century even if greenhouse gas

concentrations remain constant at existing levels.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

In March 2005 the Gallup Organization conducted its

annual poll on topics related to the environment. Partici-

pants were asked several questions about global warming

and the Kyoto Protocol.

Only 16% of those asked thought they understood very

well the ‘‘greenhouse effect’’ issue. (See Figure 3.15). Nearly

a quarter (24%) admitted they did not understand it very well.

Just over half (54%) said they understood the issue fairly

well. Another 6% said they did not understand the issue at all.

A slim majority (54%) of those asked believe that

global warming has already begun, while 15% feel that

global warming will occur within the next few years or

within their lifetimes. Another 19% consider global warm-

ing a problem for the distant future, and 9% believe that it

will never happen at all. This breakdown of opinions on

the subject has remained fairly constant through the years.

Opinion is split very evenly on whether the serious-

ness of global warming has been exaggerated or not.

Gallup found that 35% of those responding felt that the

seriousness had been generally underestimated. Another

29% thought it was generally correct, and 31% felt that

the seriousness was generally exaggerated.

In a poll conducted by Gallup in March 2004, 26% of

respondents expressed a great deal of concern about

global warming and 25% expressed a fair amount of

concern. Together these opinions represent just over half

of all the people polled. In 1989 nearly two-thirds of

those asked felt a great deal or fair amount of concern

about this issue. In 2000 nearly three-quarters did. Over-

all concern appears to be on a downward trend.

Despite the Bush administration’s well-publicized oppo-

sition to the Kyoto treaty, Gallup’s 2005 poll shows that

more people support the treaty than oppose it. Figure 3.16

illustrates that 42% of poll respondents indicated that the

United States should agree to abide by the provisions of the

treaty, compared with 23% who disagreed. A sizable per-

centage of those asked (35%) had no opinion on the matter.

FIGURE 3.15

Public opinion on level of understanding of the greenhouseeffect, March 2005“NEXT, THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF GLOBAL WARMING, SOMETIMESCALLED THE ‘GREENHOUSE EFFECT,’ HOW WELL DO YOU FEEL YOUUNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE—WOULD YOU SAY VERY WELL, FAIRLY WELL, NOT VERY WELL, OR NOT AT ALL?”

SOURCE: Adapted from “Next, thinking about the issue of globalwarming, sometimes called the ‘greenhouse effect,’ how well do youfeel you understand this issue —would you say very well, fairly well, not very well, or not at all?” in Environment, The Gallup Organization,Princeton, NJ, April 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default .aspx?ci�1615 (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright © 2005 by TheGallup Organization. Reproduced by permission of The GallupOrganization.

Very well16%

Not at all6%

Not very well24%

Fairly well54%

FIGURE 3.16

Public opinion on whether the U.S. should abide by the Kyotoagreement on global warming, April 2005“BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD OR READ, DO YOU THINK THE UNITEDSTATES SHOULD, OR SHOULD NOT, AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OFTHE KYOTO AGREEMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING?”

SOURCE: Adapted from “Based on what you have heard or read, do youthink the United States should, or should not, agree to abide by theprovisions of the Kyoto agreement on global warming?” inEnvironment, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ, April 2005,http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci�1615 (accessedAugust 4, 2005). Copyright © 2005 The Gallup Organization.Reproduced by permission of The Gallup Organization.

No opinion35%

Yes42%

No23%

The Environment The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change 53

CHAPTER 4

A H OLE IN T H E S K Y: OZ ON E D E P L E T I ON

EARTH’S PROTECTIVE OZONE LAYER

Ozone is a gas naturally present in Earth’s atmos-

phere. Unlike regular oxygen, which contains two oxygen

atoms (O2), ozone contains three oxygen atoms (O3). A

molecule of regular oxygen can be converted to ozone by

ultraviolet (UV) radiation, electrical discharge (such as

from lightning), or complex chemical reactions. These

processes split apart the two oxygen atoms, which are then

free to bind with other loose oxygen atoms to form ozone.

Ozone exists in Earth’s atmosphere at two levels—

the troposphere and the stratosphere. (See Figure 4.1.)

Tropospheric (or ground-level) ozone accounts for only a

small portion of Earth’s total ozone, but it is a potent air

pollutant with serious health consequences. Ground-level

ozone is the primary component in smog and is formed

via complex chemical reactions involving emissions of

industrial chemicals and through fossil fuel combustion.

Ozone formation is intensified during hot weather, when

more radiation reaches the ground. Smog retards crop and

tree growth, impairs health, and limits visibility.

Approximately 90% of the Earth’s ozone lies in the

stratosphere at altitudes greater than about twenty miles.

(See Figure 4.2.) Ozone molecules at this level protect life

on Earth by absorbing UV radiation from the sun and

preventing it from reaching the ground. The so-called ozone

layer is actually a scattering of molecules constantly under-

going change from oxygen to ozone and back. Although

most of the ozone changes back to oxygen, a small amount

of ozone persists. As long as this natural process stays in

balance, the overall ozone layer remains thick enough to

protect the Earth from harmful UV radiation from the sun.

The amount of ozone in the stratosphere varies greatly

depending upon location, altitude, and temperature.

EVIDENCE OF OZONE DEPLETION

Many scientists believe that the introduction of cer-

tain chemicals into the stratosphere alters the natural

ozone balance by depleting ozone molecules. Chlorine

and bromine atoms are particularly destructive. They can

bind to loose oxygen atoms and prevent them from

reforming either oxygen or ozone. Chlorine and bromine

are found in the sea salt from ocean spray. Chlorine is

also present in the form of hydrochloric acid emitted with

volcanic gases. These are natural sources of ozone-

depleting chemicals.

In the mid-1970s scientists first began to speculate

that the ozone layer was rapidly being destroyed by

reactions involving industrial chemicals that contained

chlorine and bromine. Two chemists, F. Sherwood

Rowland and Mario Molina, discovered that chloro-

fluorocarbons (CFCs) could break down in the strato-

sphere, releasing chlorine atoms that could destroy

thousands of ozone molecules. This discovery led to

a ban on CFCs as a propellant in aerosols in the

United States and other countries.

In 1984 British scientists at Halley Bay in Antarctica

measured the ozone in the air column above them and

discovered alarmingly low concentrations. Measurements

indicated ozone levels about 50% lower than they had

been in the 1960s.

Scientists report ozone concentrations in units called

Dobson units. The unit is named after G. M. B. Dobson

(1889–1976), a British scientist who invented an instru-

ment for measuring ozone concentrations from the

ground. One Dobson unit (DU) corresponds to a layer

of atmospheric ozone that would be 0.001 millimeters

thick if it was compressed into a layer at standard tem-

perature and pressure at the Earth’s surface. Atmospheric

ozone is considered ‘‘thin’’ if its concentration falls

below 220 DU. A thin spot in the ozone layer is com-

monly called an ‘‘ozone hole.’’

The extreme cold and unique climate conditions over

the poles are thought to make the ozone layers there

The Environment 55

particularly susceptible to thinning. Where cloud and ice

particles are present, reactions that hasten ozone destruc-

tion also occur on the surface of ice particles. Since 1982

an ozone hole has appeared each year over Antarctica

(the South Pole) beginning in August and lasting until

November. The hole formation is linked to polar clouds

that form during the dark Antarctic winter (May through

September). These clouds provide reaction surfaces for

chlorine-containing compounds to release their chlorine.

As sunlight returns in August or September the released

chlorine begins destroying ozone molecules.

The Antarctic ozone hole increased in size through-

out the 1980s. By the early 1990s it was consistently

larger than the area of Antarctica. Throughout most of

the early 2000s the hole has been larger in size than the

continent of North America. In 2002 the size of the hole

dropped dramatically due to unusually warm weather at

the South Pole. The hole rebounded to its largest area yet

in the autumn of 2003. As shown in Figure 4.3 the 2004

hole was smaller than the mean of the holes experienced

from 1994 to 2003.

Ozone depletion has also been detected over other

parts of the world. In 1993 satellite measurements indi-

cated a 10–20% reduction in ozone levels over parts of

Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, and Europe compared to

1992 levels.

In January 2002 the European Space Agency (ESA)

announced that ozone thinning had been detected over

Europe by the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment

instrument aboard the ESA’s ERS-2 satellite. The thin-

ning in the ozone layer lasted for only three days. Similar

thinning was observed previously in November 1999 and

November 2001. Scientists believe that unusual air cur-

rents in the stratosphere, rather than chemical depletion,

may be responsible for the thinning.

FIGURE 4.1

Mesosphere

Earth

Ozone in Earth’s atmosphere

SOURCE: Adapted from Ozone: What It Is and Why Do We Care aboutIt? NASA Facts, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, May 1998

Stratosphere:In this region, ozoneis “good.” It protects

us from the sun’sharmful ultraviolet

radiation.

Troposphere:In this region, ozone is“bad.” It can damage

lung tissue and plants.

FIGURE 4.2

Altitude profile and distribution of ozone

Altit

ude

(kilo

met

ers)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

• Contains 90% ofatmospheric ozone

• Beneficial role acts as primary UV radiation shield

–

–

–

•

• Harmful impact: toxic effectson humans and vegetation

•

–

Ozone amount (pressure, milli-Pascals)

SOURCE: “Figure 14. Temperature Profile and Distribution of Ozone,”in Reporting and Climate Change: Understanding the Science, NationalSafety Council, Environmental Health Center, Washington, DC, June2000

Troposphericozone

“Smog” ozone

Stratosphericozone (theozone layer)

• Current issues:

Long-term global downwardtrends

Springtime Antarctic ozonehole each year

Springtime Arctic ozonelosses in several recentyears

Contains 10% ofatmospheric ozone

Current issues:

Episode of high surfaceozone in urban and ruralareas

FIGURE 4.3

Trends in size of ozone hole over Antarctica, 1994–2004

SOURCE: Adapted from “2004 Southern Hemisphere Ozone Hole Area,”in Stratosphere Home: Monitoring and Data: Ozone Hole WeeklyUpdate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NationalWeather Service, National Centers for Environmental Prediction,Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, MD, November 29, 2004,http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png (accessed August 4, 2005)

[Million square kilometer]

0369

12151821242730

Ozon

e ho

le a

rea

August September October November December

2004 94–03 Mean

56 A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion The Environment

In 1995 scientists first detected thinning of the ozone

over the Arctic (the North Pole). Historically Arctic win-

ters have been warmer than those in Antarctica. This

helped protect the northern pole from ozone depletion.

However, during the 1990s and early 2000s scientists

reported increasingly colder temperatures over the Arctic

region and formation of more polar clouds. In April 2005

European researchers reported the lowest Arctic levels of

ozone since monitoring began decades ago.

CONSEQUENCES OF OZONE DEPLETION

Ironically, destruction of the ozone layer at the upper

levels could increase the amount of ozone at the Earth’s

surface. In addition, the decline in stratospheric ozone is

thought to increase hydrogen peroxide in the strato-

sphere, contributing to acid rain. The ozone layer acts

as a protective shield against UV radiation. As ozone

diminishes in the upper atmosphere, the Earth could

receive more UV radiation. Increased radiation, espe-

cially of the frequency known as ultraviolet-B (UVB),

the most damaging wavelength, promotes skin cancers

and cataracts, suppresses the human immune system, and

produces wrinkled, leather-like skin. It also reduces crop

yields and fish populations, damages some materials such

as plastics, and intensifies smog creation.

At its Web site in 2005 the EPA reported that studies

conducted at the Antarctic found that the amount of UVB

radiation reaching the ground doubled during the exis-

tence of the Antartic’s annual ozone hole.

Threats to Human Health

The most obvious threat of ozone depletion to

humans is increased exposure to UVB radiation that

causes skin cancer and cataracts. There are two types of

skin cancer: nonmelanoma and melanoma.

The American Cancer Society reported in 2005 that

more than one million cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer

are diagnosed in the United States each year and esti-

mated that between one thousand and two thousand peo-

ple would die from the disease. The incidence of cancer

is closely tied to cumulative exposure to UV radiation. In

1988 the EPA estimated that each 1% drop in ozone is

projected to result in a 4–6% increase in these types of

skin cancer.

Melanoma skin cancer is less common, but far more

deadly, accounting for just 4% of skin cancer cases but a

staggering 79% of skin cancer deaths, according to the

American Cancer Society in 2005. Melanoma is more likely

to metastasize (spread to other parts of the body, particularly

major organs such as the lungs, liver, and brain).

In April 2005 the American Cancer Society predicted

that in 2005 there would be 59,600 new cases of mela-

noma in the United States and that 7,800 Americans

would die from the disease. Melanoma appears to be

associated with acute radiation exposure, such as severe

sunburns, which are more likely to occur when the ozone

hole is larger.

Increased radiation exposure is also blamed for cata-

racts. This is a clouding of the eye’s lens that causes

blurred vision and—if left untreated—blindness. Some

medical researchers theorize that UV radiation also

depresses the human immune system, lowering the

body’s resistance to tumors and infectious diseases.

Damage to Plant and Animal Ecosystems

Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are also affected

by the depletion of the ozone layer. UV radiation alters

photosynthesis, plant yield, and growth in plant species.

Phytoplankton (one-celled organisms found in the ocean)

are the backbone of the marine food web. According to

the EPA, excessive exposure to UVB radiation reduces

the productivity and survival rate for these organisms.

Diminishing phytoplankton supplies would likely harm

many fish species that depend on them for food.

Studies performed in the mid-1990s blamed the

rise in UV radiation caused by the thinning of the ozone

layer for the decline in the number of frogs and other

amphibians.

Deterioration of Materials

Increased UV radiation also affects synthetic materi-

als. Plastics are especially vulnerable, tending to weaken,

become brittle and discolored, and break.

OZONE-DEPLETING CHEMICALS

Most ozone destruction in the atmosphere is

believed to be anthropogenic (caused by humans). In

1999 the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva,

Switzerland, estimated that only 18% of the sources

contributing to ozone depletion were natural. The

remaining 82% of sources contributing to ozone deple-

tion were industrial chemicals. The blame is largely

placed on chemicals developed by modern society for

use as refrigerants, air conditioning fluids, solvents,

cleaning agents, and foam-blowing agents. These che-

micals can persist for years in the atmosphere. Thus,

there is a significant lag between the time that emissions

decline at the Earth’s surface and the time at which

ozone levels in the stratosphere recover.

Table 4.1 lists the chemicals of particular concern

to scientists worried about thinning ozone levels. Each

chemical is assigned a value called an ozone depletion

potential (ODP) based on its harmfulness to the ozone

layer. The most common depleters are the chlorofluoro-

carbons known as CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-13. Each

of these chemicals is arbitrarily assigned an ODP of 1.

The ODPs for other chemicals are determined by

The Environment A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion 57

comparing their relative harmfulness to that of CFC-11.

In general, Class I chemicals are those with an ODP

value greater than or equal to 0.2 and Class II chemicals

have ODP values less than 0.2.

Class I Chemicals

Although a number of chemicals can destroy stratos-

pheric ozone, CFCs are the main offenders because they are

so prevalent. When CFCs were invented in 1930, they were

welcomed as chemical wonders. Discovered by Thomas

Midgley, Jr., they were everything the refrigeration indus-

try needed at the time—nontoxic, nonflammable, noncor-

rosive, stable, and inexpensive. Their artificial cooling

provided refrigeration for food and brought comfort to

warm climates. The compound was originally marketed

under the trademark Freon.

Over time, new formulations were discovered and the

possibilities for use seemed endless. CFCs could be used

as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, as pro-

pellants in aerosol sprays, in certain plastics such as

polystyrene, in insulation, in fire extinguishers, and as

cleaning agents. World production doubled every five

years through 1970, and another growth spurt occurred

in the 1980s as new uses were discovered—primarily as a

solvent to clean circuit boards and computer chips.

CFCs are extremely stable; it is this stability that

allows them to float intact through the troposphere (the

layer of air nearest the Earth’s surface) and into the ozone

layer. It can take up to six to eight years for them to reach

the stratosphere. Once there, some can survive for hun-

dreds of years. CFCs do not degrade in the lower atmos-

phere but, on entering the stratosphere, they encounter the

sun’s UV radiation and eventually break down into chlo-

rine, fluorine, and carbon. Many scientists believe it is the

chlorine that damages the ozone layer. (See Figure 4.4.)

While CFCs are primarily blamed for ozone loss,

other gases are also at fault. One of those gases is halon,

TABLE 4.1

Lifetime and ozone depletion potential of various chemicals

Lifetime in Ozone depletionyears potential

Class I

CFC-11 45 1CFC-12 100 1CFC-13 640 1CFC-113 85 0.8–1CFC-114 300 0.94–1CFC-115 1,700 0.44–0.6Halon 1211 16 3–6Halon 1301 65 10–12Halon 2402 20 6–8.6Carbon tetrachloride 26 0.73–1.1Methyl bromide 0.7 0.38–0.6Methyl chloroform 5 0.1–0.12

Class II

HCFC-21 1.7 0.04HCFC-22 1.2 0.05–0.055HCFC-123 1.3 0.02–0.06HCFC-124 5.8 0.02–0.04HCFC-141b 9.3 0.1–0.12HCFC-142b 17.9 0.06–0.07HCFC-225ca 1.9 0.02–0.025HCFC-225cb 5.8 0.03–0.033

The ODP is the ratio of the impact on ozone of a chemical compared to the impact of asimilar mass of CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be 1.0. Other CFCs andHCFCs have ODPs that range from 0.01 to 1.0.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances” and “Class IIOzone-Depleting Substances,” in Ozone Depletion Chemicals, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 12, 2004,http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html and http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods2.html(accessed August 4, 2005)

FIGURE 4.4

Destruction of ozone is a catalyticprocess—

Chlorofluorocarbon (1) atoms inthe stratosphere are split byultraviolet radiation and releasetheir chlorine atom (2).

The chlorine atom takes oneoxygen atom from the unstablemolecule (3) and forms chlorinemonoxide (4), leaving an ordinaryoxygen molecule (5).

When a free atom of oxygen (6)collides with the chlorinemonoxide (7) the two oxygenatoms form a molecule (8) –releasing the chlorine atom (9) todestroy more ozone (10).

UV (1)(2)

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)molecule

Chlorine atom

F

C

Cl

ClCl Ozone molecule

(3)

Chlorinemonoxide(4)

(5)

Oxygen molecule

(7)

(8)

(9)

Ozonemolecule(10)

(6)

Destruction of ozone

SOURCE: Adapted from Ozone: What It Is and Why Do We Care aboutIt? NASA Facts, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, May 1998

58 A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion The Environment

which contains bromine. As shown in Table 4.1, halons

have much higher ODP values than do CFCs. The

bromine atoms in halons destroy ozone in a manner

similar to that shown in Figure 4.4 for chlorine, but

they are chemically more powerful. This means that the

impact to ozone of a particular mass of halon is more

destructive than a similar mass of a CFC. Halons are

relatively long-lived in the atmosphere, lingering for up

to sixty-five years before being broken down. Halon is

used primarily for fighting fires. Civilian and military

fire-fighting training accounts for much of the halon

emission.

Other Class I ozone destroyers include carbon tetra-

chloride, methyl bromide, and methyl chloroform. These

chemicals are commonly used as solvents and cleaning

agents.

Class II Chemicals

The most common Class II ozone-depleting chemi-

cals are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs con-

tain hydrogen. This makes them more susceptible to

atmospheric breakdown than CFCs. As shown in Table

4.1, most HCFCs have a lifetime of less than six years.

The most long-lived, HCFC-142b, lasts for only 17.9

years. HCFCs have much lower ODP values than CFCs,

halons, and industrial ozone depleters. HCFCs are con-

sidered good short-term replacements for CFCs.

Although HCFCs are less destructive to ozone than the

chemicals they are replacing, scientists believe that

HCFC use must also be phased out to allow the ozone

layer to fully recover.

A LANDMARK IN INTERNATIONALDIPLOMACY: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

CFCs and halons were widely used in thousands of

products and represented a significant share of the inter-

national chemical industry, with billions of dollars in

investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Ozone

depletion was a global problem that necessitated interna-

tional cooperation, but nations mistrusted one another’s

motives. As with the issues of global warming and pollu-

tion, developing countries resented being asked to sacri-

fice their economic development for a problem they felt

the industrialized nations had created. To complicate

matters, gaps in scientific proof led to disagreements over

whether a problem actually existed.

In 1985, as the first international response to the

ozone threat, twenty nations signed an agreement in

Vienna, Austria, calling for data gathering, cooperation,

and a political commitment to take action at a later date.

In a 1987 negotiators meeting in Montreal, Canada, the

participants finalized a landmark in international envi-

ronmental diplomacy: the Montreal Protocol on Sub-

stances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. It is generally

referred to as the Montreal Protocol. The agreement

was signed by twenty-nine countries including the United

States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, all western

European nations, the Russian Federation, and a handful

of other countries around the world.

The agreement called for industrial countries to cut

CFC emissions in half by 1998 and to reduce halon

emissions to 1986 levels by 1992. Developing countries

were granted deferrals to compensate for their low

levels of production. Industrial countries agreed to reim-

burse developing countries that complied with the pro-

tocol for ‘‘all agreed incremental costs,’’ meaning all

additional costs above any they would have expected to

incur had they developed their infrastructure in the

absence of the accord. And, very importantly, the pro-

tocol also called for further amending as new data

became available.

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s new scientific

information revealed that ozone depletion was occurring

faster than expected. This news spurred calls to revise the

treaty. In total, four amendments to the Montreal Protocol

have been adopted. These are known as the London

Amendment (effective 1992), the Copenhagen Amend-

ment (effective 1994), the Montreal Amendment (effec-

tive 1999), and the Beijing Amendment (effective 2002).

The final phaseout schedule for ozone-depleting sub-

stances is shown in Table 4.2.

The Montreal Protocol has been hailed as an historic

event—the most ambitious attempt ever to combat envir-

onmental degradation on a global scale. It ushered in a

new era of environmental diplomacy. Some historians

view the signing of the accord as a defining moment,

the point at which the definition of international security

was expanded to include environmental issues as well

as military matters. In addition, an important precedent

was established—that science and policymakers had a new

relationship. Many observers thought that the decision

to take precautionary action in the absence of complete

TABLE 4.2

Phase-out schedule under the Montreal Protocol for ozone- depleting substances

Developed countries Developing countries Ozone-depleting substance must phase out by: must phase out by:

Halons 1994 2010Carbon tetrachloride 1996 2010Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 1996 2010Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) 1996 1996Methyl chloroform 1996 2015Bromochloromethane 1999 1999Methyl bromide 2005 2015Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 2030 2040

SOURCE: Created by Kim Masters Evans for Thomson Gale, 2005

The Environment A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion 59

proof of a link between CFCs and ozone depletion was

an act of foresight that would now be possible with other

issues.

MONTREAL PROTOCOL PROBLEMS

Implementation and enforcement of the Montreal

Protocol have been aggravated by numerous factors.

In August 2003 the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) summarized these problems in

‘‘Backgrounder: Basic Facts and Data on the Science

and Politics of Ozone Protection’’ (http://www.unep.ch/

ozone/pdf/Press-Backgrounder.pdf ). The report listed

five major challenges facing complete implementation

of the Montreal Protocol:

• Incomplete ratification of all amendments

• Economic difficulties in the Russian Federation and

other countries

• Increasing illegal trade and smuggling of banned sub-

stances

• Increasing CFC consumption in developing countries,

particularly Asia

Amendment Ratification Moves Slowly

The United Nations reported that 189 countries had

ratified the original Montreal Protocol as of March 2005.

Nations have been slow to ratify the amendments. For

example, as of early 2005 only ninety-one nations have

ratified the Beijing Amendment. The United States has

ratified all amendments to the Montreal Protocol.

Economic Problems Hinder Progress

The 2003 UNEP report noted that the Russian

Federation and a few other countries were having diffi-

culties meeting the phase-out schedule in the Montreal

Protocol due to financial problems. The United Nations

Development Program and the World Bank have

secured more than $179 million in funds given by deve-

loped nations to help struggling countries phase out

CFC production. An additional $60 million has been

pledged to assist them in phasing out other ozone-

depleting substances.

Illegal Trade and Smuggling of CFCs

In 1996 the ban on CFCs was implemented in the

developed countries, including the United States. The

CFC called Freon was widely used in automobile air

conditioners prior to that time. After the ban went into

effect there were still millions of Americans with cars

that used Freon as a refrigerant. Although alternative

refrigerants were available, they were more expensive

than Freon. The result was a black market for the product.

Several U.S. government agencies—the EPA, the

Customs Service, the Departments of Commerce and

Justice, and the Internal Revenue Service—began inten-

sive antismuggling efforts. In 2000 the EPA reported that

approximately two million pounds of CFCs and other

ozone-depleting substances had been seized and

impounded since the 1996 phaseout of CFCs began, and

more than ninety individuals and businesses had been

charged with smuggling. Early arrests for CFC smug-

gling were made primarily in Miami; authorities then

began to notice these illegal imports creeping into other

port cities, such as Houston and Baltimore. They also

made their way into Europe, which banned CFCs one

year before the United States.

In late 2003 a London-based nonprofit organization

called the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

reported that international trade in illegal ozone-depleting

substances was very detrimental to achieving progress

under the Montreal Protocol (Tom Maliti, ‘‘Illegal Trade

in Ozone-Depleting Substances Is Thriving over Three

Continents, Says Report,’’ Associated Press, November

11, 2003). The report noted that demand for illegal CFCs

remained high in the United States, Russia, China, Viet-

nam, Cambodia, and Nepal.

Successful smuggling of CFCs typically involves

false labeling, counterfeit paperwork, and fake export

corporations. The EIA estimated worldwide trade in illegal

CFCs to be eighteen to twenty-seven million kilograms

per year.

During the early 2000s U.S. law enforcement offi-

cials broke up a massive Freon smuggling ring based in

Panama that operated during the 1990s to supply Freon to

customers in southern Florida. Two of the men involved

were sentenced to up to two years in prison for their role

in the smuggling scheme and for tax evasion. The ring

leader was found guilty of tax fraud and money launder-

ing. In May 2004 he was sentenced to seventeen years in

prison and ordered to pay a $20 million fine. He also had

to restitute the Internal Revenue Service $6.6 million for

tax evasion.

Demand Increasing for CFCs in Developing Countries

The developing countries must phase out CFC con-

sumption by 2010. The 2003 UNEP report notes that

demand for CFCs is actually increasing, not decreasing,

in many of these countries. This is particularly true in

Asia and Latin America where a growing middle class

has increased demand for consumer products that use

refrigerants. Much of this demand is met by imported

goods. The UNEP complains that developed countries are

exporting ‘‘a large number’’ of used and older model

refrigeration units that use CFCs instead of acceptable

alternatives. This will make it much more difficult for the

developing countries to reduce their demand for CFCs by

the phase-out deadline.

60 A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion The Environment

MONITORING DATA SHOW PROGRESS

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

tion (NOAA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of

Commerce. NOAA operates the Climate Monitoring and

Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) headquartered in Boulder,

Colorado. The CMDL collects data at its observatories

around the world and does research related to global

trends in air quality.

Figure 4.5 shows atmospheric data for four ozone-

depleting chemicals: CFC-11, CFC-12, methyl chloro-

form (CH3CCl3), and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4). The

data were collected at five CMDL observatories as

follows:

• Point Barrow, Alaska (BRW)

• Niwot Ridge, Colorado (NWR)

• Mauna Loa, Hawaii (MLO)

• Cape Matatula, American Samoa (SMO)

• South Pole, Antarctica (SPO)

After peaking in the early 1990s the atmospheric con-

centrations of CFC-11 began to decline. Concentrations

FIGURE 4.5

SOURCE: “Trends of Controlled Ozone Depleting Chemicals,” in Halocarbons and Other Atmospheric Trace Species Group: Figures, U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, CO, 2002, http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs.html (accessed August 4, 2004)

Trends in atmospheric concentrations of controlled ozone-depleting chemicals, 1987–2001

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

ppt

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

560

ppt

1985 1990 1995 2000 1985 1990 1995 2000

80

85

90

95

100

105

110pp

t

1985 1990 1995 20000

20

40

60

100

120

140

160

ppt

1985 1990 1995 2000

BRW SMONWR MLO SPO

CFC-11

CH3CCI3 CCI4

CFC-12

540

The Environment A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion 61

of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride have

declined dramatically since 1990. CFC-12 concentrations

were beginning to level off in 2002 after climbing steadily

for decades. CFC-12 has the longest atmospheric lifetime

(one hundred years) of the four compounds.

THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol requires that the

ratifying nations base their decision making on scientific

information assessed and presented by an international

panel of ozone experts. This panel includes the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO), UNEP, the Euro-

pean Commission, and two U.S. organizations—NOAA

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

In March 2003 the WMO published the panel’s

latest findings in Scientific Assessment of Ozone Deple-

tion: 2002. This is the fifth scientific assessment of the

world’s ozone condition. Previous assessments were

published in 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1998. The reports

are based on analysis of data collected from satellites,

aircraft, balloons, and ground-based instruments and

the results of laboratory investigations and computer

modeling.

The scientific assessment published in 2003 presents

the following major findings:

• For the period 1997–2001 Earth’s average stratos-

pheric ozone concentration was approximately 3%

less than the concentration measured prior to 1980

(the baseline condition).

• Ozone loss has occurred primarily at Earth’s poles

and over mid-latitude regions of the Northern and

Southern hemispheres. No statistically significant

ozone loss has been recorded over tropical regions

near Earth’s equator.

• Ozone depletion over the Southern hemisphere occurs

year-round. Depletion over the Northern hemisphere

is more seasonal, worsening during winter and spring

months. Ozone depletion over Antarctica (the ‘‘ozone

hole’’) has historically been a springtime pheno-

menon. However, data collected in recent years show

that the ozone hole is persisting for a longer time each

year, not disappearing until early summer.

• Ozone concentrations measured over Antarctica dur-

ing occurrences of the ozone hole consistently aver-

age 40–50% less than concentrations measured prior

to 1980.

• The average size of the Antarctic ozone hole

increased during the 1980s and 1990s. Although the

growth rate was slower during the 1990s than it was

during the 1980s, scientists are not sure yet that the

size of the hole has reached a maximum.

• Ozone depletion has been recorded at certain times

over the North Pole during the last decade. However,

scientists do not believe that an Arctic ozone hole that

returns on a regular basis is likely to form due to

the highly variable meteorological conditions at the

North Pole.

• Measurements taken at various sites around the world

indicate an increase of 6–14% in the amount of ultra-

violet radiation reaching the ground since the early

1980s. However, lack of long-term data and an abun-

dance of other factors besides ozone that affect UV

levels (such as cloudiness) make it difficult to determine

the statistical significance of the recorded UV increases.

• The total concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals

in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) has declined

since peaking in 1992–94. Chlorine concentrations

measured in 2000 were 5% lower than those recorded

in 1992–94. Bromine concentrations increased by 3%

per year over the same time period. The increase in

bromine is blamed on halon emissions. Atmospheric

concentrations of methyl chloroform have declined

significantly. CFC-11 and CFC-113 concentrations

are also decreasing. CFC-12 concentrations continue

to increase, although at a slower rate each year than in

previous decades.

• Continued reductions in ozone-depleting chemicals in

the stratosphere should lead to complete recovery of

Earth’s ozone layer during the twenty-first century.

Computer models suggest that falling atmospheric

ozone concentrations should level off by the year

2012 and then begin to increase to their normal levels.

The annual occurrence of the Antarctic ozone hole is

expected to cease by the year 2050.

UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO ENDOZONE DEPLETION

In the industrial world many countries did more than

was required by the protocol. As a result, when the

official CFC phase-out date arrived, most industrial

nations were ready, and some had phased out ozone-

depleting substances before the deadlines. By the end of

1994 the European Union no longer permitted CFCs.

Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (PL

101–549) is the United States’s primary response to ozone

depletion. As part of the act, the U.S. Congress approved a

provision requiring the president to speed up the schedule

for chemical phase out if new evidence warranted it. In

fact, new data did become available, including worrisome

evidence that showed ozone depletion was occurring over

the Northern Hemisphere. In addition to banning Freon in

1997, the Clean Air Act required the United States to end

the use of methyl bromide by 2001—nine years ahead of

protocol requirements.

62 A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion The Environment

U.S. emissions of ozone-depleting substances for

various years between 1990 and 2003 are shown in Table

4.3. Emissions of all Class I substances have decreased

since 1990. Although these compounds are no longer

produced in the United States, the EPA reports that large

amounts remain in existing equipment, and stockpiles

are used to maintain the equipment. Therefore, emis-

sions of these compounds are expected to continue for

many years but are also expected to continue declining

over time.

Emissions of Class II substances have all increased

since 1990. U.S. production of these compounds for

domestic use is scheduled to end by the year 2030.

In April 2005 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) adopted a final rule banning the use of such

ozone-depleting substances as propellants in medical

inhalers. This use was exempted from the general ban

on CFCs that went into effect during the 1990s. The FDA

rule prohibits distribution of metered-dose inhalers using

CFCs after December 31, 2008. The agency reports that

alternative acceptable propellants for the devices are

available on the market and should adequately serve

patient needs.

Although CFCs are no longer used in new applica-

tions in the United States, existing users can continue

using them provided they are maintained under strict

regulation, such as being replenished and ‘‘reclaimed’’

by authorized technicians.

The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance can levy civil fines and criminal prosecutions

against companies and individuals who violate regula-

tions regarding ozone-depleting substances. During

the early 2000s civil actions were taken against dozens

of corporations and even a university for violating

regulations regarding refrigerant leak repairs. In 2003

Earthgrains Baking Companies paid a $5.25 million civil

penalty for corporate-wide violations. In May 2005 the

DuPont Corporation was penalized $2.5 million for

alleged violations at a Tennessee manufacturing facility.

In 2004 the Wal-Mart Corporation was fined $400,000

for selling Freon to customers who were not properly

certified under EPA regulations.

Recycled halon and inventories produced before

January 1, 1994, are the only supplies now available. It

is legal under the Montreal Protocol and the U.S. Clean

Air Act to import recycled halon, but each shipment

requires approval from the EPA. Certain uses, such as

fire protection, are classified as ‘‘critical use’’ and are

permitted as long as supplies remain. The EPA also

maintains a list of acceptable substitutes for halon.

SUBSTITUTES AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

As pressure increased to discontinue use of CFCs

and halons, substitute chemicals and technologies

began to be developed. One of the most popular sub-

stitutes is a class of compounds called hydrofluorocar-

bons (HFCs). HFCs do not contain chlorine, a potent

ozone destroyer. They are also relatively short-lived in

the atmosphere. Most survive intact for less than

twelve years. This means that HFCs do not directly

impact Earth’s protective ozone layer. HFCs have

ODP values of zero.

During the 1990s use of HFCs increased dramati-

cally. NASA reports that atmospheric levels of HFCs

also surged over this time period. This is a concern to

scientists studying global warming because HFCs are

believed to enhance atmospheric heating. Also, HFC

breakdown in the atmosphere produces a chemical called

trifluoroacetic acid, large concentrations of which are

known to be harmful to certain plants (particularly in

wetlands). Continued heavy use of HFCs during the

twenty-first century could introduce or aggravate other

environmental problems.

Development of effective chemical substitutes with

acceptable health and environmental effects is an enor-

mous challenge. Some experts propose returning to the

refrigerant gases used before the invention of CFCs.

These include sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and various

hydrocarbon compounds. However, these chemicals

have their own issues; for example, most are highly

toxic.

The EPA’s Significant New Alternative Policy pro-

gram evaluates alternatives to ozone-depleting substances

and determines their acceptability for use. Submissions

for evaluation include those that could be used in a

variety of industrial applications, including refrigeration

and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire suppression

and protection.

Many industrial engineers are pursuing new techno-

logies for cooling, including semiconductors that cool

down when charged with electricity, refrigeration that uses

TABLE 4.3

U.S. emissions of ozone-depleting substances, 1990, 1995,2000–2003

Compound 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003

Class I

CFC-11 28.0 9.7 10.2 9.7 9.2 8.8

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 6-9. Emissions of Ozone DepletingSubstances (Gg),” in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions andSinks: 1990–2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,April 15, 2005, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69VR UT/$File/05_annex_Chapter6.pdf (accessedAugust 4, 2005)

The Environment A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion 63

plain water as a refrigerant, and the use of thermoacoustics

(sound energy). Extensive investment in research and

development of new technologies will be required to

produce cooling methods acceptable to industry and

environmentalists.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT THE OZONE

In March 2004 the Gallup Organization conducted its

annual poll of Americans’ beliefs and attitudes about

environmental issues. The results show that damage to

the Earth’s ozone layer ranks very low on the list of

environmental problems about which Americans are wor-

ried. (See Figure 1.10 in Chapter 1.) Only 33% of those

asked in 2004 expressed a great deal of worry about

damage to the ozone layer. As shown in Table 4.4, this

percentage is down from a peak of 51% in 1989. In 2004

another 27% expressed a fair amount of concern about

the problem, while 26% felt only a little concern and 14%

felt no concern at all.

TABLE 4.4

“PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREATDEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL. DAMAGE TO THE EARTH’SOZONE LAYER?”

Great Fair Only a Not at Nodeal amount little all opinion% % % % %

2004 Mar 8–11 33 27 26 14 *2003 Mar 3–5 35 31 21 12 12002 Mar 4–7 38 29 21 11 12001 Mar 5–7 47 28 16 8 12000 Apr 3–9 49 29 14 7 11999 Apr 13–14 44 32 15 8 11997 Oct 27–28 33 27 25 13 21991 Apr 11–14 49 24 16 8 41990 Apr 5–8 43 28 15 10 41989 May 4–7 51 26 13 8 2

SOURCE: “Please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a greatdeal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. Damage to the Earth’s ozonelayer?” in Poll Topics and Trends: Environment, The Gallup Organization,Princeton, NJ, March 17, 2004, www.gallup.com (accessed August 4, 2004).

Public concern about damage to the Earth’s ozone layer, 1989–2004

Copyright © 2004 by The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permissionof The Gallup Organization.

64 A Hole in the Sky: Ozone Depletion The Environment

CHAPTER 5

A C I D R A I N

WHAT IS ACID RAIN?

Acid rain is the common name for acidic deposits that

fall to Earth from the atmosphere. The term was coined in

1872 by English chemist Robert Angus Smith to describe

the acidic precipitation in Manchester, England. Today

scientists study both wet and dry acidic deposits. Although

there are natural sources of acid in the atmosphere, acid rain

is primarily caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and

nitrous oxide (N2O) from electric utilities burning fossil

fuels, especially coal. These chemicals are converted to

sulfuric acid and nitric acid in the atmosphere and can be

carried by the winds for many miles from where the original

emissions took place. (See Figure 5.1.)

Wet deposition occurs when the acid falls in rain,

snow, or ice. Dry deposition is caused by very tiny

particles (or particulates) in combustion emissions. They

may stay dry as they fall or pollute cloud water and

precipitation. Moist deposition occurs when the acid is

trapped in cloud or fog droplets. This is most common at

high altitudes and in coastal areas. Whatever its form,

acid rain can create dangerously high levels of acidic

impurities in water, soil, and plants.

Measuring Acid Rain

The acidity of any solution is measured on a potential

hydrogen (pH) scale numbered from zero to fourteen,

with a pH value of seven considered neutral. Values

higher than seven are considered more alkaline or basic

(the pH of baking soda is eight); values lower than seven

are considered acidic (the pH of lemon juice is two). The

pH scale is a logarithmic measure. This means that every

pH change of one is a ten-fold change in acid content.

Therefore, a decrease from pH seven to pH six is a ten-

fold increase in acidity; a drop from pH seven to pH five

is a one hundred-fold increase in acidity; and a drop from

pH seven to pH four is a one thousand-fold increase. (See

Figure 5.2.)

Pure, distilled water has a neutral pH of seven. Normal

rainfall has a pH value of about 5.6. It is slightly acidic

because it accumulates naturally occurring sulfur oxides

(SO5) and nitrogen oxides (NO5) as it passes through the

atmosphere. Acid rain has a pH of less than 5.6.

Figure 5.3 shows the average rainfall pH measured

during 2003 at various field laboratories around the

country by the National Atmospheric Deposition Pro-

gram, a cooperative project between many state and

federal government agencies and private entities. Rain-

fall was most acidic in Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern

states, particularly New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland,

Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and

Kentucky. Unfortunately, the areas with lowest rainfall

pH contain some of the country’s most sensitive natural

resources—the Appalachian Mountains, Adirondack

Mountains, Chesapeake Bay, and Great Smoky Moun-

tains National Park.

SOURCES OF SULFATE AND NITRATEIN THE ATMOSPHERE

Natural Sources

Natural sources of sulfate in the atmosphere include

ocean spray, volcanic emissions, and readily oxidized

hydrogen sulfide released from the decomposition of

organic matter found in the Earth. Natural sources of

nitrogen or nitrates include NO5 produced by microor-

ganisms in soils, by lightning during thunderstorms, and

by forest fires. Scientists generally speculate that one-

third of the sulfur and nitrogen emissions in the United

States comes from these natural sources (this is a rough

estimate as there is no way to measure natural emissions

as opposed to those that are manmade).

Sources Caused by Human Activity

According to the Web site of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the primary anthropogenic

The Environment 65

(human-caused) contributors to acid rain are SO2 and

NOx, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, such as

coal, oil, and natural gas. Fuel combustion by fossil-

fueled electric utilities historically has been the greatest

source of these emissions, accounting for 69% of them in

2003. Fuel combustion at industrial facilities contributed

another 14%. Lesser sources included transportation

vehicles and industrial processes.

Highway vehicles are the primary source of NOx

emissions, accounting for 36% of the total in 2003. Fuel

combustion in power plants is another major source,

accounting for 22% of the total. Other major sources

include off-highway vehicles (20%) and fuel combustion

at industrial facilities (13%).

NATURAL FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACIDRAIN DEPOSITION

Major natural factors contributing to the impact of

acid rain on an area include air movement, climate, and

topography and geology.

Transport systems—primarily the movement of air—

distribute acid emissions in definite patterns around the

planet. The movement of air masses transports emitted

pollutants many miles, during which the pollutants are

transformed into sulfuric and nitric acid by mixing with

clouds of water.

In drier climates, such as those of the western United

States, windblown alkaline dust moves more freely through

the air and tends to neutralize atmospheric acidity. The

effects of acid rain can be greatly reduced by the presence

of basic (also called alkali) substances. Sodium, potassium,

and calcium are examples of basic chemicals. When a basic

and an acid chemical come into contact, they react chemi-

cally and neutralize each other. On the other hand, in more

humid climates where there is less dust, such as along the

eastern seaboard, precipitation is more acidic.

Areas most sensitive to acid rain contain hard, crys-

talline bedrock and very thin surface soils. When no

alkaline-buffering particles are in the soil, runoff from

rainfall directly affects surface waters, such as mountain

streams. In contrast, a thick soil covering or soil with a

high buffering capacity, such as flat land, neutralizes acid

rain better. Lakes tend to be most susceptible to acid rain

because of low alkaline content in lake beds. A lake’s

depth, its watershed (the area draining into the lake), and

the amount of time the water has been in the lake are also

factors.

FIGURE 5.1

Origins of acid rain

Anthropogenic

NaturalRECEPTORS

Pollutants incloud water

andprecipitation

SOURCES

VOC

SO2

NOx SO2

NOx

VOC

NOx

Wetdeposition

Dry

depo

sitio

n

Dry

depo

sitio

n

Particulatepollutants in atmosphere

Gaseouspollutants in atmosphere

SOURCE: “Figure 1. Origins of Acid Rain,” in Progress Report on theEPA Acid Rain Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, November 1999

A combination of natural and manmade activities result in the deposition of acidiccompounds.

FIGURE 5.2

The potential hydrogen (pH) scale

The pH scale

The pH (“potential hydrogen”) scale isa measure of hydrogen ionconcentration. Hydrogen ions have apositive electrical charge and are calledcations; ions with a negative electricalcharge are known as anions. Asubstance containing equalconcentrations of cations and anionsso that the electrical charges balance isneutral and has a pH of 7. However, asubstance with more hydrogen ionsthan anions is acidic and has a pH less

than 7; substances with more anionsthan cations are alkaline and have pHmeasures above 7. Thus, as theconcentration of hydrogen ionsincreases, the pH decreases. But the pHscale says nothing about whether thecations or anions are from natural ormanmade sources; a hydrogen ionfrom an industrial smokestackmeasures the same on the scale as ahydrogen ion from natural minerals.

PH 4 PH 5 PH 6 PH 7

�Acid content

Remember

The lower the pH value, the higher the acid content. Each full pH unit droprepresents a tenfold increase in acidity.

14131211109876543210

Acidic Neutral Basic

Acid rain

Lemon juiceVinegar

Mean pH of Adirondack Lakes–1975“Pure” rain (5.6)

Mean pH of Adirondack Lakes–1930sDistilled water

Baking soda

SOURCE: “The Potential Hydrogen (pH) Scale,” in Acid Rain, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1980

66 Acid Rain The Environment

EFFECTS OF ACID RAIN ON OURENVIRONMENT

In nature the combination of rain and oxides is part

of a natural balance that nourishes plants and aquatic life.

However, when the balance is upset, the results to

the environment can be harmful and destructive. (See

Table 5.1.)

Aquatic Systems

Although pH levels vary considerably from one body

of water to another, a typical pH range for the lakes and

rivers in the United States is six to eight.

Low pH levels kill fish eggs, frog eggs, and fish food

organisms. The degree of damage depends on several

factors, one of which is the buffering capacity of the

watershed soil—the higher the alkalinity, the more

slowly the lakes and streams acidify. The exposure of

fish to acidified freshwater lakes and streams has been

intensely studied since the 1970s. Scientists distinguish

between sudden shocks and chronic (long-term) exposure

to low pH levels.

Sudden, short-term shifts in pH levels result from

snowmelts, which release acidic materials accumulated

during the winter, or sudden rainstorms that can wash

residual acid into streams and lakes. The resulting acid

shock can be devastating to fish and their ecosystems. At

pH levels below 4.9, damage occurs to fish eggs. At acid

levels below 4.5, some species of fish die. Below pH 3.5,

most fish die within hours. (See Table 5.2.)

Because many species of fish hatch in the spring,

even mild increases in acidity can harm or kill the new

life. Temporary increases in acidity also affect insects

and other invertebrates, such as snails and crayfish, on

which the fish feed.

Gradual decreases of pH levels over time affect fish

reproduction and spawning. Moderate levels of acidity in

water can confuse a salmon’s sense of smell, which it

FIGURE 5.3

Sites not pictured:

AK01 5.2AK03 5.2HI99 4.7PR20 4.8VI01 4.9

Field measurements of pH values from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network, 2003

SOURCE: Adapted from “Hydrogen Ion Concentration as pH from Measurements Made at the Field Laboratories, 2003,” in Hydrogen Ion Concentration aspH from Measurements Made at the Field Laboratories, 2003, National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Champaign, IL, 2005, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2003/phfield.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: AK is Alaska; HI is Hawaii; PR is Puerto Rico; VI is Virgin Islands.

##

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

# #

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

###

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

### #

#

#

##

##

# ###

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

# #

#

#

##

#

##

#

##

##

# #

##

#

5.5

5.3

5.1

5.3

5.2

4.7

4.74.7

4.7

5.1

4.7

4.6

4.8

4.9

4.6

5.2

5.1

4.6

4.5

5.9

5.8

4.7

4.7

4.8

5.4

4.7

4.74.6

4.6

4.9

4.5

4.6

4.5

5.4

4.8

5.2

5.8

4.8

4.9

4.8

5.3

5.1

5.1

4.8

4.5

5.2

5.0

5.0

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.7

5.4

4.6

4.8

4.95.2

5.2

5.5

5.3 5.4

5.3

5.0

5.25.9

5.2

4.7

4.7

5.1

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.7

4.8

4.7

4.9

5.55.3

5.5

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.8

4.7

5.0

5.1

4.6#

4.6 4.5

4.5

4.7

4.6

4.64.7

4.64.75.4

5.14.9

5.35.4

5.7

4.9

5.0

4.9

5.0

5.2

5.3

5.15.3

4.6 5.1

6.3

5.35.7

4.6

4.5

4.9

5.3

4.6

4.4

#4.4

4.5

4.4

4.5

#4.4

4.4

4.5 4.3

4.5

5.2

5.1

5.7

5.1

5.2 5.3

5.3

4.44.4

4.4

5.2 5.8

4.64.7

4.8

5.7

5.1

5.0 4.95.1

5.9

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.64.6

5.2

5.2

4.8

4.9

4.9

5.0

5.04.8

The Environment Acid Rain 67

uses to find the stream from which it came. Atlantic

salmon are unable to find their home streams and rivers

because of acid rain. In addition, excessive acid levels in

female fish cause low amounts of calcium, thereby pre-

venting the production of eggs. Even if eggs are pro-

duced, their development is often abnormal. Over time

the fish population decreases while the remaining fish

population becomes older and larger.

Increased acidity can also cause the release of alu-

minum and manganese particles stored in a lake or river

bottom. High concentrations of these metals are toxic to

fish.

Soil and Vegetation

Acid rain is believed to harm vegetation by changing

soil chemistry. Soils exposed to acid rain can gradually

lose valuable nutrients, such as calcium, magnesium, and

potassium, and become too concentrated with dissolved

inorganic aluminum, which is toxic to vegetation. Long-

term changes in soil chemistry may have already affected

sensitive soils, particularly in forests. Forest soils satu-

rated in nitrogen cannot retain other nutrients required for

healthy vegetation. Subsequently, these nutrients are

washed away. Nutrient-poor trees are more vulnerable

to climatic extremes, pest invasion, and the effects of

other air pollutants, such as ozone.

Some researchers believe that acid rain disrupts soil

regeneration, which is the recycling of chemical and

mineral nutrients through plants and animals back to the

Earth. They also believe acids suppress decay of organic

matter, a natural process needed to enrich the soils.

Valuable nutrients like calcium and magnesium are nor-

mally bound to soil particles and are, therefore, protected

from being rapidly washed into groundwater. Acid rain,

however, may accelerate the process of breaking these

bonds to rob the soil of these nutrients. This, in turn,

decreases plant uptake of vital nutrients. (See Figure 5.4.)

Acid deposition can cause leafy plants such as lettuce

to hold increased amounts of potentially toxic substances

like the mineral cadmium. Research has also found a

decrease in carbohydrate production in the photosynth-

esis process of some plants exposed to acid conditions.

Research is underway to determine whether acid rain

could ultimately lead to a permanent reduction in tree

growth, food crop production, and soil quality. Effects on

soils, forests, and crops are difficult to measure because

of the numerous species of plants and animals, the slow

rate at which ecological changes occur, and the complex

interrelationships between plants and their environment.

TREES. The effect of acid rain on trees is influenced

by many factors. Some trees adapt to environmental

stress better than others; the type of tree, its height, and

TABLE 5.1

Effects of acid rain on human health and selected ecosystems and anticipated recovery benefits

Human health and ecosystem Effects Recovery benefits

Human health In the atmosphere, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides become sulfate and nitrate Decrease emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and deaths.aerosols, which increase morbidity and mortality from lung disorders, such as asthma and bronchitis, and impacts to the cardiovascular system.

Surface waters Acidic surface waters decrease the survivability of animal life in lakes and Reduce the acidic levels of surface waters and restore animal life to streams and in the more severe instances eliminate some or all types of fish the more severely damaged lakes and streams.and other organisms.

Forests Acid deposition contributes to forest degradation by impairing trees’ growth and Reduce stress on trees, thereby reducing the effects of winter injury,increasing their susceptibility to winter injury, insect infestation, and drought. It insect infestation, and drought, and reduce the leaching of soil also causes leaching and depletion of natural nutrients in forest soil. nutrients, thereby improving overall forest health.

Materials Acid deposition contributes to the corrosion and deterioration of buildings, cultural Reduce the damage to buildings, cultural objects, and cars, and objects, and cars, which decreases their value and increases costs of correcting reduce the costs of correcting and repairing future damage.and repairing damage.

Visibility In the atmosphere, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides form sulfate and nitrate Extend the distance and increase the clarity at which scenery can be particles, which impair visibility and affect the enjoyment of national parks and viewed, thus reducing limited and hazy scenes and increasing the other scenic views. enjoyment of national parks and other vistas.

SOURCE: “Appendix I. Effect of Acid Rain on Human Health and Selected Ecosystems and Anticipated Recovery Benefits,” in Acid Rain: Emissions Trends andEffects in the Eastern United States, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, March 2000

TABLE 5.2

Generalized short-term effects of acidity on fish

pH range Effect

6.5–9 No effect6.0–6.4 Unlikely to be harmful except when carbon dioxide levels are very high

(�1,000 mg I�1)5.0–5.9 Not especially harmful except when carbon dioxide levels are high

(�20 mg I�1) or ferric ions are present4.5–4.9 Harmful to the eggs of salmon and trout species (salmonids) and to adult

fish when levels of Ca2�, Na� and Cl� are low4.0–4.4 Harmful to adult fish of many types which have not been progressively

acclimated to low pH3.5–3.9 Lethal to salmonids, although acclimated roach can survive for longer 3.0–3.4 Most fish are killed within hours at these levels

SOURCE: “Generalized Short-Term Effects of Acidity on Fish,” in NationalWater Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, June 2000

68 Acid Rain The Environment

its leaf structure (deciduous or evergreen) influence how

well it will adapt to acid rain. Scientists believe that acid

rain directly harms trees by leaching calcium from their

foliage and indirectly harms them by lowering their tol-

erance to other stresses.

According to the EPA, acid rain has also been impli-

cated in impairing the winter hardening process of some

trees, making them more susceptible to cold-weather

damage. In some trees the roots are prone to damage

because the movement of acidic rain through the soil

releases aluminum ions, which are toxic to plants.

One area in which acid rain has been linked to direct

effects on trees is from moist deposition via acidic fogs

and clouds. The concentrations of acid and SO5 in fog

droplets are much greater than in rainfall. In areas of

frequent fog, such as London, significant damage has

occurred to trees and other vegetation because the fog

condenses directly on the leaves.

Birds

Increased freshwater acidity harms some species of

migratory birds. Experts believe the dramatic decline of

the North American black duck population since the

1950s is due to decreased food supplies in the acidified

wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that

ducklings in wetlands created by humans in Maryland are

three times more likely to die before adulthood if raised

in acidic waters.

Acid rain leaches calcium out of the soil and robs

snails of the calcium they need to form shells. Because

titmice and other species of songbirds get most of their

calcium from the shells of snails, the birds are also

perishing. The eggs they lay are defective—thin and

fragile. The chicks either do not hatch or have bone

malformations and die.

In 2002 researchers at Cornell University released

the results of a large-scale study showing a clear link

between acid rain and widespread population declines in

a songbird called the wood thrush. The scientists believe

that calcium depletion has had a negative impact on the

birds’ food source, mainly snails, earthworms, and cen-

tipedes. The birds may also be ingesting high levels of

metals that are more likely to leach out of overly acidic

soils. Declining wood thrush populations were most pro-

nounced in the higher elevations of the Adirondack,

Great Smoky, and Appalachian mountains. The research-

ers warned that acid rain may also be contributing to

population declines in other songbird species.

Materials

Investigations into the effects of acid rain on objects

such as stone buildings, marble statues, metals, and paints

only began in the 1990s. A joint study conducted by the

EPA, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Army

Corps of Engineers in 1993 found that acid rain was

causing $5 billion worth of damage annually in a seven-

teen-state region. Two-thirds of the damage was created

by pollution whose source was less than thirty miles

away. Many of the country’s historical monuments and

buildings are located in eastern states that have been most

hard-hit by acid rain.

Human Health

Acid rain has several direct and indirect effects on

human health. Particulates are extremely small pollutant

particles that can threaten human health. Particulates

related to acid rain include fine particles of SO5 and

nitrates. These particles can travel long distances and,

when inhaled, penetrate deep into the lungs. Acid rain

and the pollutants that cause it can lead to the develop-

ment of bronchitis and asthma in children. Acid rain is

also believed to be responsible for increasing health risks

to those over the age of sixty-five; those with asthma,

chronic bronchitis, and emphysema; pregnant women;

and those with histories of heart disease.

THE POLITICS OF ACID RAIN

Scientific research on acid rain was sporadic and

largely focused on local problems until the late 1960s,

when Scandinavian scientists began more systematic stu-

dies. Acid precipitation in North America was not identi-

fied until 1972, when scientists found that precipitation

was acidic in eastern North America, especially in north-

eastern and eastern Canada. In 1975 the First Interna-

tional Symposium on Acid Precipitation and the Forest

FIGURE 5.4

Relationship between soil acidity and nutrients

Increasing soil acidity

Incr

easi

ng n

utrie

nt fl

ow

Loss of nutrients from soils

SOURCE: “Figure 18. Relationship between Soil Acidity and Nutrients,”in Progress Report on the EPA Acid Rain Program, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, November 1999

Note: As soil and deposition acidity increases, nutrients, such as base cations, are leached from the soil and are not available for plant growth.

Plant uptake of nutrients

The Environment Acid Rain 69

Ecosystem convened in Columbus, Ohio, to define the

acid rain problem. Scientists used the meeting to propose

a precipitation-monitoring network in the United States

that would cooperate with the European and Scandina-

vian networks and to set up protocols for collecting and

testing precipitation.

In 1977 the Council on Environmental Quality was

asked to develop a national acid rain research program.

Several scientists drafted a report that eventually became

the basis for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program (NAPAP). This initiative eventually translated

into legislative action with the Energy Security Act (PL

96–264) in June 1980. Title VII of the Energy Security

Act (the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980) produced a

formal proposal that created NAPAP and authorized fed-

erally financed support.

The first international treaty aimed at limiting air

pollution was the United Nations Economic Commission

for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-Range Trans-

boundary Air Pollution, which went into effect in 1983. It

was ratified by thirty-eight of the fifty-four UNECE mem-

bers, which included not only European countries but also

Canada and the United States. The treaty targeted sulfur

emissions, requiring that countries reduce emissions 30%

from 1980 levels—the so-called ‘‘Thirty Percent Club.’’

The early acid rain debate centered almost exclusively

on the eastern United States and Canada. The controversy

was often defined as a problem of property rights. The

highly valued production of electricity in coal-fired utili-

ties in the Ohio River Valley caused acid rain to fall on

land in the Northeast and Canada. An important part of the

acid rain controversy in the 1980s was the adversarial

relationship between U.S. and Canadian government offi-

cials over emission controls of SO2 and NO2. More of

these pollutants crossed the border into Canada than the

reverse. Canadian officials very quickly came to a con-

sensus over the need for more stringent controls, while this

consensus was lacking in the United States.

Throughout the 1980s the major lawsuits involving

acid rain all came from eastern states, and the states that

passed their own acid rain legislation were those in the

eastern part of the United States.

Legislative attempts to restrict emissions of pollutants

were often defeated after strong lobbying by the coal

industry and utility companies. Those industries advocated

further research for pollution-control technology rather

than placing restrictions on utility company emissions.

THE ACID RAIN PROGRAM—CLEAN AIR ACTAMENDMENTS, TITLE IV

In 1980 Congress established NAPAP to study the

causes and effects of acid deposition. About two thou-

sand scientists worked with an elaborate multimillion-

dollar computer model in an eight-year, $570 million

undertaking. In 1988 NAPAP produced an overwhelming

six-thousand-page report on its findings, including:

• Acid rain had adversely affected aquatic life in about

10% of eastern lakes and streams.

• Acid rain had contributed to the decline of red spruce at

high elevations by reducing that species’ cold tolerance.

• Acid rain had contributed to erosion and corrosion of

buildings and materials.

• Acid rain and related pollutants had reduced visibility

throughout the Northeast and in parts of the West.

The report concluded, however, that the incidence of

serious acidification was more limited than originally

feared. The Adirondacks area of New York was the only

region showing widespread, significant damage from

acid at that time.

Results indicated that electricity-generating power

plants were responsible for two-thirds of SO2 emissions

and one-third of NO5 emissions. In response, Congress

created the Acid Rain Program under Title IV (Acid

Deposition Control) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amend-

ments (PL 101–549).

The goal of the Acid Rain Program is to reduce

annual emissions of SO2 and NOx from electric power

plants nationwide. The program set a permanent cap on

the total amount of SO2 that could be emitted by these

power plants. That cap was set at 8.95 million tons

(approximately half the number of tons of SO2 emitted

by these plants during 1980). The program also estab-

lished NOx emissions limitations for certain coal-fired

electric utility plants. The objective of the NO5 program

was to achieve and maintain a two-million-ton reduction

in NO5 emission levels by the year 2000 compared with

the emissions that would have occurred in 2000 if the

program had not been implemented.

The reduction was implemented in two phases. Phase

1 began in 1995 and covered 263 units at 110 utility

plants in twenty-one states with the highest levels of

emissions. Most of these units were at coal-burning

plants in eastern and Midwestern states. They were man-

dated to reduce their annual SO2 emissions by 3.5 million

tons. An additional 182 units joined Phase 1 voluntarily,

bringing the total of Phase 1 units to 445.

Phase 2 began in 2000. It tightened annual emission

limits on the Phase 1 group and set new limits for more

than two thousand cleaner and smaller units in all forty-

eight contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

A New Flexibility in Meeting Regulations

Traditionally, environmental regulation has been

achieved by the ‘‘command and control’’ approach, in

which the regulator specifies how to reduce pollution, by

70 Acid Rain The Environment

what amount, and what technology to use. Title IV, how-

ever, gave utilities flexibility in choosing how to achieve

these reductions. For example, utilities could reduce emis-

sions by switching to low-sulfur coal, installing pollution-

control devices called scrubbers, or shutting down plants.

Utilities took advantage of their flexibility under

Title IV to choose less costly ways to reduce emissions,

such as switching from high- to low-sulfur coal, and they

have been achieving sizable reductions in their SO2 emis-

sions. Fifty-five percent of Phase 1 plants opted to switch

to low-sulfur coal, 16% chose to install scrubbers, and

only 3% initially planned to purchase allowances (which

allow plants to emit extra SO2). Not surprisingly, the

market for low-sulfur coal is growing as a result of Title

IV, and the market for high-sulfur coal is decreasing.

Allowance Trading

Title IV also allows electric utilities to trade allow-

ances to emit SO2. Utilities that reduce their emissions

below the required levels can sell their extra allowances

to other utilities to help them meet their requirements.

Title IV allows companies to buy, sell, trade, and

bank pollution rights. Utility units are allocated allowan-

ces based on their historic fuel consumption and a spe-

cific emissions rate. Each allowance permits a unit to

emit one ton of SO2 during or after a specific year. For

each ton of SO2 discharged in a given year, one allow-

ance is retired and can no longer be used. Companies that

pollute less than the set standards will have allowances

left over. They can then sell the difference to companies

that pollute more than they are allowed, bringing them

into compliance with overall standards. Companies that

clean up their pollution would recover some of their costs

by selling their pollution rights to other companies.

The EPA holds an allowance auction each year. The

sale offers allowances at a fixed price. This use of mar-

ket-based incentives under Title IV is regarded by many

as a major new method for controlling pollution.

From 1995 to 1998 there was considerable buying

and selling of allowances among utilities. Because the

utilities that participated in Phase 1 reduced their sulfur

emissions more than the minimum required, they did not

use as many allowances as they were allocated for the

first four years of the program. Those unused allowances

could be used to offset SO2 emissions in future years.

From 1995 to 1998 a total of 30.2 million allowances

were allocated to utilities nationwide; almost 8.7 million,

or 29%, of the allowances were not used but were carried

over (banked) for subsequent years.

Figure 5.5 shows the status of the allowance bank

from 1995 through 2003. In 2003 a total of 9.54 million

allowances were allocated. Another 8.65 million banked

allowances were carried over from previous years. The

allowance bank reached a maximum during 2000 and

began to decline after that. The EPA expects that the

allowance bank will gradually be depleted.

EMISSIONS AND DEPOSITION

Each year the EPA publishes a report detailing the

progress achieved by the Acid Rain Program. The latest

report is titled Acid Rain Program, 2003 Progress Report

and was published in September 2004.

The report notes that in 2003 there were 3,497

electric generating units subject to the SO2 provisions

of the Acid Rain Program. They emitted 10.6 million

tons of SO2 into the air as shown in Figure 5.6. The EPA

expects that the 8.95-million-ton annual cap will be

achieved by the year 2010. SO2 emissions from sources

covered by the program decreased by 38% between

1980 and 2003.

The downward trend in SO2 emissions was accom-

panied by a decrease in SO2 concentrations measured in

the air and in sulfate deposition recorded at monitoring

sites operated by the National Atmospheric Deposition

Program. Between 1991 and 2003 average SO2 concen-

trations in the atmosphere decreased by 57% in the

Northeast and 38% in the Mid-Atlantic states. Wet sulfate

deposition declined by 39% in the Northeast and by 17%

in the Southeast.

FIGURE 5.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SO2 e

mis

sion

s (m

illio

n to

ns)

1995

8.7

11.713.5

15.016.6

21.619.9

18.8

2003

18.2

SO2 allowance bank, 1995–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 2. SO2 Emissions and the Allowance Bank,1995–2003,” in Acid Rain Program: 2003 Progress Report, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, CleanAir Markets Division, Washington, DC, September 2004, http://www .epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp03/2003report.pdf (accessed June 14, 2005)

Actual emissions from affected sources

Allowances allocated that year

Unused allowances from previous year (bank)

The Environment Acid Rain 7 1

Between 1990 and 2003 NOx emissions from power

plants subject to the Acid Rain Program decreased from

5.5 million tons per year to 3.8 million tons per year. This

reduction was achieved even though the amount of fuel

used to produce electricity increased by 30% over the

same time period.

In 2000 the program first achieved its goal of reduc-

ing emissions by at least two million tons; 8.1 million

tons were originally predicted in 1990 to be emitted in

the year 2000 without the program in place.

Decreased NOx emissions have not resulted in uni-

formly lower levels of NOx in the atmosphere or in

deposits measured at recording stations. The EPA reports

‘‘modest reductions’’ in these parameters in the Northeast

and Mid-Atlantic states, but little improvement in the

remainder of the country.

ARE ECOSYSTEMS RECOVERING?

Recovery Times

The EPA reports that ecosystems harmed by acid rain

deposition can take a long time to fully recover even after

harmful emissions cease. The most chronic aquatic pro-

blems can take years to be resolved. Forest health is even

slower to improve following decreases in emissions, tak-

ing decades to recover from damage by acid deposition.

Finally, soil nutrient reserves (such as calcium) can take

centuries to replenish.

Recent Studies Show Improvement

In March 2000 the EPA and the U.S. Government

Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in Acid Rain:

Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United

States that some surface waters in New England harmed

by acid rain were showing signs of recovery. However,

ecosystems considered most severely affected—such as

the Adirondacks—were not yet showing improvement at

that time. The GAO reported that acidified lakes in the

Adirondack Mountains were taking longer to recover

than lakes elsewhere. Recovery was considered depen-

dent on improving the nearby soil condition.

In late 2004 the EPA released a report on progress

made by the United States and Canada on cross-border

air pollution. The study, United States–Canada Air Qual-

ity Agreement: 2004 Progress Report, is the seventh

biennial report related to the 1991 agreement between

the two countries. The report says that SOx deposition

was reduced in the Ohio River basin and southern

Ontario and Quebec. Wet sulfate deposition was greatest

along a line extending from the Mississippi River to the

lower Great Lakes. The highest area of sulfate deposition

was noted south of Lake Erie. In general the report notes

that the trends in wet deposition of sulfate and nitrate

correspond to the trends in emissions of SO2 and NOx.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT ACID RAIN

Every year the Gallup Organization polls Americans

about their attitudes regarding environmental issues. The

most recent poll to assess acid rain was conducted in

March 2004. Participants were asked to express their

level of personal concern about various environmental

issues, including acid rain, water pollution, soil contam-

ination, air pollution, plant and animal extinctions, loss of

tropical rain forests, damage to the ozone layer, and

global warming. The results showed that acid rain ranked

last among these environmental problems. Only 20%

of respondents expressed a great deal of worry about

acid rain.

Analysis of historical Gallup poll results shows a

dramatic decline in concern about acid rain since the late

1980s. In 1989 Gallup found that 41% of respondents felt

a great deal of concern about acid rain and 11% felt none

at all. By 2004 only 20% of people polled were con-

cerned a great deal about acid rain and more than a

quarter of those asked expressed no concern about the

acid rain issue.

FIGURE 5.6

SO2 emissions regulated under the Acid Rain Program, 1980–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 1. SO2 Emissions Under the Acid Rain Program,” in Acid Rain Program: 2003 Progress Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Division, Washington, DC, September 2004, http://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/cmprpt/arp03/2003report.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

2000 2001 2002

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

11.2 10.6 10.2

2003

10.6

1980

17.3

9.4

1985

16.1

9.3

1990

15.7

8.7

1995

11.9

5.3

1996

12.5

5.4

1997

13.0

5.5

1998

13.1

5.3

1999

12.5

4.9

0

20

SO2 e

mis

sion

s (m

illio

n to

ns)

Phase I sources

Phase II sources

All sources

Allowances allocated for that year

72 Acid Rain The Environment

CHAPTER 6

NO NHA Z AR DO US WAS TE

One of the consequences of a modern society is the

generation of enormous amounts of waste. The vast

majority of this waste is not inherently hazardous. It

includes paper, wood, plastics, glass, nonhazardous

metals and chemicals, and other materials generated

by industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential

sources.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The earliest humans did not have garbage disposal

problems. They lived in nomadic tribes, wandering the

countryside and following herds of wild animals that they

hunted and killed for food and clothing. Scavengers and

insects ate their discarded food remains, and what was

left decomposed. About twelve thousand years ago peo-

ple began to form villages and become farmers. For the

first time they had to live with their garbage, which

smelled bad and attracted wild animals. Therefore, some

villagers dug pits into which they tossed garbage. One of

the best ways scientists learn about such prehistoric com-

munities is by studying their garbage pits.

Around 500 B.C.E. (before the common era), Athens,

Greece, issued the first known edict against throwing

garbage into the streets and organized the first municipal

dumps by mandating that scavengers transport wastes to

no less than one mile from the walls of the city. This

method was not practiced in medieval Europe (circa 500–

1485). Parisians in France and Londoners in England

continued to toss trash and sewage out their windows

until the 1800s. The west end of London and the west

side of Paris became fashionable in the late seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries because the prevailing winds

blew west to east, carrying the smell of rotting garbage

with them.

Industrialization brought with it a greater need for

collection and disposal of refuse. Garbage was trans-

ported beyond the city limits and dumped in piles in the

countryside. As cities grew, the noxious odors and rat

infestations at the dumps became intolerable. Freestand-

ing piles gave way to pits, but that solution soon became

unsatisfactory.

Throughout the nineteenth century many cities

passed antidumping ordinances, but they were largely

ignored. Some landowners and merchants resented ordi-

nances, which they considered infringements of their

rights. As cities grew so did garbage, becoming not only

a public eyesore but a threat to public health.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) ‘‘Milestones in Garbage’’ timeline (http://www.

epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/timeline_alt.htm#2),

the first U.S. garbage incinerator began operating in New

York City during the late 1800s. By the time World War I

began in Europe in 1914, about three hundred incinerators

were operating in the United States and Canada. Although

incineration reduced waste, the expense of building incin-

erators and the reduced air quality caused many cities to

abandon this method of garbage management. Dumping

garbage in rivers, lakes, wetlands, and oceans was widely

practiced until the 1930s. In 1934 the U.S. Supreme Court

banned the dumping of municipal solid waste (MSW) into

oceans. Cities located downstream from other cities that

were pouring their garbage into rivers sued the upstream

cities because the water was polluted. As a result, cities

began to build landfills or centralized garbage dumps to

get rid of their waste. By 1945 the EPA reports that nearly

one hundred cities around the country were using specially

designed landfills for MSW disposal.

Some health officials and reformers knew that pollu-

tion was unhealthy and could lead to sickness, but most

people were not concerned about the long-term effects of

garbage and pollution on the environment. As the

twentieth century progressed, however, more and more

Americans became concerned that garbage and pollution

were harming the environment.

The Environment 73

Development of a Throw-Away Society

Prior to the 1900s most Americans produced much

less garbage than they do today. Food scraps were boiled

to make soups or were fed to farm animals. Durable items

were passed on to the next generation or to people in

need. Objects that were of no further use to adults

became toys for children. Broken items were repaired

or dismantled for reuse. Grease was saved to make soap.

Flour sacks were used for dishtowels or sewn into cloth-

ing, and jars were reused as drinking glasses. Combusti-

ble things that could no longer be used were burned for

fuel, especially in the homes of the poor.

Besides giving away clothes, mending and remaking

them, and using them as rags for work, women reworked

textiles into useful household furnishings, such as quilts,

rugs, and upholstery. In the American culture of the time,

such activities demonstrated a woman’s frugality and

creative skill and came to represent an aspect of a

woman’s virtue. A growing paper industry also made it

profitable for thrifty housewives to save rags, which were

used by paper mills to make paper. Even middle-class

Americans traded rags to peddlers in exchange for but-

tons or teakettles. The ragmen worked the streets, beg-

ging for or buying at low prices items such as bones,

paper, old iron, rags, and bottles. They then sold the junk

to dealers who marketed it to manufacturers.

A trade in used goods such as rags provided crucial

resources for early industrialization. However, these early

systems of recycling diminished in the early 1900s. Sani-

tary reformers and municipal trash collection did away

with scavenging. Technology made cheap and new alter-

natives available. People made fewer things and bought

more than did previous generations. They also saved and

repaired less and threw out more. In A Social History of

Trash (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1999), Susan

Strasser describes this change in the nation’s mindset:

The rhetoric of convenience, luxury, and cleanliness

was potent. It sold a wide variety of products that

transformed Americans’ relationship to waste and, in

general, to the material world. In a few decades, the

ideal of the durable and reusable was displaced by

aspirations of leisure and luxury, ease and cleanliness.

The new ways were entrenched by 1929, in principle if

not always in practice, and neither a depression nor the

material shortages of a world war were enough to

reverse what most people saw as progress.

Old-fashioned reuse and recycling did not cease

overnight. During the first decades of the twentieth

century, most people still threw away relatively little.

Nonetheless, as the century progressed, middle-class peo-

ple learned to discard things, attracted by convenience

and a desire to avoid any association with scavenging and

poverty. Success often meant that one did not have to use

secondhand goods. As municipalities became responsible

for collecting and disposing of refuse, Americans found it

easier to throw things away.

By the 1920s technological and stylistic obsolescence

began to characterize a growing number of consumer

products. American markets were flooded with goods

manufactured with the knowledge that they would

become obsolete in a relatively short time.

Henry Ford believed that ‘‘a Ford was forever.’’ He

insisted that his Model T and Model A cars were ‘‘so

strong and so well-made that no one ought ever to have to

buy a second one.’’ Soon, however, it became evident

that there was a substantial resale market for secondhand

cars. Furthermore, it was quickly recognized that the

industry could be more profitable if a person bought nine

or ten cars over his or her lifetime rather than one or two.

In her book Strasser notes that American society

developed a ‘‘throwaway’’ mentality during the twentieth

century as ‘‘more and more things were made and sold

with the understanding that they would soon be worthless

or obsolete.’’

Consumer electronics provide an excellent example

of this. Table 6.1 shows the estimated life expectancy of

some popular electronic products. None are expected to

TABLE 6.1

Estimated life of selected consumer electronics

[In years]

Range of primary and secondaryuse (reuse) life expectancy

Video products

Direct view color TV 13 to 15Projection TV 13 to 15LCD color TV 13 to 15Videocassette players 7 to 10VCR decks 7 to 10Camcorders 7 to 10Laserdisc players 7 to 10

Audio products

Rack audio system 3 to 15Compact audio system 3 to 15Portable CD 3 to 15Portable headset audio 3 to 15Total CD players 3 to 15Home radios 3 to 15

Information products

Cordless/corded telephones 3 to 6Wireless telephones 2 to 4Telephone answering machines 3 to 6Fax machines 3 to 6Personal word processors 3 to 6Personal computers 3 to 6Computer printers 3 to 5Computer monitors 6 to 7Modem/fax modems 3 to 6

SOURCE: “Table C-3. Estimated Life of Selected Consumer Electronics,” inMunicipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures,EPA530-R-02-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, June 2002. Data fromFranklin Associates, Ltd.

74 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

last for more than fifteen years. Sales of these products

skyrocketed during the 1990s as shown in Figure 6.1.

More than half a million units were shipped during

2000 alone. This means that millions of these products

will enter the country’s waste system over the next two

decades.

The ‘‘throwaway society’’ mindset spurs industry to

produce more. This results in greater amounts of indus-

trial waste and greater usage of fossil fuels to generate

power. All of these actions have profound effects on the

nation’s environment.

LAWS GOVERNING WASTE

With antidumping ordinances being ignored through-

out the 1800s and refuse piles growing, city leaders began

to recognize that they had to do something about proper

disposal. Most major cities had set up refuse collection

systems by the turn of the century. Many cities intro-

duced incinerators to burn some of the refuse, and by the

1920s landfilling had become a popular refuse disposal

method. Cities often dumped their trash in nearby

marshes and swamps, areas that were considered useless

for development purposes.

In 1959 the American Society of Civil Engineers

published Landfill Practice, a comprehensive manual

about sanitary landfilling. The manual suggests that land-

fill waste be compacted and covered daily to prevent

problems with rodents and odors.

In 1965 the United States government passed the

Solid Waste Disposal Act, the first of many solid waste

management laws. It was amended several times, most

notably in 1976, with the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). Its primary goal was to ‘‘protect

human health and the environment from the potential

hazards of waste disposal.’’ RCRA is also concerned with

reducing the amount of waste generated, ensuring that

wastes are managed properly, and conserving natural

resources and energy. The RCRA regulates solid waste,

hazardous waste, and underground storage tanks contain-

ing petroleum products or certain chemicals.

The RCRA definition of solid waste includes garbage

and other materials ordinarily considered ‘‘solid,’’ as well

as sludges, semisolids, liquids, and even containers of

gases. These wastes can come from industrial, agricul-

tural, commercial, and residential sources. The RCRA

primarily covers hazardous waste, which is only a small

part of all waste generated. State and local governments

are mainly responsible for passing laws concerning non-

hazardous waste, although the federal government will

supply money and guidance to local governments so they

can better manage their garbage systems.

The RCRA consists of ten subtitles. (See Table 6.2.)

As shown in Table 6.3, there are three subtitles covering

the major programs regulated under RCRA: the solid

FIGURE 6.1

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000550,000

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Units

shi

pped

(1,0

00 u

nits

)Total units shipped of selected consumer electronics,1984–2000

SOURCE: “Figure C-1. Selected Consumer Electronics: Total UnitsShipped 1984–2000,” in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:2000 Facts and Figures, EPA530-R-02-001, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, DC, June 2002

Year

Units shipped

TABLE 6.2

Outline of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Subtitle Provisions

A General provisionsB Office of Solid Waste; authorities of the administrator and Interagency

Coordinating CommitteeC Hazardous waste managementD State or regional solid waste plansE Duties of the Secretary of Commerce in resource and recoveryF Federal responsibilitiesG Miscellaneous provisionsH Research, development, demonstration, and informationI Regulation of underground storage tanksJ Standards for the tracking and management of medical waste

SOURCE: “Figure 1-3. Outline of the Act,” in RCRA Orientation Manual,EPA530-R-02-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, January 2003

TABLE 6.3

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s interrelated programs

Subtitle D Subtitle C Subtitle I

Solid waste Hazardous waste Underground storageprogram program tank program

SOURCE: “Figure 1-1. RCRA’s Three Interrelated Programs,” in RCRAOrientation Manual, EPA530-R-02-016, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC,January 2003

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 75

waste program (Subtitle D), the hazardous waste program

(Subtitle C), and the underground storage tank program

(Subtitle I).

Subtitle D of RCRA assigns to the states responsibility

for permitting and monitoring landfills for municipal solid

waste and other nonhazardous wastes. Regulations estab-

lished under Subtitle D describe minimum federal stan-

dards for the design, location, and operation of solid waste

landfills to protect the environment. The states can develop

their own permitting programs, so long as they include the

federal landfill criteria. The EPA has the authority to

review and approve the state programs.

Subtitle C of RCRA gives the EPA primary respon-

sibility for permitting facilities that treat, store, and/or

dispose of hazardous waste. However, the EPA can

allow states to operate their own permitting programs.

Subtitle C regulations cover hazardous waste from the

time it is created to the time of its final disposal. This is

commonly called ‘‘cradle to grave’’ coverage.

The Subtitle C regulations exempt certain kinds of

hazardous waste (for example, hazardous wastes gener-

ated by households). Exempted hazardous wastes are

covered by Subtitle D.

Subtitle I is concerned with preventing, detecting,

and cleaning up any releases from underground storage

tanks holding petroleum products and hazardous sub-

stances. Subtitle I regulations include design standards

for new tanks and upgrade requirements for existing

tanks. The states can establish their own permitting pro-

grams with the approval of the EPA.

Besides RCRA, other federal laws indirectly regulate

waste disposal by protecting against pollution that can

result from improper waste disposal practices. As shown in

Figure 6.2, improper waste disposal can endanger the

nation’s land, air, surface water, and groundwater

resources.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was

originally enacted in 1948 and totally revised by amend-

ments in 1972, giving the Clean Water Act its current

form. Another set of amendments to this law is the Water

Quality Act of 1987. These acts provide legislation to

protect against the pollution of America’s lakes, rivers,

coastal areas, and aquifers (underground areas of water).

The Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1974, protects

the quality of drinking water in the United States and

controls underground injections (when wastewater is

injected into deep wells).

The Clean Air Act of 1990 establishes federal stan-

dards for autos and other mobile sources of air pollution;

for sources of hazardous air pollutants; and for the

FIGURE 6.2

Examples of multi-exposure contamination pathways

Aircontamination

Landcontamination

Ground watercontamination

Ground watercontamination

Surface watercontamination

SOURCE: “Figure VI-1. Multi-Exposure Pathways,” in RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA530-R-02-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, January 2003

76 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

emissions that cause acid rain. This legislation began as the

Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 and the Clean Air Act of

1963, with a major revision of the legislation in 1970.

It is difficult to calculate exactly how much waste is

generated in the United States and what becomes of it.

Under RCRA the federal government collects data on the

production and management of hazardous waste. These

data are supplied by the industries and businesses gener-

ating the waste. In addition, the EPA estimates the pro-

duction of municipal solid waste (common garbage) each

year using surveys, studies, population data, and other

information (see below). However, both of these ‘‘waste

streams’’ are thought to be very small in comparison

to the amount of industrial nonhazardous waste that is

generated.

The EPA reported that the country generated a total

of thirteen billion tons of solid waste in 1992 (Solid

Waste: State and Federal Efforts to Manage Nonhazar-

dous Waste, GAO, Washington, DC, 1995). Municipal

solid waste and industrial hazardous waste made up only

small fractions of this total, as shown in Figure 6.3.

Special waste constituted more than a third of the total.

These are waste materials specifically defined by federal

law that result from mining, oil and gas production,

electric utilities, and cement kilns. Special wastes are

considered to have a low hazard to the environment and

receive special consideration under the RCRA rules. The

majority of the waste produced in 1992 was industrial

nonhazardous waste.

INDUSTRIAL NONHAZARDOUS WASTES

The majority of solid waste produced in the United

States comes from industrial sources and is nonhazardous.

Federal law specifically defines what constitutes hazar-

dous waste and municipal solid waste. Nonhazardous

industrial wastes are those waste materials that do not fall

into either of these definitions. Figure 6.4 shows a general

breakdown of nonhazardous industrial waste by material,

as reported by the Office of Industrial Technology.

Manufacturing produces huge amounts of nonha-

zardous waste. The paper industry, which uses many

chemicals to produce paper, accounts for a very large

proportion of manufacturing waste. The metal and

chemical industries are also large waste producers.

Many big manufacturing plants have sites on their

own property where they dispose of waste or treat it

so it will not become dangerous. Still others ship it to

private disposal sites for dumping or for treatment.

Smaller manufacturers might use private waste dispo-

sal companies or even the city garbage company.

State and local governments have regulatory respon-

sibility for the management of most nonhazardous

wastes. Different states have different regulatory

schemes. For example, Texas categorizes nonhazardous

industrial wastes into three classes based on their poten-

tial harm to the environment and human health. Class 1

wastes include asbestos, ash, and various solids, sludges,

and liquids contaminated with nonhazardous chemicals.

Every four years the state evaluates its disposal capacity

FIGURE 6.3

Distribution of solid waste, 1992

SOURCE: Solid Waste: State and Federal Efforts to ManageNonhazardous Waste, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington,DC, 1995

Industrialhazardous waste

2%

Municipalsolid waste

1%

Special wastes39%

Industrialsolid waste

57%

FIGURE 6.4

Non-hazardous waste

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure W-1. Non-Hazardous Waste,” in “WasteGeneration,” Energy, Environmental and Economics (E3) Handbook,U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, Office of Industrial Technology, Washington, DC, September 1997

Pulp & paper34%

Stone, clay & glass

10%

Chemicals22%

Other10%

Primary metals21%

Petroleum 3%

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 77

for Class 1 wastes. The last report available was pub-

lished in 2000 and includes data for 1997. According to

Needs Assessment for Industrial Class 1 Nonhazardous

Waste Commercial Disposal Capacity in Texas (2000

Update), nearly eighty-three million tons of Class 1 waste

were generated in Texas that year. The vast majority of

the waste (96%) was liquid.

Class 2 wastes include containers that held Class 1

wastes, depleted aerosol cans, some medical wastes, paper,

food wastes, glass, aluminum foil, plastics, Styrofoam, and

food packaging resulting from industrial processes. Class 3

wastes include all other chemically inert and insoluble

substances such as rocks, brick, glass, dirt, and some

rubbers and plastics.

Industries do not have to report how much Class 2 or

Class 3 wastes they generate or how they dispose of it.

However, municipal solid waste landfills are required to

report the receipt of all industrial waste.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

The EPA defines municipal solid waste (MSW) as

‘‘common garbage or trash.’’ MSW includes items like

food scraps, paper, containers and packaging, appliances,

batteries, and yard trimmings. These types of wastes are

generally collected and managed by local municipal

agencies. MSW does not include construction and demo-

lition wastes, automobile bodies, sludge, combustion ash,

and industrial process wastes.

Determining the amount and types of MSW generated

in the United States is a very difficult task. People are not

required to track or report how much MSW they produce

or what it contains. The EPA uses information supplied by

trade groups and industrial sources, combined with esti-

mated product life spans and population and sales data, to

estimate how much and what types of MSW are generated.

The EPA publication Municipal Solid Waste Genera-

tion, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts

and Figures for 2003 (April 2005) reports that Americans

produced 236.2 million tons of MSW in 2003, up slightly

from 235.5 million tons in 2002. (See Table 6.4.) The tons

of MSW generated annually increased dramatically

between 1960 and 2000. Most of this increase occurred

during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. In 1960 just over

eighty-eight million tons of MSW were generated. Over

the next three decades, MSW generation increased on

average by 32% per decade. However, the 1990s wit-

nessed a slowdown in this rate of increase. MSW genera-

tion increased by only 13% between 1990 and 2000 and

then leveled off in the early 2000s.

This trend is also reflected in the per capita (per

person) values for MSW generation. In 1960 each Amer-

ican generated on average 2.68 pounds of MSW per day.

That value steadily increased until 1990, when it reached

4.50 pounds per day. The rate leveled off during the 1990s

as shown in Figure 6.5, fluctuating between 4.40 and 4.64

pounds. In 2003 per capita generation was 4.5 pounds per

day. This number has remained fairly constant since 1990.

MSW COMPOSITION

Figure 6.6 shows EPA estimates of the breakdown of

MSW produced in 2003 by waste type. Paper was the

largest single component by weight, comprising 35.2% of

TABLE 6.4

Generation, materials recovery, composition, and discards of municipal solid waste in millions of tons and percent of total generation,1960–2003

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003

Millions of tons

Generation 88.1 121.1 151.6 205.2 213.7 234.0 231.2 235.5 236.2Recovery for recycling 5.6 8.0 14.5 29.0 46.2 52.4 52.8 53.8 55.4Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 4.2 9.6 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.9Total materials recovery 5.6 8.0 14.5 33.2 55.8 68.9 69.3 70.5 72.3Discards after recovery 82.5 113.0 137.1 172.0 158.0 165.1 161.9 165.0 163.9

Percent of total generation

Generation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Recovery for recycling 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 14.2% 21.6% 22.4% 22.8% 22.8% 23.5%Recovery for composting* Neg. Neg. Neg. 2.0% 4.5% 7.0% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1%Total materials recovery 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.2% 26.1% 29.4% 30.0% 29.9% 30.6%Discards after recovery 93.6% 93.4% 90.4% 83.8% 73.9% 70.6% 70.0% 70.1% 69.4%

Notes:*Composting of yard trimmings, food scraps, and other MSW organic material.Does not include backyard composting.Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 1. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960–2003 (in millions of tons),” and“Table 2. Generation, Materials Recovery, Composting, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960–2003, in Percent of Total Generation,” in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

78 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

the waste stream. It was followed by yard trimmings

(12.1%), food scraps (11.7%), plastics (11.3%), metals

(8%), rubber, leather, and textiles (7.4%), wood (5.8%),

glass (5.3%), and other MSW (3.4%). The top five cate-

gories—paper, yard trimmings, food scraps, plastics, and

metals—together comprise more than three-fourths of the

MSW generated in 2003.

Paper

The EPA estimates that in 2003 there were 83.1

million tons of paper generated as MSW. The paper

category includes numerous paper and paperboard (box-

board and containerboard) products as shown in Table

6.5. Corrugated boxes make up the bulk of this category

in terms of the tons generated. In 2003 MSW included

29.7 million tons of corrugated boxes, representing 36%

of the entire paper category. Newspapers, office papers,

commercial printing papers, milk cartons, and junk mail

are other major contributors to the paper category. This

category does not include gypsum wallboard facings

(which are classified as construction and demolition deb-

ris) or toilet tissue (which goes to sewage treatment

plants).

Yard Trimmings

EPA estimates show that in 2003 there were 28.6

million tons of yard trimmings generated as MSW. Yard

trimmings include grass, leaves, and tree and brush trim-

mings from residential, commercial, and institutional

sources. According to the EPA, yard trimmings are

assumed to contain an average by weight of 50% grass,

25% leaves, and 25% brush.

In the past the EPA based its estimates of yard trim-

ming generation on only sampling studies and population

and housing data. During the 1990s it began to take into

account the expected effects of local and state legislation

on yard trimmings disposal in landfills. For example,

in 1992 only eleven states and the District of Columbia

had laws prohibiting or discouraging residents from

disposing yard trimmings at landfills. By 1997 another

twelve states had such legislation in place. The EPA

believes that this increased the use of mulching lawn-

mowers and the practice of backyard composting

of yard trimmings, thus reducing the amount of yard

trimmings in MSW.

Food Scraps

The EPA estimates that in 2003 there were 27.6

million tons of food wastes generated in MSW.

Included in EPA’s definition of food scraps are uneaten

food and food preparation scraps from residences,

commercial establishments (such as restaurants and

grocery stores), institutional sources (such as school

cafeterias and prisons), and industrial sources (such

as factory cafeterias). Food scraps generated by indus-

trial sources that produce and package food products

are not included in MSW.

FIGURE 6.5

1960 1970 1995 2000 2001 2003

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Tota

l mun

icip

al s

olid

was

tege

nera

tion

(mill

ion

tons

)

1980 1990 2002

SOURCE: “Figure 1. MSW Generation Rates from 1960 to 2003,” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/ muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Trends in total and per capita municipal solid waste generation, 1960–2003

250

200

150

100

50

0

Per c

apita

gen

erat

ion

(lbs/

pers

on/d

ay)

0.00

Total municipal solid waste generation

Per capita generation

FIGURE 6.6

Breakdown by waste type of municipal solid waste generated,2003

SOURCE: “Figure 3. 2003 Total MSW Generation—236 Million Tons(Before Recycling),” in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response, Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa .gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: Total MSW was 236 million tons (before recycling).

Yard trimmings12.1%

Rubber, leather,and textiles

7.4%

Paper35.2%

Plastics11.3%

Metals8.0%

Glass5.3%

Food scraps11.7% Other

3.4%Wood5.8%

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 79

Plastics

The EPA estimates that in 2003 there were 26.7

million tons of plastic materials in the MSW waste

stream. The term ‘‘plastics’’ refers to materials made

from particular chemical resins that can be molded or

shaped into various products. Plastic materials are found

in a wide variety of products, including containers,

packaging, trash bags, milk jugs, cups, eating utensils,

disposable diapers, sporting and recreational equipment,

and many common household items (such as shower

curtains). In addition there are plastic components in

appliances, computers, furniture, luggage, and many

other consumer products.

The EPA classifies plastic materials generated in the

MSW in two ways—by product type and by resin. The

product types are listed below along with the corresponding

percentage that each comprised of the plastics waste stream:

• Durable goods—31%

• Nondurable goods—24%

• Bags, sacks, and wraps—16%

• Other packaging—11%

• Other containers—11%

• Soft drink, water, and milk containers—7%

Durable goods are those with a life expectancy in

excess of three years (such as appliances and luggage).

Nondurable goods are items with a life expectancy of less

than three years (such as disposable diapers). Note that

plastics used in automobiles and other vehicles are not

included in these totals.

In addition, the EPA classifies plastics by their resin

type. Although there are dozens of resin types, the most

common are listed below along with the corresponding

percentage of each found in the plastics waste stream:

• Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)/Linear low-density

polyethylene (LLDPE)—23%

• High-density polyethylene (HDPE)—19%

• Other resins—19%

• Polypropylene (PP)—14%

• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)—11%

• Polystyrene (PS)—9%

• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)—6%

PET is widely used to make soft drink bottles, while

HDPE is commonly used in milk jugs. Many people are

familiar with the plastic PVC, because household piping

is made from it.

Metals

EPA estimates show that in 2003 there were 18.8

million tons of metals generated in MSW. Ferrous metals

(iron and steel) comprised 74% of this category by

weight, followed by aluminum at 17% and other nonfer-

rous (non-iron) metals at 8%. Ferrous metals are widely

used in durable goods such as appliances and furniture.

Ferrous metals used in transportation vehicles (such as

automobiles) are not included in this category. Steel is

also used to manufacture food cans, barrels, and drums.

Aluminum found in MSW is most commonly in beer and

soft drink cans, food cans, and as foil wrap.

Consumer Electronics

Consumer electronics include televisions, computers,

VCRs, CD and DVD players, digital and video cameras,

radios, answering machines, telephones and cellular

phones, fax machines, printers, scanners, and miscella-

neous other equipment. Historically, such products have

been lumped with other products in EPA’s report under

the category ‘‘other miscellaneous durable goods.’’

In 1999 for the first time consumer electronics were

categorized separately, and it was estimated that 1.7

TABLE 6.5

Breakdown by type of paper and paperboard products generated inmunicipal solid waste, 2003

GenerationProduct category (thousand tons)

Nondurable goods

NewspapersNewsprint 10,260Groundwood inserts 2,380

Total newspapers 12,640

Books 1,030Magazines 2,270Office papers 7,150Telephone directories 640Standard (A) maila 5,400Other commercial printing 6,950Tissue paper and towels 3,250Paper plates and cups 970Other nonpackaging paperb 3,960

Total paper and paperboard nondurable goods 44,260

Containers and packaging

Corrugated boxes 29,710Milk cartons 450Folding cartons 5,560Other paperboard packaging 180Bags and sacks 1,230Other paper packaging 1,700

Total paper and paperboardcontainers and packaging 38,830

Total paper and paperboard 83,090

aFormerly called Third Class Mail by the U.S. Postal Service.bIncludes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 4. Paper and Paperboard Products in MSW,2003 (In Thousands of Tons and Percent of Generation),” in Municipal SolidWaste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: 2003 DataTables, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response, Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

80 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

million tons entered the MSW stream. In 2003 this value

climbed to 2.5 million tons, representing 1.5% of the total

MSW generated. Although this percentage is small, it is

expected to increase quickly during the 2000s as more

products reach the end of their useful lives.

The average electronic product is assumed to be

44% metal, 32% plastic, 15% glass, 9% wood, and 1%

other components. (Note that the total exceeds 100% due

to rounding.)

Historical Trends in MSW Composition

Figure 6.7 shows EPA estimates of MSW composi-

tion for various years between 1960 and 2003. Paper

has consistently been the largest single component of

MSW generated. According to the EPA, paper’s share

of the total increased slightly from 34% in 1960 to 35.2%

in 2003. Most of the other categories have also experi-

enced small changes (either up or down) in percentage of

total generation. The notable exceptions are plastics and

yard trimmings (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/

muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf ).

In 1960 plastics comprised only 0.4% of the total

MSW generated. By 2003 they comprised 11.3% of the

MSW total. This is an enormous increase. Today, more

plastics are produced in the United States than aluminum

and all other nonferrous metals combined. Manufacturers

are increasingly using plastic to package their products

because plastic is so easy to use and to shape. As a result,

plastics are the fastest-growing proportion of MSW in the

United States. The EPA predicts that the amount of

plastic thrown away will continue to increase.

The total number of pounds of plastic in MSW

increased from only 390,000 tons in 1960 to 26.7 million

tons in 2003. Most of these plastics (a family of more

than forty-five types) are nonbiodegradable and, once

discarded, remain relatively intact for many years. They

do not break down through organic processes.

The percentage of yard trimmings in the MSW total

decreased from 22.7% in 1960 to 12.1% in 2003. How-

ever, the tons of yard trimmings in MSW actually

increased over this time period.

MSW MANAGEMENT

The three primary methods for the management of

MSW are:

• Land disposal

• Combustion (or incineration)

• Recovery through recycling or composting

Land disposal involves piling or burying waste mate-

rials on or below the ground surface. This is primarily

done at facilities called landfills. Combustion is the burn-

ing of waste to produce energy. Incineration is a disposal

method in which MSW is burned at high temperatures.

Recycling is the reuse of a material in another product or

application. Composting is a method of decomposing

yard trimmings and other biodegradable wastes for reuse

as fertilizer.

According to the EPA, in 2003 land disposal was the

most common method used to manage MSW in the Uni-

ted States. (See Figure 6.8.) More than half (55.4%) of

the MSW generated went to land disposal, while 30.6%

was recovered, and 14% was combusted.

The EPA does not break down MSW disposal meth-

ods by region or state. However, the journal BioCycle

provided regional information on disposal methods for

2002 in its article ‘‘The State of Garbage in America’’

(Scott M. Kaufman, Nora Goldstein, Karsten Millrath,

and Nickolas J. Themelis, January 2004). Landfilling is

most prevalent in the Rocky Mountain and Midwestern

states. In general, these states are less densely populated,

thus they generate less MSW and have more space for

landfills than many other states. Combustion and

incineration were more common in the New England

and Mid-Atlantic states. These states are much more

densely populated and have few areas available or suita-

ble for landfilling.

FIGURE 6.7

0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Mill

ion

tons

*All other includes primarily wood, rubber and leather, and textiles.

Breakdown of materials generated in municipal solid waste,1960–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 10. Generation of Materials in MSW, 1960 to 2003,”in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/ 03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

All other*Yard

Food

Plastics

Metals

Glass

Paper

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 81

Table 6.6 shows EPA’s estimates of the percentages of

MSW landfilled, combusted, and recovered from 1960 to

2003. The proportion of MSW that is recovered through

recycling and composting has grown over the decades,

while combustion and landfill use have declined.

MUNICIPAL (OR SANITARY) LANDFILLS

Municipal (or sanitary) landfills are areas where

MSW waste is placed into and onto the land. While some

landfilled organic wastes will decompose, many of the

wastes in MSW are not biodegradable. Landfills provide

a centralized location in which these wastes can be

contained.

How Organic Matter Decomposes in Landfills

Organic material (material that was once alive,

such as paper and wood products, food scraps, and

clothing made of natural fibers) decomposes in the

following way: first, aerobic (oxygen-using) bacteria

use the material as food and begin the decomposition

process. Principal by-products of this aerobic stage are

water, carbon dioxide, nitrates, and heat. This stage

lasts about two weeks. However, in compacted,

layered, and covered landfills, the availability of oxy-

gen may be low.

After the available oxygen is used, anaerobic bacteria

(those that do not use oxygen) continue the decomposi-

tion. They generally produce carbon dioxide and organic

acids. This stage can last up to one to two years. During a

final anaerobic stage of decomposition lasting several

years or decades, methane gas is formed along with

carbon dioxide. The duration of this stage and the amount

of decomposition depend on landfill conditions, includ-

ing temperature, soil permeability, and water levels.

In July 1992 The Smithsonian reported on a twenty-

year study called the Garbage Project. Conceived in 1971

and officially established at the University of Arizona in

1973, the Garbage Project was an attempt to apply

archaeological principles to the study of solid waste.

About 750 people processed more than 250,000 pounds

of waste, excavating fourteen tons of it from landfills.

Among the Garbage Project’s findings was the dis-

covery that although some degradation takes place initi-

ally (sufficient to produce large amounts of methane and

other gases), it then slows to a virtual standstill. Study

FIGURE 6.8

Management methods for municipal solid waste, 2003

SOURCE: “Figure 6. Management of MSW in the United States—2003,”in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Land disposal55.4%

Recovery30.6%

Combustion14.0%

TABLE 6.6

[In percent of total generation]

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total generation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Total materials recovery 6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.2% 26.1% 29.4% 30.0% 29.9% 30.6%Combustiona 30.6% 20.7% 9.0% 15.5% 16.6% 14.4% 14.5% 14.2% 14.0%Discards to landfill,

other disposalb 63.0% 72.6% 81.4% 68.3% 57.3% 56.2% 55.5% 55.9% 55.4%Total discards after

recovery 93.6% 93.4% 90.4% 83.8% 73.9% 70.6% 70.0% 70.1% 69.4%

aIncludes combustion of MSW in mass burn or refuse-derived fuel form, and combustion with energy recovery of source separated materials in MSW (e.g., wood pallets and tire-derivedfuel).bDiscards after recovery minus combustion.Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: “Table 7. Generation, Materials Recovery, Combustion, and Discards of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960–2003 (in Percent of Total Generation),” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4,2005)

Generation, materials recovery, combustion, and discards of municipal solid waste, 1960–2003

82 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

results revealed that an astonishingly high volume of old

organic matter remained largely intact. Even after two

decades, one-third to one-half of supposedly degradable

organics remained in recognizable condition. The Smith-

sonian Institution concluded that well-designed and well-

managed landfills, in particular, seemed more likely to

preserve their contents than to transform them into humus

or mulch.

Landfills and the Environment

METHANE. Methane, a flammable gas, is produced

when organic matter decomposes in the absence of oxy-

gen. If not properly vented or controlled, it can cause

explosions and underground fires that smolder for years.

Methane is also deadly to breathe. The RCRA requires

landfill operators to monitor methane gas.

The Smithsonian Garbage Project found that for fif-

teen or twenty years after a landfill stops accepting gar-

bage, the wells still vent methane in fairly substantial

amounts. Thereafter, methane production drops off

rapidly, indicating that the landfill has stabilized.

Methane gas can be recovered through pipes inserted

into landfills, and the gas can be used to generate energy.

As of January 2005, there were 375 operational landfill

gas-to-energy projects in the United States. The EPA’s

Landfill Methane Outreach Program estimates that more

than six hundred other landfill sites present attractive

opportunities for project development. Figure 6.9 shows

the number of operational and candidate landfills in each

state.

CADMIUM. Cadmium is a natural element in the

Earth’s crust that is frequently found in municipal waste.

It has uses in many products, including batteries, pig-

ments, plastics, and metal coatings. The EPA estimates

that 2,680 tons of cadmium had been deposited in MSW

by 2000. Most cadmium in MSW comes from the dis-

posal of batteries. The remainder comes from plastics,

consumer electronics, pigments, appliances, glass, and

ceramics.

When ingested by humans in polluted air or water,

cadmium can build up in the human body over years,

damaging the lungs, kidneys, nervous system, and sto-

mach. It is classified by the EPA as a probable human

carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) and has been asso-

ciated with the development of lung cancer.

LEAD. Lead is an environmental contaminant found

in municipal waste that can damage virtually every

human organ system. A naturally occurring metal found

in small amounts in the Earth’s surface, lead is used in

many products including lead-acid batteries, consumer

electronics, glass and ceramics, plastics, cans, and pig-

ments. The EPA estimates in 2000 there were 1.9 million

tons of lead-acid batteries in MSW.

MERCURY. Another component of MSW is mercury.

Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that is found both

in liquid and gas form. It is used to produce chlorine gas

and is used in the manufacturing of many products. Once

in ground and surface water, it accumulates in fish that

humans may eat. It harms the human nervous system and

other body organs. The EPA estimates that 172.7 tons of

mercury was discarded in waste in 2000. Most of that

came from household batteries, thermometers, electro-

nics, paint residues, and pigments.

In 1996 Congress passed the Mercury-Containing

and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (known as

the ‘‘battery recycling bill’’). This law phased out the use

of mercury in batteries.

Landfill Design Standards

The RCRA standards require landfill operators to do

several things to lessen the chance of polluting the under-

lying groundwater. Groundwater can become contami-

nated when liquid chemicals or contaminated rainfall

runoff seep down through the ground underneath the

landfill. This liquid is called leachate.

The RCRA requirements are as follows:

• Landfill operators must monitor the groundwater for

pollutants. This is usually accomplished with a

groundwater monitoring well system.

• Landfills must have plastic liners underneath their

waste, as well as a leachate collection system. (See

Figure 6.10.)

• Debris must be covered daily with soil to prevent

odors and stop refuse from being blown away.

• Methane gas (a by-product of decomposition) must be

monitored, which is usually accomplished with an

explosive-gas monitoring well.

• Landfill owners are responsible for cleanup of any

contamination.

Landfills are not open dumps but rather managed

facilities in which wastes are controlled. MSW is often

compacted before it is placed in a landfill, and it is

covered with soil. Modern landfills have liner systems

and other safeguards to prevent groundwater contamina-

tion. When they are full, landfills are usually capped with

a clay liner to prevent contamination. (See Figure 6.10.)

Imports and Exports of Garbage

Lack of landfill space has encouraged some munici-

palities to send their garbage to other states. Although

shipments do occur across the Mexican and Canadian

borders, the vast majority of American MSW is managed

within the United States.

According to BioCycle, importing and exporting

MSW from state to state is very common. In 2002 New

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 83

York exported the most MSW (5.4 million tons), fol-

lowed by New Jersey (3.5 million tons) and Missouri

(1.99 million tons). Other states exporting more than

one million tons of MSW included Maryland (1.94 mil-

lion tons), Massachusetts (1.7 million tons), and

Washington (1.1 million tons). The chief MSW importers

were Pennsylvania (ten million tons), Illinois (5.8 million

tons), Virginia (4.5 million tons), and Michigan (3.8

million tons). The vast majority of imported MSW was

landfilled.

Several states have tried to ban the importing of

garbage into their states. In 1992 the Supreme Court

ruled in Chemical Waste Management Inc. v. Hunt (504

U.S. 334, 1992) that the constitutional right to conduct

commerce across state borders protects such shipments.

Experts point out that newer, state-of-the-art landfills

with multiple liners and sophisticated pollution control

equipment have to accept waste from a wide region to be

financially viable.

Trends in Landfill Development

Prior to using landfills, cities used open dumps, areas

in which garbage and trash were simply discarded in

huge piles. However, open dumps produced unpleasant

odors and attracted animals. In the early 1970s the

number of operating landfills in the United States was

FIGURE 6.9

AK

HI

6 8WA

0 5MT

0 1WY

1 2ID

1 5UT0 5

NV

73 46CA

4 12AZ

0 1

0 8

0 2NM

18 55TX

0

12

MS

2 11

LA

3 22

LA

0 2

5 18

GA

0 6

1 4

AR

4 20

MO

KY

3 12SC

11 35

4 18

TN5 13

NC

15 15VA

4 12MD

1 3DE

11 4NJ

2 6CT

2 *RI

17 4MA

1018

FL

4 14OK

3 6KS0 13

CO

1 5NE

0 2SD

4 7MN

13 13WI

36 25IL

15

17

IL

26 10MI

18 26OH 22 20

PA

16 23NY

0 3ME

15 15WV

3 12IA

1 1ND

4 7OR

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

Status of landfill gas energy projects by state, January 2005

SOURCE: “Status of Landfill Gas Energy Project Development and Candidate Landfills by State,” in Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Energy Projects and Candidate Landfills, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 30, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/index.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

National summary 381 operational projects � 600 candidate landfills have 18 MMTCE* potential

*MMTCE is million metric tons of carbon equivalent.

Operational projects Candidate landfills

VTNH

2 1

6 *

84 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

estimated at about twenty thousand. In 1979, as part of

the RCRA, the EPA designated conditions under which

solid waste disposal facilities and practices would not

pose adverse effects to human health and the environ-

ment. As a result of the implementation of these criteria,

open dumps had to be closed or upgraded to meet the

criteria for landfills.

Additionally, many more landfills closed in the early

1990s because they could not conform to the new stan-

dards that took effect in 1993 under the 1992 RCRA

amendment. Other landfills closed as they became full.

According to the EPA, the number of landfills available

for MSW disposal decreased dramatically between 1988

and 2003 from 7,924 to 1,767. (See Figure 6.11.)

Landfilling is expected to continue to be the single

most predominant MSW management method. In the

coming decades, it will be economically prohibitive to

develop and maintain small-scale, local landfills. There

will likely be fewer, larger, and more regional operations.

More MSW is expected to move away from its point of

generation, resulting in increased import and export rates.

Although the United States is one of the least

crowded industrialized nations in the world, in terms of

population density per acre, population density and avail-

able landfill space vary widely across the country. New

areas for landfills are becoming increasingly hard to find

in some areas of the country (such as the Northeast),

while other states have plenty of landfill space available.

A few states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

and Rhode Island) have insufficient land with suitable

soil and water conditions for landfills. Since landfills are

not welcome in most neighborhoods, useable land must

be found away from residential areas. Several states in

the Northeast and Midwest have very little landfill capa-

city remaining.

FIGURE 6.10

Example of a properly closed landfill

Pipes collect explosivemethane gas, used asfuel to generate electricity.

When landfill is full,layers of soil and clayseal in trash.

Wells and probes to detectleachate or methane leaksoutside landfill.

Cutaway view of a modernlandfill designed to preventthe two main hazards ofthe dump: explosions or firescaused by methane gas, andleakage of rainwater mixedwith dangerous chemicals (orleachate).

Clay and plastic liningto prevent leaks; pipescollect leachate frombottom of landfill.

Leachate pumped upto storage tank forsafe disposal.

Garbage

Topsoil

SandClay

Garbage

Sand

Synthetic liner

Sand

Clay

Subsoil

SOURCE: “Diagram 1. Example of a Properly Closed Landfill,” in Fact Flash 6: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 1999

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 85

Landfill protection methods will likely become stron-

ger in the future with more options for leachate and gas

recovery. To make landfills more acceptable to neighbor-

hoods, operators will likely establish larger buffer zones,

use more green space, and show more sensitivity to land-

use compatibility and landscaping.

Illegal dumping is a continuing problem. One major

reason for illegal dumping is the cost of legally disposing

of waste in landfills. In addition, the declining number of

landfills, with those remaining often sited at a distance,

has led to increased illegal dumping. Illegal dumping

endangers human health and the environment because

the dump sites become breeding grounds for animal and

insect pests, present safety hazards for children, are

sources of pollutants, and disrupt wildlife habitats.

INCINERATION AND COMBUSTION

Incineration and combustion both include heating

MSW to very high temperatures. In the past MSW was

burned in incinerators primarily to reduce its volume.

During the 1980s technology was developed that

allowed MSW to be burned for energy recovery. Use

of MSW as a fuel is more commonly termed combus-

tion; however, both terms are used interchangeably. The

EPA refers to MSW combustion as a waste-to-energy

(WTE) process.

In 2003 approximately thirty-three million tons of

MSW were incinerated, representing 14% of the total

MSW generated that year. (See Figure 6.8.) The EPA

estimates that combusting MSW reduces the amount of

waste by up to 90% in volume and by up to 75% in

weight. As of fall 2004 there were eighty-nine WTE

facilities operating in the United States generating

approximately 2,500 megawatts of power.

Figure 6.12 shows a typical WTE system. At this

facility, the trucks dump waste into a pit. The waste is

moved to the furnace by a crane. The furnace burns the

waste at a very high temperature, heating a boiler that

produces steam for generating electricity and heat. Ash

collects at the bottom of the furnace, where it is later

removed and taken to a landfill for disposal.

According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association,

104 million scrap tires were burned as fuel during 2003 in

specialized facilities. As shown in Table 6.7, tires have a

very high average heat content compared to typical

MSW.

Some experts think that incinerators are the best

alternatives to landfills, while others believe that they

are good additions to landfills. WTE facilities do provide

an alternative energy source to traditional fossil fuels,

and the sale of the energy they produce helps offset the

cost of operating the facilities. Incinerators are very

expensive to build.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), in

2003 waste-derived energy comprised just over one-half

of 1% of the nation’s total energy supply, producing 558

trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of power. (See Fig-

ure 6.13.) The DOE hopes to increase this value to 2% by

the year 2010.

FIGURE 6.11

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

7,924

1988

7,379

1989

Number of landfills in the United States by year, 1988–2002

SOURCE: “Figure 5. Number of Landfills in the United States by Year,” in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States:Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, April 2005, http:// www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed June 22, 2005)

8,000

1990

6,326

1991

5,812

1992

5,386

1993

4,482

1994

3,558

1995

3,197

1996

3,091

1997

2,514

1998

2,314

1999

2,216

2000

1,967

2001

1,858

2002

1,767

86 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

Incinerator and WTE Emissions

Most experts believe that incineration can never

serve as a primary method of garbage disposal because

it produces (1) residue that must then be transferred to a

landfill and (2) poisonous gases, primarily dioxin and

mercury, which are increasingly being found to be dan-

gerous. Incineration may, however, be useful to augment

landfill and recycling. WTE plants also have these pro-

blems. Mercury is largely impossible to screen with pol-

lution-control devices such as scrubbers (an air pollution

device that uses a spray of water or reactant to trap

pollutants). In the process of burning paints, fluorescent

lights, batteries, medical wastes, or electronics, mercury

is released as a gaseous vapor that is poisonous to

humans and to the environment. Most of the first incine-

rators built have been retired because they failed to meet

subsequent air quality standards. Some analysts are not

satisfied that the emissions problems have been solved,

especially the problems of burning materials containing

FIGURE 6.12

Electricity

Power plant

Generator

Turbine

Steam

Scrubber

Filter

Boilersystem

Heat

Furnace

Ash collection

Shipped to landfill

Crane

Stack

Waste combustion plant with pollution control system

SOURCE: “Waste Combustion Plant with Pollution Control System,” in Let’s Reduce and Recycle: Curriculum for Solid Waste Management, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1990

Wastestorage

pit

TABLE 6.7

Average heat content of selected biomass fuels

Fuel type Heat content Units

Agricultural byproducts 8.248 Million Btu/short tonBlack liquor 11.758 Million Btu/short tonDigester gas 0.619 Million Btu/thousand cubic feetLandfill gas 0.490 Million Btu/thousand cubic feetMethane 0.841 Million Btu/thousand cubic feetMunicipal solid waste 9.945 Million Btu/short tonPaper pellets 13.029 Million Btu/short tonPeat 8.000 Million Btu/short tonRailroad ties 12.618 Million Btu/short tonSludge waste 7.512 Million Btu/short tonSludge wood 10.071 Million Btu/short tonSolid byproducts 25.830 Million Btu/short tonSpent sulfite liquor 12.720 Million Btu/short tonTires 26.865 Million Btu/short tonUtility poles 12.500 Million Btu/short tonWaste alcohol 3.800 Million Btu/barrelWood/wood waste 9.961 Million Btu/short ton

SOURCE: “Table B6. Average Heat Content of Selected Biomass Fuels,” inRenewable Energy Trends 2002, U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Washington, DC, August 2003

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 87

chlorine, whose molecules, when burned, create dioxin, a

known carcinogen.

Regulators are also concerned about the acid gases

and heavy metals released from WTE plants. Scrubbers

reduce but do not eliminate these emissions. Even when

the toxic elements are largely removed from emissions,

the resulting ash is still toxic and, when put in landfills,

can leach into the groundwater. Thus, toxic compounds

in incinerator ash are simply removed from one environ-

mental medium to enter another. Toxic compounds still

end up in the soil. By law, toxic residue created by

burning waste in incinerators must be treated as hazar-

dous waste and must not be dumped in ordinary landfills.

As mentioned above, certain metals and other toxic

materials can be released in gaseous emissions during

MSW combustion (see Figure 6.14), with mercury and

dioxins being the contaminants of greatest concern.

Dioxin is the common name for a family of several

hundred toxic compounds with similar chemical struc-

tures and biological characteristics. Dioxins are not

deliberately manufactured—they are the unintended

by-products of industrial processes that involve chlorine

(such as chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper) or pro-

cesses that burn chlorine with organic matter.

WTE facilities are required to use air pollution con-

trol equipment to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals. In

2002 the EPA reported that emissions of organic, metal,

and acid gases from sixty-six large MSW incinerators

were reduced by more than 90% between 1990 and

2000. Mercury emissions were reduced by 95.1%, while

emissions of dioxins were reduced by more than 99%.

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN MSW MANAGEMENT

The federal government plays a key role in waste

management. Its legislation has set landfill standards

under the RCRA and incinerator and landfill emission

standards under the Clean Air Act.

Some waste management laws have been

controversial, resulting in legal challenges. Conse-

quently, the federal government has also had an effect

on waste management programs through federal court

rulings. In a series of rulings, including Supreme Court

decisions such as 1992’s Chemical Waste Management

Inc. v. Hunt, federal courts have held that shipments of

waste are protected under the interstate commerce clause

of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, state and local

governments may not prohibit landfills from accepting

waste from other states, nor may they impose fees on

waste disposal that discriminate on the basis of origin.

Flow Control Laws

Municipalities nationwide have upgraded waste man-

agement programs and attempted to deal with public

concern over waste issues. In most areas of the country

state and local governments have played the lead role in

transforming solid waste management. Private waste

management firms have also been involved, often under

contract or franchise agreements with local governments.

Private firms manage most of the commercial waste and

increasingly collect residential waste.

Flow control laws require private waste collectors

to dispose of their waste in specific landfills. State and/

or local governments institute these laws to guarantee

that any new landfill they build will be used. That way,

when they sell bonds to get the money to build a new

landfill, the bond purchasers will not worry that they

will not be repaid. Since 1980 more than $10 billion

in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the

construction of solid waste facilities. In many of those

cases flow control authority was used to guarantee the

investment. Flow control also benefits recycling plants

where recycling is financed by fees collected at

incinerators or landfills. In the process, however,

a monopoly is created, prohibiting facilities outside a

jurisdiction from offering competitive services. As a

result, there have been a number of court challenges to

flow control laws.

In 1994 the Supreme Court, in C & A Carbone v.

Clarkstown (511 U.S. 383), held that flow control vio-

lates the interstate commerce clause. In response, how-

ever, many local governments have strongly pushed for

the restoration of flow control authority. They have

appealed to Congress, with its authority to regulate inter-

state commerce, to restore the use of flow control. As of

summer 2005, bills proposed to address flow control have

failed.

FIGURE 6.13

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1965

Trill

ion

Btus

Energy consumption associated with fuel from waste,1970–2003

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 10.1. Renewable Energy Consumptionby Source, Selected Years, 1949–2003,” in Annual Energy Review,2003, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,Washington, DC, June 27, 2005, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: Waste includes municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires,agricultural byproducts, and other waste.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

88 Nonhazardous Waste The Environment

FIGURE 6.14

Waste combustion process

Air pollutioncontrol device

Combustion chamber

Waste

Stable gases(carbon dioxide, water vapor,

monoxide, nitrogen oxide,hydrogen chloride, and chlorine)

Fly ash(particulate matter, carbon,

salts, and metals)

Atoms combine withoxygen to form

stable gases

Gases pass through flameand break down into atoms

Waste is convertedto gases

Bottom ash(carbon, salts, and metals)

SOURCE: “Figure III-23. The Combustion Process,” in RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA530-R-02-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, January 2003

The Environment Nonhazardous Waste 89

CHAPTER 7

N O NH A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A LS R E C O V E R Y —R E C Y C L I N GA N D C O M P O S T I N G

Materials recovery is considered one of the most

promising ways to reduce the amount of nonhazardous

waste requiring disposal. The terms ‘‘recovery’’ and

‘‘recycling’’ are often used interchangeably. Both mean

that a waste material is being reused rather than landfilled

or incinerated. In general, reuse as a fuel does not fall

under the definition of recovery, while composting does.

Recycling involves the sorting, collecting, and pro-

cessing of wastes such as paper, glass, plastic, and

metals, which are then refashioned or incorporated into

new marketable products. Composting is the decomposi-

tion of organic wastes, such as food scraps and yard

trimmings, in a manner that produces a humus-like sub-

stance for fertilizer or mulch.

Recovery reduces environmental degradation and

chemicals that pollute water resources, generates jobs

and small-scale enterprise, reduces dependence on for-

eign imports of metals, and conserves water. Some ana-

lysts claim that more than half of consumer waste could

be economically recycled.

However, recycling sometimes requires more energy

and water consumption than waste disposal. It depends

on how far the materials must be transported and what is

necessary to ‘‘clean’’ them before they can be reused.

Demand for some recyclable materials is weak, making

them economically unfeasible to recycle in a market-

driven society.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) recovery offers many

advantages. It conserves energy otherwise used to incin-

erate the waste; reduces the amount of landfill space

needed for disposal of waste; reduces possible environ-

mental pollution due to waste disposal; generates jobs

and small-scale enterprises; reduces dependence on for-

eign imports of raw materials; and replaces some chemi-

cal fertilizers with composting material, which further

lessens possible environmental pollution.

Many Americans view waste recovery primarily as a

way to help the environment. For example, if paper is

recycled, fewer trees have to be cut down to make paper.

State and local governments see recycling as a way to

save money on waste disposal costs and prolong the life

of landfill space. Thus, MSW recovery has both environ-

mental and economic components.

MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publi-

cation Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,

and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures

for 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/

pubs/msw05rpt.pdf, April 2005) reports that Americans

recycled 72.3 million tons of MSW in 2003, accounting

for 30.6% of total MSW generated. (See Figure 7.1.) This

was an average recycling rate of just more than one

pound per person per day. Recycling rates for various

materials are shown in Table 7.1. The materials with the

highest recovery rates were nonferrous metals excluding

aluminum (66.7%), yard trimmings (56.3%), and paper

and paperboard (48.1%). By contrast, recovery rates were

very low for food wastes (2.7%) and plastics (5.2%).

As shown in Table 6.4 in Chapter 6, total materials

recovery has increased dramatically over the past few

decades. In 1960 the recovery rate was only 6.4%. By

1995 more than a quarter of MSW generated was recov-

ered. The largest gains were achieved during the 1980s

and early 1990s. The recovery rate reached 29.4% in

2000, but has increased only slightly since then.

The EPA does not break down recovery rates by

state. However, the journal BioCycle estimated state

by state recycling rates in 2002 in ‘‘The State of Garbage

in America ’’ (Scott M. Kaufman, Nora Goldstein,

Karsten Millrath, and Nickolas J. Themelis, January

2004). According to the article, the states with the highest

recycling rates in 2002 were Maine and Oregon

The Environment 91

(both with 49%), Minnesota (46%), Iowa (42%), and

California (40%).

Paper

The paper industry has been at the leading edge of

the recycling revolution. Used paper-based products can

be ‘‘de-inked’’ in chemical baths and reduced to a fibrous

slurry that can be reformulated into new paper products.

Paper can undergo this process several times before the

fibers become too damaged for reuse. Paper products

vary greatly in the type (hardwood versus softwood)

and length of fibers that are used to make them. Recycled

papers must typically be sorted into particular usage

categories (for example, newsprint or fine writing papers)

before being reprocessed. Recycled paper is slightly more

costly to produce than ‘‘virgin’’ paper.

Figure 7.2 shows EPA estimates of the tons of paper

(and paperboard) products generated as MSW and the

tons recovered between 1960 and 2003. Overall the

recovery rate for the year 2003 was 48.1%. However,

examination of detailed data shows that there were wide

variations in rates for specific paper products. For exam-

ple, the EPA states that newspaper had a recovery rate of

82%. This was the highest rate for any product within the

category. Recovery rates were also high for corrugated

boxes (71%) and office papers (56%). Most other paper

products had moderate recovery rates falling within the

10–40% range. By contrast, paper products such as tissue

papers and towels and paper plates and cups had negli-

gible recovery rates (less than 0.05%; http://www.epa.

gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf ).

Glass

Waste glass can be melted down and formed into new

glass products over and over without losing its structural

integrity. Virgin raw materials, such as sand, limestone,

and soda ash are added as needed to formulate new glass

products. However, colored glass cannot be easily de-

colored, as paper is de-inked. This means that glass

products must be sorted by color prior to reprocessing.

Figure 7.3 shows EPA estimates of the tons of glass

products generated as MSW and the tons recovered

between 1960 and 2003. Most glass that becomes MSW

is from bottles and jars manufactured for food and drink

products. Glass generation rates generally declined

between 1980 and 2003 due to competition from the

plastics industry for these markets. Glass recovery

increased throughout the 1980s and early 1990s and then

began declining.

Metals

Metal recycling is as old as metalworking. Coins and

jewelry made of gold and silver were melted down in

ancient times to make new coins with images of the latest

FIGURE 7.1

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 20030.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Tota

l MSW

recy

clin

g (m

illio

n to

ns)

Municipal solid waste recycling rates, 1960–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 2. MSW Recycling Rates from 1960 to 2003,” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Perc

ent o

f gen

erat

ion

recy

cled

Total MSW recycling Percent recycling

TABLE 7.1

[In millions of tons and percent of generation of each material]

Recovery asWeight Weight a percent of

generated recovered generation

Paper and paperboard 83.1 40.0 48.1%Glass 12.5 2.35 18.8%Metals

Steel 14.0 5.09 36.4%Aluminum 3.23 0.69 21.4%Other nonferrous metalsa 1.59 1.06 66.7%

Total metals 18.8 6.84 36.3%

Plastics 26.7 1.39 5.2%Rubber and leather 6.82 1.10 16.1%Textiles 10.6 1.52 14.4%Wood 13.6 1.28 9.4%Other materials 4.32 0.98 22.7%

Total materials in products 176.4 55.4 31.4%

Other wastesFood, otherb 27.6 0.75 2.7%Yard trimmings 28.6 16.1 56.3%Miscellaneous inorganic

wastes 3.62 Neg. Neg.

Total other wastes 59.8 16.9 28.2%

Total municipal solid waste 236.2 72.3 30.6%

Notes: Includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. Details maynot add to totals due to rounding.Neg.�Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05 percent.aIncludes lead from lead-acid batteries.bIncludes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.

SOURCE: “Table 4. Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW, 2003,” in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the UnitedStates: Facts and Figures for 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, April2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf(accessed August 4, 2005)

Municipal solid waste materials generated and recovered byweight, 2003

92 Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting The Environment

ruler. Metal objects were generally considered valuable

and were frequently sold or given away, rarely simply

discarded. When metal objects could not be repaired,

they could be melted down and fashioned into something

else. This practice continues in modern society. In

general, metals must be sorted by composition prior to

reprocessing.

Figure 7.4 shows EPA estimates of the tons of metal

products generated as MSW and the tons recovered

between 1960 and 2003. According to the EPA, ferrous

metals (iron and steel) comprise the largest category of

metals in MSW. They are primarily used in durable

goods such as appliances, furniture, and tires. Aluminum

is used extensively in drink and food cans and packaging

materials. Lead, zinc, and copper fall under the category

‘‘other nonferrous metals.’’ They are found in batteries,

appliances, and consumer electronics (http://www.epa.

gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf ).

Metals recovery was relatively flat until the mid-

1980s, when it began increasing dramatically. Recovery

leveled off during the late 1990s. Detailed EPA data

show that recovery rates differ greatly from metal to

metal. Nearly 67% of nonferrous metals (excluding alu-

minum) in the 2003 MSW stream were recovered, com-

pared with only 36% of ferrous metals (iron and steel)

and 21% of aluminum.

The Aluminum Association reports that more than

50% of the aluminum cans produced in the United States

are recycled each year. During 2004, fifty-four billion

cans were recycled.

Plastics

Plastic products are manufactured from chemical

resins molded into various shapes. There are dozens of

FIGURE 7.2

Paper generated and recovered, 1960–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 3. Paper Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2003,” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/ 03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

01960

Mill

ion

tons

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

RecoveryGeneration

2003

FIGURE 7.3

SOURCE: “Figure 5. Glass Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2003,” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Glass generated and recovered, 1960–2003

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1960

Mill

ion

tons

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Generation Recovery

2003

FIGURE 7.4

Metals generated and recovered, 1960–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 7. Metals Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2003,” inMunicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in theUnited States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1960

Mill

ion

tons

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Generation Recovery

2003

The Environment Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting 93

different resins in common use, each with a different

chemical formulation. Although waste plastic products

can be melted down and reformulated into new products,

sorting by resin type must first be performed.

Figure 7.5 shows EPA estimates of the tons of plastic

products generated as MSW and the tons recovered

between 1960 and 2003. In 1960 there were virtually no

plastic products in MSW. In 2003 MSW contained nearly

twenty-seven million tons of plastic products. This mas-

sive increase in generation was accompanied by incred-

ibly low rates of recovery. Only 5.2% of all plastic

products generated in MSW during 2003 were recovered.

This is less than 1.4 tons of plastic recovered. The plas-

tics recovery rate has hovered around 5% since 1995.

Detailed EPA data show that recovery of some plas-

tic products is much higher than others. In 2003 nearly

32% of HDPE milk and water bottles were recovered.

HDPE is a plastic resin known as high-density polyethy-

lene. Just over 25% of PET soft drink bottles were

recovered from MSW. PET stands for polyethylene

terephthalate, another plastic resin. However, recovery

rates for other plastic products were very low. The EPA

reported a zero recovery rate for plastic plates and cups,

trash bags, and similar nondurable goods.

Packaging and Containers

The EPA’s Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recy-

cling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and

Figures for 2003 reports that packaging and containers

comprise a large proportion of MSW (31.7% in 2003). A

total of seventy-five million tons of packaging and con-

tainers were generated that year. Therefore, one of the

major ways to reduce the amount of MSW is to reduce

the amount of packaging used for products or to use

materials that recycle or biodegrade easily.

An example of source reduction in packaging is

compact discs (CDs) and cassettes. Until recently CDs

and cassettes were sold in packages far larger than

needed. Many customers and recording artists com-

plained to the manufacturers, who now put CDs and

cassettes in smaller packages. Many other industries

are also using less plastic and paper to package their

products.

The EPA reported that nearly 39% of packaging and

containers were recovered in 2003, up slightly from 38%

in 2000. The packaging and container recovery rate was

only 10.5% in 1960. The 2003 recovery figures for

packaging and containers included 22% of glass, 61%

of steel, 36% of aluminum, 56% of paper and paperboard,

9% of plastics, and 15% of wood.

RECYCLING PROGRAMS

The successful recycling of any product within MSW

is dependent on the success of three key components in

the recycling process:

• Collection and sorting of the products to be recycled

• Processing and manufacturing technologies to convert

waste materials into new products

• Consumer demand for recycled products and those

containing recycled materials

Lack of any one of these components seriously jeo-

pardizes recovery efforts for a particular material within

the MSW stream. These three factors are represented by

the three arrows in the international symbols used to

show that a product is recyclable or contains recycled

materials.

Collection and Sorting

Before recyclable materials can be refashioned into

new products, they must be collected. Most residential

recycling involves curbside collection, drop-off pro-

grams, buy-back operations, and/or container deposit sys-

tems. In some cases people are required to sort their

recyclables prior to collection. Large-scale sorting of

recyclable materials is performed at materials recovery

facilities (MRFs).

CURBSIDE PROGRAMS. Curbside programs are those

in which recyclable items are collected from bins placed

outside residences.

According to the journal BioCycle, only 1,042 curb-

side programs were operating in the United States in

1988. By 2000 this number climbed to 9,709, but then

FIGURE 7.5

02468

10121416182022242628

1960

Mill

ion

tons

SOURCE: “Figure 9. Plastics Generation and Recovery, 1960 to 2003,” in Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: 2003 Data Tables, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,DC, April 2005, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/03data.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Plastics generated and recovered, 1960–2003

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Generation Recovery

2003

94 Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting The Environment

dropped to 8,875 by 2002. However, the population

served by curbside programs between 2000 and 2002

experienced only a tiny decrease. This probably means

that some neighboring programs consolidated to serve

wider areas. BioCycle estimates that nearly one hundred

and forty million people were served by curbside pro-

grams during 2002. States with high levels of curbside

service include Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.

DROP-OFF CENTERS. Drop-off centers typically col-

lect residential waste, although some accept commercial

waste. They are found in grocery stores, charitable orga-

nizations, city-sponsored sites, and apartment complexes.

The types of materials accepted vary, although drop-off

centers generally accept a greater variety of materials

than do curbside collection services. The EPA estimates

that more than ten thousand drop-off centers are operated

around the United States.

COMMERCIAL RECYCLABLES COLLECTION. The lar-

gest quantity of recovered materials comes from the

commercial sector. Old corrugated containers and office

papers are widely collected from businesses. Grocery

stores and other retail outlets that use corrugated packa-

ging return large amounts of recovered materials.

In December 2004 the EPA published A Guide to

Waste Reduction at Shopping Centers. The booklet pro-

vides information about setting up recycling programs for

materials commonly found in the MSW of retail stores

and other establishments found in shopping centers and

malls. Table 7.2 is a list of these materials and indicates

the economic strength and stability of the markets for

goods produced from the waste materials. Retailers are

urged to use the information to decide which materials to

include in recycling programs.

Buy-Back Centers and Deposit Systems

A buy-back center is usually a commercial operation

that pays individuals for recovered materials. Examples

include scrap metal dealers, paper dealers, waste haulers,

and aluminum can centers.

Deposit systems are programs in which consumers

pay a deposit on beverage containers at the time of

purchase. This deposit can be redeemed if the container

is returned empty for reuse. According to the EPA, in

early 2005 there were ten states operating deposit pro-

grams: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Ver-

mont. California operates a similar system in which con-

sumers pay a redemption fee.

Materials Recovery Facilities

Materials recovery facilities (MRFs) sort collected

recyclables, process them, and ship them to companies

that can use them to produce new or reformulated pro-

ducts. For example, an MRF may sort and crush various

types of glass recovered from curbside programs and then

ship the processed glass to a bottle factory where it can

be used to produce new bottles.

MRFs vary widely in the types of materials they

accept and the technology and labor they use to sort

and process recyclables. Most MRFs are classified as

low-technology, meaning that most of the sorting is done

manually. High-technology MRFs sort recyclables using

eddy currents (swirling air or water), magnetic pulleys,

optical sensors, and air classifiers.

Newspaper is the major paper commodity processed

at MRFs, along with corrugated boxes, used telephone

books, magazines, and mixed waste paper. Non-paper

commingled recyclables consist of aluminum beverage

containers, food cans, glass food and beverage contain-

ers, and certain plastics. Most MRFs have separate pro-

cessing lines for paper and commingled container

streams. The type of processing equipment found in a

particular plant depends upon the markets for which the

processed recyclables are destined and the distances they

must be transported.

TABLE 7.2

Market conditions for materials commonly recycled at malls andshopping centers

Material Probability of stable market

Old corrugatedcardboard (OCC) Excellent.

Paper High grade—excellent. Mixed paper—good.

Bottles and cans Glass—good.Plastics—good (for PET and HDPE)*.Aluminum—good. Other metals—good.

Plastic film Depends; market prices can vary widely and are based on the type of film, current commodity prices, and contamination level.

Food waste Good, depending on the local infrastructure.Landscaping waste Good—material can be sold or given away. Consider

hosting an event at your mall to distribute compost inthe spring.

Construction and Cement—good.Demolition Asphalt—fair.(C&D) waste Drywall or gypsum board—fair.

Carpet—good.Untreated wood—good. The largest market is boiler fuel.

Treated wood should be segregated from untreated wood. For treated wood, contact your local or state solidwaste agency for the most appropriate recycling and/or disposal options.

Fluorescent lamps Good, although mercury use is decreasing. You must pay to have fluorescent lamps recycled. The typical cost can be up to $1.00 per lamp for very small volumes; prices go down with larger volume recycling.

*PET is polyethylene terephthalate and is primarily used to make soft drink bottles. HDPEis high density polyethylene and is usually used to make milk and water bottles.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Appendix A. Materials Commonly Included inRecycling and Waste Prevention Programs at Malls and Shopping Centers,”in A Guide to Waste Reduction at Shopping Centers, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Washington, DC, December 2004, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/amrguide/amrguide.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting 95

The Role of Government

The oldest recycling law in the United States is the

Oregon Recycling Opportunity Act, which was passed in

1983 and went into effect in 1986. The Act established

curbside residential recycling opportunities in large cities

and set up drop-off depots in small towns and rural areas.

A growing number of states require that many con-

sumer goods sold must be made from recycled products.

In addition, many states have set recycling/recovery goals

for their MSW. In 1989 the state of Maine adopted a goal

to achieve 50% recycling by the year 1994. Although the

deadline was later extended, the state has not been able

to achieve it as of 2005. Officials blame the dramatic

population growth in southern Maine that boosted the

MSW generation rate.

For recycling programs to work, there must be mar-

kets for recycled products. To help create demand, some

states require that newspaper publishers use a minimum

proportion of recycled paper. Many states require that

recycled materials be used in making products such as

telephone directories, trash bags, glass, and plastic con-

tainers. All states have some kind of ‘‘buy recycled’’

program that requires them to purchase recycled products

when possible.

The states also use other incentives for recycling.

Most states have introduced curbside collection or public

drop-off sites for recyclables. Some states provide finan-

cial assistance, incentive money, or tax credits or exemp-

tions for recycling businesses. And almost all states bar

certain recyclable materials (such as car and boat bat-

teries, grass cuttings, tires, used motor oil, glass, plastic

containers, and newspapers) from entering their landfills.

The federal government also helps create a market

for recycled goods. The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) requires federal procuring agen-

cies to purchase recycled-content products designated by

the EPA in its overall Comprehensive Procurement

Guidelines (CPG). The first CPG was issued in May

1995 and included twenty-four designated items. The

most recent CPG update was published in April 2004.

Requirements for selected paper products are shown in

Table 7.3. EPA guidance regarding the purchase of

recycled-content products is also included in Recovered

Materials Advisory Notices (RMANs). RMANs are pub-

lished periodically and include recommended recycled-

content ranges for CPG products that are commercially

available.

In 1995 Congress passed the National Highway Sys-

tem Designation Act. This legislation repealed federal

requirements that up to 20% of the asphalt pavement

used in federal highway projects had to contain rubber-

modified asphalt made from scrap tires or other recov-

ered materials. The original mandate was part of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991. The purpose was to encourage reuse of scrap tires.

According to the Rubber Pavement Association (RPA),

the mandate was repealed due to cost and performance

TABLE 7.3

EPA’s recommended recovered fiber content for paper products

Postconsumer TotalItem Notes recovered fiber recovered fiber

Printing and writing papers

Reprographic Business papers such as bond, electrostatic, copy, mimeo, duplicator, and reproduction 30% 30%

Offset Used for book publishing, commercial printing direct mail, technical documents, and manuals 30% 30%

Tablet Office paper such as note pads and notebooks 30% 30%Envelope Wove 30% 30%

kraft, white, and colored (including manilla) 10–20% 10–20%kraft, unbleached excludes custom envelopes 10% 10%

Cotton fiber High-quality papers used for stationary, invitations, currency, ledgers, maps, and other specialty items 30% 30%

Newsprint

Newsprint Groundwood paper used in newspapers 20–85% 20–100%

Commercial sanitary tissue products

Bathroom tissue Used in rolls or sheets 20–60% 20–100%Paper towels Used rolls or sheets 40–60% 40–100%

Paperboard and packaging products

Corrugated containers Used for packaging and shipping a variety of goods(�300 psi) 25–50% 25–50%(�300 psi) 25–30% 25–30%

SOURCE: Adapted from “EPA’s Recommended Content Levels for Paper Products,” in 2004 CPG Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines: Buy-RecycledSeries: Paper Products, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 2004, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/pdf/paper.pdf(accessed August 4, 2005)

96 Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting The Environment

problems. Rubber-containing asphalt turned out to be

more expensive to produce than conventional asphalt.

To make matters worse, some road applications failed

to provide good results. The goal of repealing the require-

ments was to enable federal transportation officials to

focus on the most useful and cost-effective ways of

achieving important safety aims and to increase states’

discretion to implement their highway programs in ways

best suited to their own circumstances.

In 1996 Congress passed the Mercury-Containing

and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (known as

the ‘‘battery recycling bill’’). This law phased out the use

of mercury in batteries and provided for efficient and

cost-effective collection and recycling or proper disposal

of used nickel cadmium batteries, small sealed lead-acid

batteries, and certain other batteries. It also exempted

certain battery collection and recycling programs from

some hazardous waste requirements.

COMPOSTING

According to the EPA, food and yard waste com-

prises 25% of the total MSW generated in one year. All

plant-based materials in these categories can be recycled

by means of composting. The substances most commonly

composted are grass cuttings, garden clippings, leaves,

and coffee grounds, but well-chopped plant-based food

wastes are suitable as well. Using meat-based food scraps

is usually discouraged because they are likely to attract

animals.

To prepare a compost heap or pile, plant wastes are

layered with manure or soil to speed decomposition

(decay). Approximately every six inches of plant material

is layered with about an inch of soil. Watering the mix-

ture and aerating it (turning it) also speeds decomposi-

tion. The compost should decay for five to seven months

before it is used.

Gardeners mix compost with the soil to loosen the

structure of the soil and provide it with nutrients, or

spread it on top of the soil as a mulch to keep in moisture.

Since compost adds nutrients to the soil, slows soil ero-

sion, and improves water retention, it is an alternative to

the use of chemical fertilizers. Compost created on a

large scale is often used in landscaping, land reclamation,

and landfill cover, and to provide high-nutrient soil for

farms and nurseries.

Yard waste is especially suitable for composting due

to its high moisture content. Over the past few decades,

composting yard trimmings has become an accepted

waste management method in many U.S. locations. The

practice got a huge boost beginning in the late 1980s

when many states banned yard trimmings from disposal

facilities. The 2000 BioCycle report revealed that in 2001

there were 3,846 public yard trimming composting sites

in the United States.

THE HISTORY AND CURRENT STRENGTHOF RECYCLING

Recycling has become a major part of MSW manage-

ment in the United States, and it will likely continue to

grow, although at a slower pace than in the past. Recy-

cling, however, did not enjoy immediate success. It

started out as a ‘‘do-good’’ activity but eventually

became a necessity for municipal governments.

For a quarter-century after the first Earth Day (April

22, 1970), recycling advocates pleaded their case to

skeptical decision-makers in the interest of environmen-

tal benefit. In the early years of recycling, the economy

was unable to use all the plastic, paper, and other materi-

als that were recovered. Many private recycling compa-

nies were not able to make a profit. Instead of earning

money from recycling, the programs cost them money.

Some cities even started dumping their recycled materials

into landfills because they could not sell them. Many city

leaders felt that money spent on recycling should be used

in other areas instead, such as education.

Critics of recycling pointed to the problems that

recycling was experiencing as evidence that recycling

programs could not work. But supporters of recycling

suspected that recycling problems stemmed from the

success of collection programs, which recouped more

than manufacturers were initially able to handle. Advo-

cates of recycling programs had underestimated the well-

spring of support for recycling that existed among the

American people.

In fact, by the mid-1990s, that support translated

into marketing success. Recycling had become a rev-

enue-producer, and prices for nearly all recyclables sky-

rocketed. Cities that were once paying to get rid of

waste could earn millions from selling the same mate-

rial. Recycling programs began to prosper. Theft of

recyclables became commonplace. And private industry

began to consider recycling as a way to cut expenses and

even to add income, rather than as a nuisance that

increased overhead costs. The new economics of recy-

cling made it increasingly attractive to many city waste

administrators.

As with any business, recycling is subject to the

cyclical highs and lows of supply and demand. In the

early 2000s, the recycling boom leveled off, and prices

dropped. At the same time municipal governments faced

serious economic problems. In 2002 the newly elected

mayor of New York City halted most of the city’s recy-

cling programs to save money. In 2004 the programs

were reinstated after the city signed a long-term contract

with a recycling firm.

The Environment Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting 97

There are several barriers, however, that continue to

hinder the development of the recycling market:

• Consumers are often unaware of recycled products.

• Consumers often lack confidence in the quality of

recycled products.

• The transportation costs of carrying recyclables to

processing plants are high.

• Questions about supply and demand deter investors.

• It is difficult to recover or sort certain materials, such

as oil, tires, and plastics.

• Recycled products are generally more expensive.

Some analysts believe that recycling rates for MSW

have reached a plateau and cannot easily be increased

due to the supply and demand imbalance in recycled-

content markets. They prefer to focus on source reduc-

tion, that is, the reduction of the amount of MSW

produced in the first place. One method for reducing

MSW generation is a principle called Extended Producer

Responsibility (EPR). EPR regulations require manufac-

turers and producers to take some responsibility for the

final disposition of their products. This provides an

incentive for products and their packaging to be more

recoverable and contain less toxic materials. EPR is a

cornerstone of recycling requirements in Canada, Japan,

and the European Union.

SCRAP TIRE RECYCLING—A SUCCESS STORY

Scrap tires have always posed a disposal problem for

the United States. Scrap tires accumulated in landfills or

uncontrolled tire dumps can pose health and fire hazards.

The tires are highly combustible, do not compost, and do

not degrade easily. The material, primarily hydrocarbons,

burns easily, producing toxic, bad-smelling air pollutants

and toxic runoff when burned in the open. Health effects

that can result from exposure to an open tire fire include

irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes;

respiratory effects; central nervous system depression;

and cancer. (The controlled combustion of scrap tires in

special incinerators does not produce these toxic emis-

sions.) Scrap tires do not compress in landfills and pro-

vide breeding grounds for a variety of pests. In fact, some

states ban the disposal of tires in landfills.

Prior to the 1980s scrap tires were either landfilled,

illegally dumped, or stockpiled. In 1985 Minnesota

passed the first state legislation dealing with scrap tires.

Other states followed suit. Several waste management

companies invested in tire-to-fuel projects, and by 1990

up to twenty-five million scrap tires per year were burned

for fuel. During the 1990s new markets emerged for

shredded rubber from scrap tires in civil engineering

applications (for example, road building and landfill

cover).

The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is a

trade organization based in Washington, D.C., that col-

lects and reports data on scrap tires. In July 2004 the

RMA published U.S. Scrap Tire Markets—2003 Edition.

The RMA estimates that 290 million scrap tires were

generated in the United States in 2003. As shown in

Figure 7.6, this rate has gradually increased since 1990.

Just over 80% of the scrap tires generated in 2003

were recycled or recovered in some way. This value has

increased dramatically since 1990, when only 24.5% of

scrap tires were reused. (See Figure 7.6.)

Figure 7.7 shows the disposition of scrap tires in

2003. Nearly half (44.7%) were used as a fuel source to

generate power. A tiny percentage (0.2%) was burned in

electric arc furnaces to produce high-carbon steel.

Another 9.3% were landfilled, while 3.1% were exported

to other countries. The disposition of approximately 10%

of the scrap tires is unknown. The remaining 33%

(approximately ninety-six million tires) were recycled in

various end-use markets as follows:

• Civil engineering (19%)—scrap tires are shredded

and reused in a variety of civil engineering and con-

struction applications. The primary uses are as fill

material in roads, landfill banks, and septic tank lea-

chate fields. Tire shreds are valued for their light

weight and other desirable properties compared with

traditional materials used for these purposes.

• Ground rubber markets (10%)—the rubber in tires can

be ground down to a consistency suitable for use in

asphalt and other surfacing materials. Ground rubber

provides added durability and cushioning to roads,

running tracks, and playground surfaces. It is also

used to produce consumer items, such as mulch and

landscaping products.

• Cut/punched/stamped rubber markets (2%)—the che-

mical and physical properties of rubber allow it to be

cut, punched, and stamped into a variety of products.

Typical items include belts, gaskets, seals, and elec-

trical insulation.

According to the RMA, there are approximately 275

million scrap tires remaining in stockpiles around the

United States as of 2003. More than 90% are located in

only eleven states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. The number of

stockpiled scrap tires is down dramatically from 1992,

when at least one billion were estimated to exist.

FUTURE FOCUS: ELECTRONIC WASTERECYCLING

The disposal of obsolete electronic products, such as

computers, cell phones, and televisions, is expected to

pose a major problem in the coming decades. The issue is

98 Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting The Environment

discussed in a July 2001 article by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) titled ‘‘Obsolete Computers, Gold Mine

or High-Tech Trash?’’ The article notes that a typical

personal computer (PC) becomes obsolete in 2–5 years.

The USGS estimates that up to twenty million PCs per

year become obsolete in the United States. Studies per-

formed in the late 1990s indicated that consumers seldom

discarded old computers. Many were kept as a back-up or

given away. However, disposal is expected to become

more common as new computer sales increase.

According to the USGS report, approximately 2.6

million personal computers were recycled in the United

States in 1998. The agency projected that fifty-five mil-

lion PCs would be landfilled in 2005 and one-hundred-

fifty million would be recycled. Figure 7.8 is a materials

flow diagram developed by the USGS to show the pro-

cesses involved in disposal and recycling of obsolete

computers and their parts.

Computers and other electronic devices contain

materials that are valuable for reuse, particularly metals,

plastics, and glass. The most common metals in PCs are

aluminum, steel, and copper. Small amounts of precious

metals, such as gold, palladium, platinum, and silver, are

also found in computer circuit boards. Some of the metals

used in PCs (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

FIGURE 7.6

U.S. scrap tires generated and recycled or recovered, 1990–2003

SOURCE: “Figure 1. U.S. Scrap Tire Markets 1990–2003,” in U.S. Scrap Tire Markets: 2003 Edition, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, July 2004, https://www.rma.org/publications/scrap_tires/index.cfm?PublicationID�11302&CFID�2451774&CFTOKEN�57977325 (accessed August 4, 2005)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mill

ions

of t

ires

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% S

crap

tire

util

izat

ion

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001 2003

223

252 253265 265

281290

24.5 11

6827

138.5

54.7164.5

62.1

177.5

67 218

77.6233.3

80.4

Scrap tires recycled or recovered Scrap tire generation % Usage

FIGURE 7.7

Electric arc furnaces

0.2%

Miscellaneous/ agriculture

1.7%

Civil engineering

19.4%

Cut/punched stamped

2%

Ground rubber 9.7%

Tire derived fuel

44.7%

Export3.1%

Landfill9.3%

Unknown10.3%

U.S. scrap tire disposition, 2003

SOURCE: “Figure 2. U.S. Scrap Tire Disposition, 2003,” in U.S. Scrap Tire Markets: 2003 Edition, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, July 2004, https://www.rma.org/publications/scrap_tires/index.cfm?PublicationID�11302&CFID�2451774&CFTOKEN�57977325 (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting 99

cobalt, lead, mercury, and selenium) are classified as

hazardous by the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act and cannot be disposed of in municipal solid waste

landfills.

The primary source of plastics is the computer cas-

ing. Plastic can be melted down to produce new materials

or used as a fuel in certain industrial processes. Most of

the glass content of computers is in cathode ray tube

(CRT) monitors. This glass contains lead, which is a

hazardous material. However, the glass can be reused to

produce new CRTs.

According to the USGS, more than fifty-two thou-

sand metric tons of steel, glass, plastic, and other materi-

als were recovered by United States electronics recyclers

in 1998 (the latest year for which data are available).

In 2003 the state of California passed legislation

called the Electronic Waste Recycling Act. This act

requires electronic manufacturers to reduce the amount

of hazardous substances used in specific electronic pro-

ducts sold in California. It also established a funding

mechanism to ensure that these products are properly

collected and recycled at the end of their useful lives.

In 2005 retailers began collecting fees from consumers

purchasing certain electronic products (primarily CRTs

and other display products). The money is turned over to

the state and distributed to qualified companies engaged

in collecting and recycling the products.

According to a July 2005 article in The Mercury

News of San Jose, California, the electronics recycling

program has been successful so far (Karl Schoenberger,

‘‘E-Waste Recycling Program Hits Stride,’’ July 19,

2005). The article notes that California has garnered

$15 million in collected fees from retail outlets. Approxi-

mately $6 million of this amount has been distributed to

recycling companies. Although there have been com-

plaints about the amount of paperwork involved in the

recycling process, in general, the program is considered

to be running well across the country. In 2004 California

passed a similar recycling bill that applies to cell phones.

It goes into effect in July 2006.

FIGURE 7.8

Plastic manufacturers

Waste to energy

Hazardouswaste landfill Hazardous

waste

Municipalwaste landfill

DonationrecipientsObsolete computers

Obsolete computers in storage

CRT* manufacturers

Smelters

Remanufacturing

Glass

Metals, glass, andmixed plastics

Separatedplastics

Mixed plastics

Reusable parts and

Recyclingactivities

consistingof collection

andseparation

*Cathode ray tubes

SOURCE: “Figure 2. A Generalized Materials Flow Diagram IllustratingWhat Happens to Obsolete PCs and Their Components,” in ObsoleteComputers,“Gold Mine,” or High-Tech Trash? Resource Recoveryfrom Recycling, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, July 2001, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs060-01/fs060-01.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

What happens to obsolete computers and their components

Nonhazardouswaste

refurbishedcomputers

100 Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting The Environment

CHAPTER 8

H A Z A R D O U S AN D R A D I O A C T I V E W A S T E

The most toxic and dangerous waste materials pro-

duced in the United States are those classified by the

government as hazardous or radioactive.

WHAT IS HAZARDOUS WASTE?

Hazardous waste is dangerous solid waste. The U.S.

government’s definition of solid waste includes materials

we would ordinarily consider ‘‘solid,’’ as well as sludges,

semi-solids, liquids, and even containers of gases. The

vast majority of hazardous waste is generated by indus-

trial sources. Small amounts come from commercial and

residential sources.

Officially, hazardous waste is defined as a waste that

is either listed as such in the U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) regulations or exhibits one or more of

the following characteristics: corrosivity, ignitability,

reactivity, or contains toxic constituents in excess of

federal standards. (See Figure 8.1.) In 2005 the EPA

had a list of more than five hundred hazardous wastes.

Because of its dangerous characteristics, hazardous

waste requires special care when being stored, trans-

ported, or discarded. Most hazardous wastes are regulated

under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has the primary respon-

sibility for permitting facilities that treat, store, and dis-

pose of hazardous waste. The states can adopt more

stringent regulations if they wish.

Contamination of the air, water, and soil with hazar-

dous waste can frequently lead to serious health pro-

blems. Exposure to some hazardous wastes is believed

to cause cancer, degenerative diseases, mental retarda-

tion, birth defects, and chromosomal changes. While

most scientists agree that exposure to high doses of

hazardous waste is dangerous, there is less agreement

on the danger of exposure to low doses.

INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE

Industrial hazardous wastes are usually a combina-

tion of compounds, one or more of which may be hazar-

dous. For example, used pickling solution from a metal

processor may contain acid, a hazardous waste, along

with water and other nonhazardous compounds. (Pickling

is a chemical method of cleaning metal and removing

rust during processing.) A mixture of wastes produced

regularly as a result of industrial processes generally

consists of diluted rather than full-strength compounds.

Often the hazardous components are suspended or dis-

solved in a mixture of dirt, oil, or water.

Every two years the EPA, in partnership with the

states, publishes The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous

Waste Report. The latest report available was published

in 2005 and includes data from 2003 (http://www.epa.

ov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/national03.pdf ).

The EPA distinguishes between large-quantity gen-

erators and small-quantity generators of hazardous waste.

A large-quantity generator is one that:

• generates at least one thousand kilograms (2,200

pounds) of RCRA hazardous waste in any single

month,

• generates in any single month or accumulates at any

time at least one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of RCRA

acute hazardous waste, or

• generates or accumulates at any time at least one hun-

dred kilograms (220 pounds) of spill cleanup material

contaminated with RCRA acute hazardous waste.

In 2003 there were 15,584 large-quantity generators

and 2,110 small-quantity generators. Together they gener-

ated 30.2 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste. The five

states with the largest generation of hazardous waste were

Texas (6.6 million tons), Louisiana (4.6 million tons),

Kentucky (2.4 million tons), Mississippi (2.0 million tons),

The Environment 101

and Ohio (1.8 million tons). Together, these states

accounted for nearly 58% of the total quantity generated.

The chemical industry was by far the largest produ-

cer, responsible for fourteen million tons of hazardous

waste, or 46% of the total. Petroleum and coal products

manufacturers were responsible for 3.9 million tons (13%

of the total), followed by the waste treatment and dis-

posal industry with 1.9 million tons (6% of the total).

HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM SMALL BUSINESSESAND HOUSEHOLDS

A small percentage of hazardous waste comes from

thousands of small-quantity generators—businesses that

produce less than one thousand kilograms of hazardous

waste per month. Table 8.1 shows a list of typical small-

quantity generators and the types of hazardous waste they

produce. Hazardous wastes from small-quantity generators

and households are regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA.

Household hazardous waste (HHW) includes solvents,

paints, cleaners, stains, varnishes, pesticides, motor oil,

and car batteries. (See Table 8.2.) The EPA reports that

Americans generate 1.6 million tons of household hazar-

dous waste every year. The average home can have as

much as one hundred pounds of these wastes in basements,

garages, and storage buildings. Because of the relatively

low amount of hazardous substances in individual pro-

ducts, HHW is not regulated as a hazardous waste. Since

the 1980s many communities have held special collection

days for household hazardous waste to ensure that it is

disposed of properly. More than three thousand such pro-

grams have been held in the United States.

METHODS OF MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE

Prior to the 1970s most industrial hazardous waste

was dumped in landfills, stored on-site, burned, or dis-

charged to surface waters with little or no treatment.

Since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, industrial

waste management follows a hierarchy introduced by

the EPA. (See Figure 8.2.) Source reduction is the pre-

ferred method for waste management. This is an activity

that prevents the generation of waste initially—for exam-

ple, a change in operating practices or raw materials. The

second choice is recycling, followed by energy recovery.

If none of these methods is feasible, then treatment prior

to disposal is recommended.

For example, a paper mill that changes its pulping

chemicals might reduce the amount of toxic liquid left

over after the paper is produced. If that is not possible,

perhaps the pulping liquid could be recycled and reused

in the process. If not, perhaps the liquid can be burned for

fuel to recover energy. If not, and the liquid requires

disposal, it should be treated as necessary to reduce its

toxicity before being released into the environment.

A variety of techniques exist for safely managing

hazardous wastes, including:

• Reduction—Waste generators change their manufac-

turing processes and materials in order to produce less

hazardous waste. For example, a food packaging plant

might replace solvent-based adhesives, which result in

hazardous waste, with water-based adhesives, which

result in nonhazardous waste.

• Recycling—Some waste materials become raw material

for another process or can be recovered, reused, or sold.

• Treatment—A variety of chemical, biological, and

thermal processes can be applied to neutralize or

destroy toxic compounds in hazardous waste. (See

Table 8.3.) For example, microorganisms or chemi-

cals can remove hazardous hydrocarbons from con-

taminated water.

• Land disposal—State and federal regulations require

the pre-treatment of most hazardous wastes before

they can be discarded in landfills. These treated mate-

rials can only be placed in specially designed land

disposal facilities.

FIGURE 8.1

• Corrosive—A corrosive material can wear away (corrode) or destroy a substance. For example, most acids are corrosives that can eat through metal, burn skin on contact, and give off vapors that burn the eyes.

• Ignitable—An ignitable material can burst into flames easily. It poses a fire hazard; can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; and may give off harmful vapors. Gasoline, paint, and furniture polish are ignitable.

• Reactive—A reactive material can explode or create poisonous gas when combined with other chemicals. For example, chlorine bleach and ammonia are reactive and create a poisonous gas when they come into contact with each other.

• Toxic—Toxic materials or substances can poison people and other life. Toxic substances can cause illness and even death if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Pesticides, weed killers, and many household cleaners are toxic.

Types of hazardous waste

SOURCE: “What Kinds of Hazardous Waste Are There?” in Fast Flash I:Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, undated, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/students/clas_act/haz-ed/ff_01.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

102 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

• Injection wells—Hazardous waste may be injected

deep underground under high pressure in wells thou-

sands of feet deep. (See Figure 8.3.)

• Incineration—Hazardous waste can be burned in

incinerators. However, as waste is burned, hot gases

are released into the atmosphere, carrying toxic mate-

rials not consumed by the flames. In 1999 the Clinton

administration imposed a ban on new hazardous waste

incinerators.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

The Toxics Release Inventory

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) was established

under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-

Know Act of 1986. Under the program certain industrial

facilities using specific toxic chemicals must report

annually on their waste management activities and toxic

chemical releases. These releases are to air, land, or

water. More than 650 toxic chemicals are on the TRI list.

In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires

the EPA to collect data on toxic chemicals recycled,

treated, or combusted for energy recovery.

Manufacturing facilities (called ‘‘original’’ indus-

tries) have had to report under the TRI program since

1987. In 1998 the TRI requirements were extended to a

second group of industries called the ‘‘new’’ industries.

These include metal and coal mining, electric utilities

burning coal or oil, chemical wholesale distributors, pet-

roleum terminals, bulk storage facilities, RCRA Subtitle

C hazardous water treatment and disposal facilities, sol-

vent recovery services, and federal facilities. However,

only facilities with ten or more full-time employees that

use certain thresholds of toxic chemicals are included.

The 2003 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Public

Data Release Report was published in May 2005. The

report states that 25.8 billion pounds of TRI chemicals

were waste managed during 2003. The breakdown by

management method is shown in Figure 8.4. Thirty-six

percent of the waste was recycled, while 33% was trea-

ted. Another 18% was released to the environment, and

13% was used for energy recovery. The EPA reports that

4.44 billion pounds of TRI chemicals were released dur-

ing 2003 by 23,811 facilities. The vast majority of the

chemicals (88%) were released on-site. The remainder

was released off-site. Figure 8.5 shows the distribution of

releases to the environment.

A breakdown by industry is provided in Figure 8.6. The

metal mining industry was responsible for more than a

quarter of the releases (28%), followed by electric utilities

(24%) and primary metals production (11%). The states

with the highest releases were Alaska (540 million pounds),

Nevada (409 million pounds), Texas (262 million pounds),

Ohio (252 million pounds), and Utah (242 million pounds).

These five states accounted for nearly 40% of all TRI

TABLE 8.1

Typical hazardous waste generated by small businesses

Type of business How generated Typical wastes

Drycleaning and laundry plants Commercial drycleaning processes Still residues from solvent distillation, spent filter cartridges, cooked powder residue, spent solvents, unused perchloroethylene

Furniture/wood manufacturing Wood cleaning and wax removal, refinishing/stripping, Ignitable wastes, toxic wastes, solvent wastes, paint wastesand refinishing staining, painting, finishing, brush cleaning and spray

brush cleaningConstruction Paint preparation and painting, carpentry and floor work, Ignitable wastes, toxic wastes, solvent wastes, paint wastes, used oil,

other specialty contracting activities, heavy construction, acids/baseswrecking and demolition, vehicle and equipment maintenancefor construction activities

Laboratories Diagnostic and other laboratory testing Spent solvents, unused reagents, reaction products, testing samples,contaminated materials

Vehicle maintenance Degreasing, rust removal, paint preparation, spray booth, Acids/bases, solvents, ignitable wastes, toxic wastes, paint wastes,spray guns, brush cleaning, paint removal, tank cleanout, batteries, used oil, unused cleaning chemicalsinstalling lead-acid batteries, oil and fluid replacement

Printing and allied industries Plate preparation, stencil preparation for screen printing, Acids/bases, heavy metal wastes, solvents, toxic wastes, ink, unusedphotoprocessing, printing, cleanup chemicals

Equipment repair Degreasing, equipment cleaning, rust removal, paint Acids/bases, toxic wastes, ignitable wastes, paint wastes, solventspreparation, painting, paint removal, spray booth,spray guns, and brush cleaning.

Pesticide end-users/application Pesticide application and cleanup Used/unused pesticides, solvent wastes, ignitable wastes, services contaminated soil (from spills), contaminated rinsewater, empty

containersEducational and vocational Automobile engine and body repair, metalworking, graphic Ignitable wastes, solvent wastes, acids/bases, paint wastes

shops arts-plate preparation, woodworkingPhoto processing Processing and developing negatives/prints, stabilization Acid regenerants, cleaners, ignitable wastes, silver

system cleaningLeather manufacturing Hair removal, bating, soaking, tanning, buffing, and dyeing Acids/bases, ignitables wastes, toxic wastes, solvent wastes, unused

chemicals

SOURCE: Adapted from “Typical Hazardous Waste Generated by Small Businesses,” in Managing Your Hazardous Waste, A Guide for Small Businesses,EPA530-K-01-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, December 2001

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 103

releases in 2003. According to the EPA, releases of TRI

chemicals declined by 59% between 1988 and 2003.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), first enacted by Congress in 1976 and expanded

by amendments in 1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996, was

designed to manage the disposal, incineration, treatment,

and storage of waste in landfills, surface impoundments,

waste piles, tanks, and container storage areas. It regu-

lates the production and disposal of hazardous waste, and

provides guidelines and mandates to improve waste dis-

posal practices. The EPA also has the authority under

the RCRA to require businesses with hazardous waste

TABLE 8.2

Common household hazardous wastes

Cleaning products

• Oven cleaners• Drain cleaners• Wood and metal cleaners and polishes • Toilet cleaners• Tub, tile, shower cleaners• Bleach (laundry)• Pool chemicals

Automotive products

• Motor oil• Fuel additives• Carburetor and fuel injection cleaners• Air conditioning refrigerants• Starter fluids• Automotive batteries• Transmission and brake fluid• Antifreeze

Lawn and garden products

• Herbicides• Insecticides• Fungicides/wood preservatives

Other flammable products

• Propane tanks and other compressed gas cylinders

• Kerosene• Home heating oil• Diesel fuel• Gas/oil mix• Lighter fluid

Indoor pesticides

• Ant sprays and baits• Cockroach sprays and baits• Flea repellents and shampoos• Bug sprays• Houseplant insecticides• Moth repellents• Mouse and rat poisons and baits

Workshop/painting supplies

• Adhesives and glues• Furniture strippers• Oil or enamel based paint• Stains and finishes• Paint thinners and turpentine• Paint strippers and removers• Photographic chemicals• Fixatives and other solvents

Miscellaneous

• Batteries• Mercury thermostats or thermometers• Fluorescent light bulbs• Driveway sealer

SOURCE: “List of Common HHW Products,” in Municipal Solid Waste, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 29, 2002,http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/hhw-list.htm (accessed August4, 2005)

FIGURE 8.2

Waste management hierarchy

Disposal

Recycling/reuse

Treatment

Sourcereduction

If no

If no

SOURCE: “Figure 1-2. Waste Management Hierarchy,” in 1999 ToxicsRelease Inventory—Public Data Release, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington,DC, April 2001

TABLE 8.3

Technologies to neutralize or destroy toxic compounds in hazardous waste

Technology Description

Biodegradation Biodegradation uses microorganisms to breakdown organic compounds to make a wasteless toxic.Chemical reduction Chemical reduction converts metal and inorganic constituents in wastewater into insoluble precipitates that are later settled out of the wastewater,

leaving a lower concentration of metaIs and inorganics in the wastewater.Combustion Combustion destroys organic wastes or makes them less hazardous through burning in boilers, industrial furnaces, or incinerators.Deactivation Deactivation is treatment of a waste to remove the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.Macroencapsulation Macroencapsulation is the application of a surface coating material to seal hazardous constituents in place and prevent them from leaching or escaping.Neutralization Neutralization makes certain wastes less acidic or certain substances less alkaline.Precipitation Precipitation removes metal and inorganic solids from liquid wastes to allow the safe disposal of the hazardous solid portion.Recovery of metals Recovery of organics uses direct physical removal methods to extract metal or inorganic constituents from a waste.Recovery of organics Recovery of organics uses direct physical removal methods (e.g., distillation, steam stripping) to extract organic constituents from a waste.Stabilization Stabilization (also referred to as solidification) involves the addition of stabilizing agents (e.g., Portland cement) to a waste to reduce the leachability of

metal constituents.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Figure III-21. Excerpts from the 40 CFR 268.42 Technology-Based Standards Table,” in RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA530-R-02-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, January 2003

104 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

operations to take corrective action to clean up the waste

they have released into the environment.

The RCRA imposes design and maintenance stan-

dards for waste disposal facilities, such as the installation

of liners to prevent waste from migrating into ground-

water. Land disposal facilities in operation after Novem-

ber 1980 are regulated under the act and are required to

meet RCRA standards or close. Owners of facilities that

ceased operation prior to November 1980 are required to

clean up any hazardous waste threats their facilities still

pose. Abandoned sites and those that owners cannot

afford to clean up under the RCRA are usually referred

to the national Superfund program.

FIGURE 8.3

Typical class I injection wellTT

Poorlypermeable

rock

Brineaquifer

Monitoring of injectionpressure and flow rateensures peak efficiency

and regulatorycompliance.

Double barriers ofconcrete and steel

protect drinking wateraquifers.

A pressurized “annulus”fluid is monitored

continuously to detectpossible leaks.

Protective concrete(grout seal) and steelbarriers continue tothe injection zone.

Laterally extensive,poorly permeable

confining layer retardsupward flow of wastes.

Over time, wastesconvert into less

harmful substances.

The packer seals thetubing to the casing.

Wastewater is trappedin the receiving

formation, much likemillion-year-old oil and

gas deposits.

SOURCE: “Exhibit 3. A Typical Class I Injection Well,” in Class IUnderground Injection Well Control Program: Study of the RisksAssociated with Class I Underground Injection Wells, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,DC, March 2001

Drinking water aquifer

FIGURE 8.4

Management methods for hazardous wastes included in ToxicRelease Inventory, 2003[25.8 billion pounds managed]

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 2. Quantities of TRI Chemicals in Wasteby Waste Management Activity, 2003,” in 2003 Toxic ReleaseInventory (TRI) Public Data Release Report, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, May 2005, http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/2003Brochure.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Treated33%

Energy recovery13%

Recycled36%Released

18%

FIGURE 8.5

Distribution of Toxic Release Inventory, 2003

SOURCE: Adapted from “Table 1. TRI On-Site and Off-Site Disposal orOther Releases, 2003,” in 2003 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) PublicData Release Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, May 2005, http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/ 2003Brochure.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Landfills, impoundmentsor other land disposal

51%

Air emissions36%

Surface water discharges

5% Other releases3%Underground

injection wells5%

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 105

CERCLA and the Superfund

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-

pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) estab-

lished the Superfund program to pay for cleaning up

highly contaminated hazardous waste sites that had been

abandoned or where a sole responsible party could not be

identified. Originally a $1.6 billion, five-year program,

Superfund was focused initially on cleaning up leaking

dumps that jeopardized groundwater.

During the original mandate of Superfund, only six

sites were cleaned up. When the program expired in

1985, many observers viewed it as a billion-dollar fiasco

rampant with scandal and mismanagement. Nonetheless,

the negative publicity surrounding the program increased

public awareness of the magnitude of the cleanup job in

America. Consequently, in 1986 and later in 1990 Super-

fund was reauthorized.

THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST. CERCLA requires

the government to maintain a list of hazardous waste sites

that pose the highest potential threat to human health and

the environment. This list is known as the National Prio-

rities List (NPL) and is a published list of hazardous

waste sites in the country that are being cleaned up under

the Superfund program. The NPL constitutes Appendix B

to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300, which the EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA.

The NPL is constantly changing as new sites are offi-

cially added (finalized) and other sites are deleted. Table

8.4 shows NPL site actions and milestones achieved by

fiscal year (October through September) for 1992 through

2005. These data were reported in June 2005, so only data

for nine months are included for fiscal year 2005.

As of June 17, 2005, there were 1,242 sites on the

NPL. More than nine hundred had been declared as

‘‘construction completed.’’ The EPA determines con-

struction completed when all physical construction of

cleanup actions are completed, all immediate threats have

been addressed, and all long-term threats are under con-

trol. This does not mean that a site has met its clean-up

FIGURE 8.6

Sources of materials disposed or otherwise released in ToxicsRelease Inventory, 2003

SOURCE: “TRI Total Disposal or Other Releases, 2003,” in 2003 TRIPublic Data Release: eReport, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, May 2005, http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/ 2003eReport.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: This information does not indicate whether (or to what degree) the public hasbeen exposed to toxic chemicals. Therefore, no conclusions on the potential riskscan be made based solely on this information (including any ranking information).

Metal mining28%

Primary metals11%

Chemicals12%

All others15%

Paper5%

Hazardous waste/ solvent recovery

5%

4.44 billion pounds

Electric utilities24%

TABLE 8.4

Number of NPL (National Priorities List) site actions and milestones, 1992–2005

Action

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sites proposed to the NPL 30 52 36 9 27 20 34 37 40 45 9 14 26 7

Sites finalized on the NPL 0 33 43 31 13 18 17 43 39 29 19 20 11 11

Sites deleted fromthe NPL 2 12 13 25 34 32 20 23 19 30 17 9 16 11

Milestone

Partial deletions* — — — — 0 6 7 3 5 4 7 7 7 5Construction

completions 88 68 61 68 64 88 87 85 87 47 42 40 40 8

Notes: A fiscal year is October 1 through September 30.Fiscal year 2005 includes actions and milestones achieved from October 1, 2004 to June 2005..Partial deletion totals are not applicable until fiscal year 1996, when the policy was first implemented.*These totals represent the total number of partial deletions by fiscal year and may include multiple partial deletions at a site. Currently, there are 51 partial deletions at 43 sites.

SOURCE: “Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Fiscal Year,” in National Priorities List: NPL Site Status Information, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC, June 2005, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

106 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

goals. It simply means that the engineering/construction

phase of site clean-up is completed.

As of July 1, 2005, the EPA has deleted (removed)

299 sites from the NPL. Sites are deleted when the

EPA determines that ‘‘no further federal steps under

CERCLA are appropriate.’’ As shown in Table 8.4,

more sites were proposed to the NPL (386) than were

deleted (262) over the time period 1992–2005.

According to the EPA, more than three times as

many Superfund sites were cleaned up between 1993

and 2000 than in all of the prior years of the program

combined. (See Figure 8.7.) However, many NPL sites

are still years away from being cleaned up.

FUNDING FOR SUPERFUND. Funding for the Super-

fund program is derived through two major sources: the

Superfund Trust Fund and monies appropriated from the

federal government’s general fund.

The Superfund Trust Fund was set up as part of the

original Superfund legislation of 1980. It was designed to

help the EPA pay for cleanups and related program

activities. Figure 8.8 shows the Superfund budget history

between 1981 and 2005. Until 1995 the Superfund Trust

Fund was financed primarily by dedicated taxes collected

from companies in the chemical and crude oil industries.

The system was extremely unpopular with many corpora-

tions arguing that environmentally responsible companies

should not have to pay for the mistakes of others. In 1995

the tax was eliminated.

The Superfund Trust Fund is also financed through

cost recoveries—money that the EPA recovers through

legal settlements with responsible parties. The EPA is

authorized to compel parties responsible for creating

hazardous pollution, such as waste generators, waste

haulers, site owners, or site operators, to clean up the

sites. If these parties cannot be found, or if a settlement

cannot be reached, the Superfund program finances the

cleanup. After completing a cleanup, the EPA can take

action against the responsible parties to recover costs and

replenish the fund. The average cost of cleanup is about

$30 million, large enough to make it worthwhile for

parties to pursue legal means to spread the costs among

large numbers of responsible parties. Many cleanups

involve dozens of parties.

Disputes have arisen between industries and cities over

who is responsible for a cleanup, and numerous lawsuits

have been filed by industries against cities over responsi-

bility for what is usually a huge expense. Many businesses

FIGURE 8.7

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Num

ber o

f site

s

53

8

3

1210

812

88

68

61

6864

88 8785

87

47

4240

6

SOURCE: “Figure V-1. Superfund Construction Completions by Fiscal Year,” in Final Report: Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Councilfor Environmental Policy and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, April 12, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/docs/naceptdocs/NACEPTsuperfund-Final-Report.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Superfund site construction completed, 1983–2004

Fiscal year

1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 107

and municipalities may be unable to assume such expense.

The EPA reports that the government currently collects

only one-fifth of the cleanup costs that could be recovered

from polluters under the Superfund law. According to the

EPA, in many cases the polluters have disappeared or are

unable to pay. In other cases the agency lacks the staff or

evidence to proceed with lawsuits.

All of these factors have resulted in only modest

amounts of money being collected for the Superfund

Trust Fund through cost recoveries. Total revenue

into the Fund dropped substantially beginning in 2000.

(See Figure 8.8.) However, the EPA has continued to add

sites to the NPL that require cleanup. Since 1987 the EPA

has spent an average of $1.4 billion each year to operate

the Superfund Program.

Much of the Superfund budget is spent on mega sites.

Mega sites are large complex sites where the total

cleanup cost per site is expected to be $50 million or

more. In 2004 an EPA advisory council examined mega

sites in the ‘‘Final Report: Superfund Subcommittee of

the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy

and Technology.’’ The report noted that mega sites com-

prise less than 10% of the sites on the NPL but place a

tremendous burden on the Superfund budget. For fiscal

year 2004 the EPA reports that more than half of its

annual budget was dedicated to just nine sites. Budget

shortfalls meant that nineteen sites that were ready for

construction could not be funded that year.

In recent years the EPA has increasingly relied on

money appropriated from the federal government’s general

fund to pay for NPL cleanups. During the early 2000s the

general fund accounted for roughly half of all appropria-

tions to the Superfund Program, as shown in Figure 8.8.

The budgets for 2004 and 2005 were based entirely on the

general fund. This means that all American taxpayers are

assuming the financial burden to clean up hazardous waste

sites under the Superfund Program. Some critics have

called for the federal government to reinstate dedicated

taxes against petroleum and chemical corporations to fund

the Superfund Program, instead of burdening tax-paying

citizens.

FIGURE 8.8

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Mill

ions

of d

olla

rs

Breakdown of Superfund budget sources, 1981–2005

SOURCE: Adapted from “Superfund Budget History,” in About Superfund, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/budgethistory.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

Trust fund share General revenues share

108 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

What Is Radioactivity?

Radioactivity is the spontaneous emission of energy

and/or high-energy particles from the nucleus of an

unstable atom. The three primary types of radiation are

alpha, beta, and gamma. Isotopes are atoms of an element

that have the same number of protons but different num-

bers of neutrons in their nuclei. For example, the element

carbon has twelve protons and twelve neutrons compris-

ing its nucleus. One isotope of carbon, C-14, has twelve

protons and fourteen neutrons in its nucleus. This is a

radioactive isotope or radioisotope.

Radioisotopes are unstable and their nuclei decay, or

break apart, at a steady rate. Decaying radioisotopes

produce other isotopes as they emit energy and/or high-

energy particles. If the newly formed nuclei are radio-

active too, they emit radiation and change into other

nuclei. The final products in this chain are stable, non-

radioactive nuclei. The amount of time it takes for half

the radioactive nuclei in a sample to decay is called the

half life. Half lives range from a fraction of a second to

many thousands of years, depending on the substance.

Radioactivity is measured in units called curies. One

curie represents the quantity of radioactive material that

will undergo thirty-seven billion disintegrations per sec-

ond. The biological effect of radiation on human tissue is

defined using a unit called the roentgen equivalent man

or rem. A rem is the dosage of ionizing radiation that will

cause the same biological effect as one roentgen of x-ray

or gamma radiation.

Radioisotopes reach our bodies daily, emitted from

sources in outer space, and from rocks and soil on earth.

Radioisotopes are also used in medicine and provide

useful diagnostic tools.

Energy can be released by ‘‘artificially’’ breaking

apart atomic nuclei. Such a process is called nuclear

fission. The fission of uranium 235 (U-235) releases

several neutrons that can penetrate other U-235 nuclei.

In this way, the fission of a single U-235 atom can begin

a cascading chain of nuclear reactions. If this series of

reactions is regulated to occur slowly, as it is in nuclear

power plants, the energy emitted can be captured for a

variety of uses, such as generating electricity. If this

series of reactions is allowed to occur all at once, as in

a nuclear (atomic) bomb, the energy emitted is explosive.

(Plutonium-239 can also be used to generate a chain

reaction similar to that of U-235.)

Sources of Radioactive Waste

Radioactive waste results from the mining, proces-

sing, and use of radioactive materials for commercial,

military, medical, and research purposes. In general, the

Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for manag-

ing radioactive waste associated with the nation’s mili-

tary and defense operations. The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has primary responsibility for mana-

ging radioactive wastes produced by other sources. Some

state agencies have also been authorized to regulate

aspects of radioactive waste management within their

jurisdictions. The EPA regulates the release of radioac-

tive materials to the environment.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. The primary commercial

source of radioactive waste is associated with electricity

generation at nuclear power plants. These plants rely on

controlled slow fission reactions with nuclear fuel pellets

to produce heat to create steam. Figure 8.9 shows the

major processes involved in mining and processing ura-

nium for use in nuclear power plants.

Figure 8.10 shows the locations of operational nuclear

power reactors in the United States as of July 2005. At that

time just over one hundred reactors were operating at more

than sixty facilities. According to the DOE, nuclear power

has accounted for approximately 20% of United States

power generation throughout the early 2000s.

No new nuclear power plants have been ordered since

the late 1970s. The decline is attributed to a variety of

factors including construction and regulatory difficulties,

availability of cheap supplies of natural gas, and public

opposition to nuclear power. Opposition grew dramatically

following an emergency at the Three Mile Island nuclear

power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On March 28,

1979, equipment failures, design problems, and operator

errors led to a partial meltdown in the nuclear core of one

of the reactors. A meltdown occurs when cooling of the

nuclear fuel rods is inadequate and the fuel overheats and

melts, releasing radioactivity to the atmosphere.

Although no one was directly injured or killed by the

accident, it did expose a substantial population of nearby

residents to radioactive gases. According to the NRC

Web site, approximately two million people in the area

were exposed to an average dose of one millirem. This is

roughly one-sixth the amount of radiation associated with

a full set of chest x-rays.

Public fears about nuclear power were rekindled in

1986 when an explosion occurred at a nuclear power

plant near the town of Chernobyl in the Soviet Union

(now the Ukraine). In the early morning hours of April

26, 1986, operators decided to test one of the reactors to

see what would happen if the station lost electrical

power. A combination of design flaws and operator errors

during the test resulted in a massive power surge that

overheated and ruptured some of the fuel rods. The

resulting explosions destroyed the nuclear reactor core

and ripped the roof off the reactor building, sending

radioactive debris and smoke into the atmosphere.

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 109

Dozens of people, mostly plant workers, died during the

explosion or soon thereafter of acute radiation poisoning.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of more people died later as a

result of exposure to radiation released by the accident. More

than one hundred thousand people were evacuated from

nearby areas. The Chernobyl disaster left a long-lasting

negative public perception about nuclear power.

MILITARY AND DEFENSE SOURCES. The United States

government maintained an active program for nuclear

weapons development from the early 1940s through the

1980s. As scientists raced to develop an atomic bomb

during World War II (1939–45), wartime concern for

national security led to a ‘‘culture of secrecy’’ that

became characteristic of agencies dealing with nuclear

power. On July 16, 1945, the first bomb, ‘‘Trinity,’’ was

exploded above ground in Alamogordo, New Mexico. A

few weeks later, two nuclear bombs were dropped on

Japan. World War II ended and the Cold War began.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 put the responsibi-

lity for nuclear weapons development and production

FIGURE 8.9

1

The nuclear fuel cycle for power plants

2

3USEC

4

5

Mining and milling

Conversion

• Uranium is combined with fluorine gas to produce uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a powder at room temperature and a gas when heated. • This process takes place at a conversion facility.• The UF6 is then shipped to an enrichment facility.

Enrichment

• Process that increases the concentration of U235 atoms in UF6 from its naturally occurring state of 0.7 percent to 3–5 percent, which is usable as a fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors.

Fuel fabrication

• Enriched UF6 is converted to uranium oxide powder and formed into ceramic pellets about the size of a pencil eraser.• The pellets are loaded into metal tubes that are bundled to form fuel assemblies.• The fuel assemblies are then shipped to a nuclear power plant, where they are loaded into a reactor.

.

Nuclear power plants

• Commercial facilities that use atomic energy to create steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity.• A nuclear reactor may operate for up to 2 years before being refueled.• Refueling requires that fuel assemblies be removed and replaced.• Once used, this “spent” fuel is cooled and stored in either special protective containers or secure storage pools.

SOURCE: “Figure 2. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” in Nuclear Nonproliferation: Implications of the U.S. Purchase of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, 2000

• The process during which uranium is removed from earth in the form of ore and is then crushed and concentrated.

1 10 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

under the authority of a new agency called the Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC). The AEC developed a

nationwide complex of facilities that engaged in research,

manufacturing, and testing of nuclear weapons. In 1975

the AEC was abolished, and the DOE assumed responsi-

bility for AEC activities.

Nuclear waste management received little attention

from government policymakers for three decades after

the development of the atomic bomb. During the 1970s

public concern about the environmental and health risks of

stockpiled nuclear materials led to political action. Over

the next decade nuclear weapon production was curtailed.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the DOE ceased

nearly all production of new nuclear weapons. In addition,

a major task began to dismantle and destroy many of the

nuclear weapons that had been created.

In 1989 the DOE formed a new program eventually

directed by the Office of Environmental Management (EM)

to oversee the massive and expensive effort to clean up

more than one hundred former nuclear weapons facilities.

More than $50 billion was spent on the program during its

first ten years. Analysts estimate that at least 200 billion

more dollars will be required to complete the effort. The

vast majority of the money and resources engaged in the

program are devoted to facilities in Hanford, Washington;

Savannah River, South Carolina; Rocky Flats, Colorado;

Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Classes of Radioactive Waste

Federal and state agencies classify radioactive wastes

based on their radioactivity, sources, and methods of

management. These classifications differ from agency

to agency, and there is sometimes overlap between

classes. Major classes defined by the federal government

include: uranium mill tailings, high-level radioactive

wastes (HLW), low-level radioactive wastes (LLW),

and transuranic waste (TRU).

FIGURE 8.10

WA

MT

WY

ID

UT

NV

CA

AZNM

TX

MS

LA

AL GA

AR

MOKY

SC

TNNC

VA MD

DE

NJ

CT

RI

MA

FL

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

WI

ILIN

MI

OH

PA

NY

ME

WV

IA

ND

OR

Locations of commercial operating nuclear power reactors, 2005

SOURCE: “Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,” in Find Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Location orName, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, December 18, 2003, http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

Notes: There are no commercial reactors in Alaska (AK) or Hawaii (HI). PR is Puerto Rico; VI is Virgin Islands.

NHVT

Region IV (includes AK and HI)Region IIIRegion I Region II (includes PR and VI) Licensed to operate

MA

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 1 1 1

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS. Uranium mill tailings are

by-products and residues resulting from the processing of

natural ores to extract uranium and thorium. Tailings are

usually in the form of fine sand particles. These wastes

contain radium, which has a half-life of thousands of

years and decays to produce radon gas. Tailings emit

low levels of radiation for long periods of time. Uranium

mining was extensively practiced in the western United

States in the decades following World War II. This

resulted in the generation of large amounts of mill

tailings.

Prior to the early 1970s the tailings were believed to

have such low levels of radiation that they were not

harmful to humans. They were often left in scattered piles

without posted warnings or safeguards, exposing anyone

who came near. Some tailings were deposited in landfills,

and homes were built on top of them. In response to

growing concern, Congress passed the Uranium Mill

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) to

regulate mill tailing operations. The law established pro-

grams for the cleanup of abandoned mill sites, primarily

at federal expense, although owners of still-active mines

were financially responsible for their own cleanup.

By the 1980s the United States imported most of the

uranium it needed for nuclear power and weapons pro-

duction. The vast majority of domestic uranium mines

and processing facilities ceased operating.

Under UMTRCA Title I the DOE is responsible for

cleaning up abandoned mill tailings sites that were asso-

ciated primarily with nuclear weapons production. The

NRC oversees the cleanup operations to ensure that they

meet environmental standards set by the EPA. Title I is

funded jointly by federal and state sources. According to

the NRC Web site, more than five million cubic yards

of mill tailings were being managed under the program as

of 2003.

Title II of UMTRCA applies to uranium mill sites

licensed by the NRC or approved state agencies since

1978. The NRC reports that approximately two dozen

sites fell under this program as of 2003. The vast majority

of the sites was inactive and had completed or were

completing clean-up activities.

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. High-level radio-

active waste (HLW) is the highly radioactive by-product

associated with use and reprocessing of nuclear fuel in

nuclear reactors. Sources include commercial reactors pro-

ducing electricity and reactors operated at government and

university research institutions and on nuclear-powered

submarines and ships.

HLW associated with the nation’s defense operations

are generally managed by the DOE. Other sources of HLW

fall under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC manages two major

types of HLW. The first type is spent reactor fuel from

commercial reactors that is ready for disposal. Spent fuel,

the used uranium that has been removed from a nuclear

reactor, is far from being completely ‘‘spent.’’ It contains

highly penetrating and toxic radioactivity and requires iso-

lation from living things for thousands of years.

As of 2005 no permanent long-term storage facility

exists for HLW; therefore, it is stored on-site at the

locations where it is generated or transported to other

approved sites for temporary storage. Figure 8.11 shows

a map of the dozens of sites around the country at which

HLW was being temporarily stored as of 2002.

According to the NRC Web site, thousands of ship-

ments of spent nuclear fuel have taken place in the

United States since the early 1970s. Utility companies

that operate multiple reactors are permitted to transport

spent fuel between their facilities. In addition, spent fuel

can be transported to research laboratories for testing

purposes. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is regu-

lated by the NRC and the Department of Transportation.

A May 2002 NRC publication titled ‘‘Radioactive

Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal’’ reports that

approximately one hundred sixty thousand spent fuel

assemblies containing forty-five thousand tons of spent

fuel were in temporary storage at that time. The vast

majority of the assemblies were stored in water pools.

The NRC estimates that nearly eight thousand used fuel

assemblies are taken out of reactors each year and require

storage.

HLW also results when spent fuel is reprocessed.

This is a chemical process in which radioactive isotopes,

primary uranium and plutonium, are extracted from spent

fuel for reuse as reactor fuel. As of 2005 there were no

reprocessing operations in the United States devoted to

commercial nuclear fuel.

During the Cold War, the DOE reprocessed spent

nuclear fuel at several locations for defense purposes. In

1992 the agency discontinued the program due to lack of

demand for the fuel. As a result, significant amounts of

spent nuclear fuel remain in storage at some DOE facil-

ities. As of December 2003, the DOE reported that it

maintained 990 cubic meters of spent nuclear fuel. Most

is stored at the following locations:

• Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho—530

cubic meters

• Hanford Site, Hanford, Washington—230 cubic

meters

• Ft. St. Vrain, Platteville, Colorado—130 cubic meters

• Savannah River Site, South Carolina—82 cubic

meters

• Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee—10

cubic meters

1 12 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

The DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management (OCRWM) is in charge of developing and

managing a federal system for disposal of spent nuclear

fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level

radioactive waste from national defense activities.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE. Commercial radio-

active wastes not classified as mill tailings or HLW are

considered low-level radioactive wastes (LLW). LLW

includes contaminated items such as protective clothing

and shoe covers, tools and equipment, discarded reactor

parts and filters, rags, mops, reactor water treatment resi-

dues, luminous dials, laboratory and medical supplies, and

animal carcasses used in radiation research.

Until the 1960s the United States dumped low-level

wastes into the ocean. The first commercial site to house

such waste was opened in 1962, and by 1971 six sites

were licensed for disposal. The volume of low-level

waste increased until the Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Policy Act of 1980 and its amendments in 1985. At that

time, according to the NRC Web site (http://

www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/statistics.html),

approximately 2.68 million cubic feet of radioactive

wastes were disposed per year. In 1998 (the latest year

for which data are available) the NRC says that LLW

disposal totaled 1.4 million cubic feet.

As of July 2005 only three commercial low-level

waste sites are still operating. Facilities in Richland,

Washington, and Barnwell, South Carolina, accept a

broad range of LLW. Envirocare of Utah operates a

disposal site in a remote area eighty miles south of Salt

Lake City. Envirocare accepts some types of LLW as

well as other non-HLW wastes.

In 1980 Congress called for the establishment of a

national system of LLW disposal facilities under the

FIGURE 8.11

WA

OR

CA

NV

AZ

UT

ID

MT

WY

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

WI

ILMO

AR

LA

MS AL

FL

GA

SC

NC

WV

VA

PA

NY

NH.MA

CT

RI

NJ

DE

MD

VT

ME

TN

KY

IN

MI

OH

YuccaMountain

Note: Symbols do not reflect precise locations.

Sites storing spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/or surplus plutonium, 2002

SOURCE: “Sites Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and/or Surplus Plutonium Destined for Geologic Disposition,” in Spent NuclearFuel Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC, 2002

Sites storing spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/or surplus plutonium destined for geologic disposition

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 1 13

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. Every state

became responsible for finding a low-level disposal site

for wastes generated within its borders by 1986. The Act

encouraged states to organize themselves into compacts

to develop new radioactive waste facilities. As of 2005

compacts have formed including forty-three states.

Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,

North Carolina, Rhode Island, and the District of Colum-

bia remain unaffiliated.

No compact or state has, however, successfully devel-

oped a new disposal facility for low-level wastes. Com-

pacts and unaffiliated states have confronted significant

barriers to developing disposal sites, including public

health and environmental concerns, antinuclear sentiment,

substantial financial requirements, political issues, and

‘‘not in my backyard’’ campaigns by citizen activists.

TRANSURANIC WASTE. Transuranic elements are

radioactive elements with an atomic number (number of

protons) greater than that of uranium (ninety-two) and

therefore beyond (‘‘trans-’’) uranium (‘‘-uranic’’) on the

periodic chart of the elements. The vast majority of trans-

uranic elements does not exist in nature, but are synthe-

sized (created) during the production of nuclear weapons.

Plutonium is an example of a transuranic element.

The federal government defines transuranic (TRU)

wastes as materials contaminated by transuranic elements

at a concentration greater than one hundred nanocuries

per gram and with half-lives greater than twenty years.

Radioactive materials with concentrations and half-lives

less than these amounts are considered LLW, even if they

contain transuranic elements.

Typical TRU wastes include protective clothing,

tools, glassware, and equipment associated with nuclear

weapons production. Until 1999 all TRU wastes were in

temporary storage at various DOE facilities around the

country. In 1999 the DOE began moving the wastes to a

permanent storage facility in southern New Mexico

called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (see below).

Geologic Repositories for Radioactive Waste

The United States has sought for years to establish

permanent storage facilities for HLW and TRU. These

wastes have historically been kept in temporary storage at

nuclear power plants and DOE facilities around the coun-

try. Scientists have focused on the use of geological

repositories (storage facilities constructed deep under-

ground) for permanent waste disposal. The ideal location

for these repositories is in ancient geological formations

that are relatively dry and not subject to earthquakes or

other stresses.

Engineers have designed barrier systems that com-

bine multiple physical barriers with chemical controls to

provide a high level of long-term containment for radio-

active waste. For example, radioactive waste can be

chemically treated for long-term storage and placed into

steel drums. The drums would be placed in a concrete

container. Many of these drum-filled concrete containers,

surrounded with special chemically treated backfill mate-

rial, would be placed in a larger concrete container deep

in the ground. The rock surrounding this large concrete

container would have low groundwater flow. The multi-

ple barriers, chemical conditions, and geologic conditions

under which the wastes are stored ensure that the wastes

dissolve slowly and pose little danger to the groundwater.

In the United States the government is focusing on

two locations for geologic repositories: the Waste Isola-

tion Pilot Plant in southeastern New Mexico for transura-

nic (defense) waste and Nevada’s Yucca Mountain for

nuclear power plant waste.

THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT. The Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) became the world’s first

deep depository for nuclear waste when it received its

first shipment on March 26, 1999. The large facility is

located in a desert region near Carlsbad, New Mexico. It

was designed for permanent storage of the nation’s trans-

uranic waste. WIPP is 655 meters (1,248 feet) below the

surface in the salt beds of the Salado Formation. The

layout is depicted in Figure 8.12.

As of June 1, 2005, the EPA states that approxi-

mately 28,000 cubic meters (990,000 cubic feet) of

TRU waste had been deposited at the WIPP facility.

The EPA estimates that nearly 110,000 cubic meters

(3.9 million cubic feet) of TRU waste in temporary

storage at DOE sites around the country is destined for

disposal at WIPP. The total amount of TRU waste that

can be deposited at WIPP is capped by the Waste Isola-

tion Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (1992) at 175,570

cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet).

As transuranic waste is transported to the WIPP, it is

tracked by satellite and moved at night when traffic is

light. It can be transported only in good weather and must

be routed around major cities.

According to the Southwest Research and Informa-

tion Center (SRIC), Carlsbad’s political and economic

leaders pursued the WIPP project during the early

1970s to bring jobs to the area. SRIC is a nonprofit

public-interest organization based in Albuquerque, New

Mexico. SRIC’s Web site says ‘‘federal officials always

found support for WIPP in Carlsbad, and usually from the

state’s United States senators and representatives.’’ A

public opinion poll conducted of state residents in 2001

by the University of New Mexico’s Institute of Public

Policy found that 59% of respondents supported keeping

the WIPP open, while only 32% thought it should be

closed down (http://www.unm.edu/~instpp/e_hold/POP_

Summer2000_12-2.pdf ).

1 14 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

Every five years the DOE must submit to the EPA a

recertification application that documents WIPP’s com-

pliance with radioactive waste disposal regulations. DOE

submitted the first such application in March 2004. It is

available for download at the WIPP Web site (http://

www.wipp.ws).

YUCCA MOUNTAIN. The centerpiece of the federal

government’s geologic disposal plan for spent nuclear

fuel and other high-level waste is the Yucca Mountain

site in Nevada. The site is approximately one hundred

miles northwest of Las Vegas on federal lands within

the Nevada Test Site in Nye County. As shown in Figure

8.13, the mountain is located in a remote desert region.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the

Secretary of Energy to investigate the site and, if it was

suitable, to recommend to the president that the site be

established. In February 2002 President George W. Bush

received such a recommendation and approved it. Despite

opposition from New Mexico’s governor, the project was

subsequently approved by the United States House of

Representatives and the United States Senate. In July

2002 President Bush signed the Yucca Mountain resolu-

tion into law.

The DOE must next submit a license application to

the NRC to receive permission to begin construction. The

DOE must satisfactorily demonstrate that the combina-

tion of the site and the repository design complies with

standards set forth by the EPA for containing radioacti-

vity within the repository. A draft application was com-

pleted in 2004 and is expected to be submitted by

December 2005. This is a full year beyond the original

schedule envisioned by the DOE for document submittal.

Development of the Yucca Mountain repository

has been plagued by legal setbacks and political

FIGURE 8.12

Air flow and access shafts

SOURCE: “This Diagram Shows Underground Orientation of the WIPP Repository 2,150 Feet Beneath the Surface,” in 2005 EPA WIPP Recertification FactSheet No. 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC, June 2005, http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/wipp/ recertification/fs1-recert.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Layout of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico

Waste storage

Panel closure

Legend

Waste disposal

area

Unmined salt deposits

Test area (No waste disposal)

App

Surficial sandDewey lake redbeds

Salado formation(continues to depth of 3,000 ft.)

Waste repository level 2,150 ft.

Rustler formation 540 ft.

850 ft.

The Environment Hazardous and Radioactive Waste 1 15

controversy. Nevada lawmakers have waged a massive

and often successful campaign to stop the project

from proceeding. Their ultimate goal is to stifle it completely.

During the early 2000s the State of Nevada filed

numerous lawsuits seeking to invalidate approval of the

Yucca Mountain project. Many of the cases were con-

solidated and heard in federal court in January 2004.

Most of the complaints were dismissed. However, the

judge ruled invalid a radiation standard set for the

repository by the EPA and instructed the agency to revise

the standard in accordance with guidance from the

National Academy of Sciences. The EPA expects to issue

a proposed new standard in late 2005.

The project suffered another setback in March 2005

when the DOE and U.S. Geological Survey released

employee e-mail messages from 1998–2000 suggesting

that some project data may have been falsified by

project scientists. The data in question relate to water

seepage and climate predictions at the site. Nevada law-

makers believe that the e-mails support their claim that

the repository will not protect nuclear waste containers

from flows of potentially corrosive groundwater. As of

July 2005, several federal and state agencies were inves-

tigating the e-mail messages and conducting hearings to

question the scientists involved.

As part of the licensing effort, the DOE is required to

develop a massive electronic database available to the

public including all DOE documents supporting the

license application. The Licensing Support Network

(LSN) is expected to contain millions of pages when it

is completed in late 2005. It is accessible at http://

www.lsnnet.gov/.

FIGURE 8.13

An aerial view of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Yucca Mountain is the proposed site for a major, long-term, nuclear waste storage facility.

(U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.)

1 16 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste The Environment

CHAPTER 9

W AT E R IS S U E S

Water is precious for many reasons. It is an

essential resource for sustaining human, animal, and

vegetative life. Agriculture is absolutely dependent on

water to produce food crops and livestock. Water is

crucial to tourism, navigation, and industry. Enor-

mous amounts are used to generate power, mine

materials, and produce goods. Water is an ingredient,

a medium, and a means of conveyance or cooling in

most industrial processes. Water supplies a vital habi-

tat for many of Earth’s creatures, from the whale to

the tadpole. There are entire ecosystems that are

water-based.

All of these competing uses put an enormous

strain on Earth’s water supply. Overall, the amount

of water on Earth remains constant, simply passing

from one stage to another in a circular pattern known

as the hydrologic cycle. Water in the atmosphere con-

denses and falls to Earth as precipitation, such as rain,

sleet, or snow. Precipitation seeps into the ground,

saturating the soil and refilling underground aquifers;

it is drawn from the soil by vegetation for growth and

returned into the air by plant leaves through the pro-

cess of transpiration; and some precipitation flows into

surface waters such as rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands,

and oceans. Moisture evaporates from surface water

back into the atmosphere to repeat the cycle. (See

Figure 9.1.)

Humans have interrupted the cycle to accommodate

the many water demands of modern life. Flowing rivers

and streams are dammed up. Groundwater and surface

water are pumped from their sources to other places.

Water is either consumed or discharged back to the

environment, usually not in the same condition. Water

quality becomes increasingly important. There are two

primary issues when it comes to water—availability and

suitability.

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water must be considered as a finite resource that has

limits and boundaries to its availability and suitability

for use.

—Wayne B. Solley, Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman

in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S.

Geological Survey, 1998

Although water covers nearly three-fourths of the

planet, the vast majority of it is saline (water that contains

at least one thousand milligrams of salt per liter of water).

It is too salty to drink or nourish crops and too corrosive

for many industrial processes. No cheap and effective

method for desalinating large amounts of ocean water

has yet to be discovered. This makes freshwater an extre-

mely valuable commodity. While the overall water sup-

ply on Earth is enormous, freshwater is not often in the

right place at the right time in the right amount to serve

all of the competing needs.

Throughout history civilizations originated and

declined based on the availability of water. Water supply

in the United States is becoming a serious problem. The

days of an unlimited bounty of water are over.

Overall Water Use in 2000

Water use in the United States is monitored and

reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in its

Estimated Use of Water in the United States, published at

five-year intervals since 1950. The latest report available

was published in 2004 and includes data through 2000.

For reporting purposes, water use in the United States

is classified as in-stream or off-stream. In-stream use

means the water is used at its source, usually a river or

stream, for example, for the production of hydroelectric

power at a dam. Off-stream use means the water is con-

veyed away from its source, although it may be returned

later.

The Environment 1 1 7

WATER USERS. The 2004 USGS report found that an

estimated 408 billion gallons of water per day were with-

drawn from surface and groundwater sources for off-

stream use in 2000. (See Table 9.1.) Of this total, 47.8%

was withdrawn for generation of thermoelectric power,

approximately 33.6% was used for irrigation, and about

10.6% went to public water supply. Together these three

uses accounted for about 92% of the total water used.

Minor uses included miscellaneous industrial

(including commercial and mining), livestock and aqua-

culture, and self-supplied domestic (from private wells).

Complete data were not available for all minor uses in

2000.

Together only three states—California, Texas, and

Florida—accounted for 25% of all off-stream water with-

drawals in 2000. Irrigation and thermoelectric power

generation were the primary users in these states.

In-stream water use for the generation of hydroelec-

tric power at dams was not reported by USGS for 2000

but totaled 3.16 trillion gallons of water per day in the

1995 report. According to the U.S. Department of Energy

FIGURE 9.1

The water cycle

SOURCE: “The Water Cycle,” in National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,June 2000

Snow

Snowmeltrunoff

Percolation

Groundwater

Rain

Transpiration

Evaporation

Evaporation

LakeGround waterdischarge

Stream flow

Nonperennialheadwaters

Runoff

EstuaryOcean

Snow

Rainfallrunoff

Transpiration

Ground waterdischarge

Ground waterrecharge

Coastalwetlands

Transpiration

Freshwaterwetlands

Tributary

Transpiration

1 18 Water Issues The Environment

(DOE), there are approximately two thousand dams with

hydroelectric generating capacity in the United States.

Most are located in the Pacific Coast states of California,

Oregon, and Washington. In-stream water usage is high-

est at dams along the Columbia River in the Pacific

Northwest and along the Niagara and St. Lawrence River

systems in New York.

FRESHWATER AND SALINE. The USGS report found

that freshwater accounted for 345.3 billion gallons per

day, or 85% of total off-stream water withdrawals in

2000. Freshwater is used exclusively for public water

supply, domestic self-supply (private wells), irrigation,

livestock watering, and aquaculture. It is also an impor-

tant source for thermoelectric power plants, industry, and

mining. Most freshwater is obtained from surface water

sources (rivers and lakes), as shown in Figure 9.2.

Irrigation and thermoelectric power plants are the

largest users of off-stream freshwater, consuming 34%

and 48% respectively. However, the vast majority

(around 91%) of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric

power generation is used for cooling purposes and then

discharged, meaning the actual amount of water con-

sumed is much smaller. The United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that approximately 60%

of the water withdrawn for irrigation purposes is con-

sumed. This makes irrigation the largest consumer of

freshwater.

Nearly all (98%) of the saline water used in 2000

came from surface water sources. Far less saline water

than freshwater was used in 2000. Only 15% of all water

used was saline. Thermoelectric power plants are the

largest user of saline water. They accounted for 96% of

all saline water use in 2000. Again, most of this water

was used and returned to the environment. Industry and

mining each accounted for 2% of saline water use. Saline

water is unsuitable for drinking and other domestic pur-

poses, irrigation, aquaculture, or livestock watering.

In 2000 California and Texas accounted for 18% of

all off-stream freshwater use. California and Florida

accounted for 40% of all saline water use.

SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER. The USGS

estimates that 79% of all off-stream water used in 2000

was from surface water. The other 21% was from ground-

water. Figure 9.3 shows the breakdown of surface water

users in 2000. Thermoelectric power plants, irrigation,

and public water supply were the primary users. Figure

9.4 shows the user breakdown for groundwater in 2000.

Irrigation and public supply were the primary users.

TABLE 9.1

Trends in estimated water use, 1950–2000

PercentagechangeYear

1950a 1955b 1960c 1965d 1970d 1975c 1980c 1985c 1990c 1995c 2000c 1995–2000

Population, in millions 150.7 164.0 179.3 193.8 205.9 216.4 229.6 242.4 252.3 267.1 285.3 �7

Offstream use:

Total withdrawals 180 240 270 310 370 420 440 399 408 402 408 �2Public supply 14 17 21 24 27 29 34 36.5 38.5 40.2 43.3 �8

Rural domestic and livestock:Self-supplied domestic 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.32 3.39 3.39 3.59 �6Livestock and aquaculture 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 4.47e 4.50 5.49 f —

Irrigation 89 110 110 120 130 140 150 137 137 134 137 �2Industrial:

Thermoelectric power use 40 72 100 130 170 200 210 187 195 190 195 �3Other industrial use 37 39 38 46 47 45 45 30.5 29.9 29.1 g —

Source of water:

Ground:Fresh 34 47 50 60 68 82 83 73.2 79.4 76.4 83.3 �9Saline h 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.65 1.22 1.11 1.26 �14

Surface:Fresh 140 180 190 210 250 260 290 265 259 264 262 �1Saline 10 18 31 43 53 69 71 59.6 68.2 59.7 61 �2

a48 states and District of Columbia, and Hawaii.b48 states and District of Columbia.c50 states and District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.d50 states and District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.eFrom 1985 to present this category includes water use for fish farms.fData not available for all states; partial total was 5.46.gCommercial use not available; industrial and mining use totaled 23.2.hData not available.

SOURCE: Susan S. Hutson, Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, “Table 14. Trends in Estimated WaterUse in the United States, 1950–2000,” in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (Circular 1268), U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 2004, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Water Issues 1 19

Water Use Trends (1950–2000)

According to the USGS, total off-stream water with-

drawals in the United States climbed steadily from 1950

to 1980, declined through 1985, and have remained rela-

tively stable since then.

Table 9.1 shows trends in U.S. population and off-

stream water withdrawals for the period 1950–2000. The

population increased by 89% over this time period, while

water withdrawn increased by 127%. In 1950 the per

capita (per person) off-stream water withdrawal was

around twelve hundred gallons per day. This value

climbed steadily over the years, reaching a peak in

1975 of 1,940 gallons per day per person. Per capita use

has since declined and was at 1,430 gallons per day per

person in 2000.

Historically, freshwater has accounted for 85–95% of

all water used. The percentage was at the high end during

the 1950s and has gradually decreased, leveling off

around 85% from 1980 through 2000. The nation’s saline

water withdrawals have consistently been 98–99% from

surface water sources.

Although in-stream water use for hydroelectric

power is not covered in the 2000 USGS report, the

1995 report notes that in-stream withdrawals declined

4% between 1990 and 1995, from 3,290 to 3,160 billion

gallons per day.

The Freshwater Supply

Most great civilizations began and flourished on the

banks of lakes and rivers. Throughout human history

societies have depended on these surface water resources

for food, drinking water, transportation, commerce,

power, and recreation.

The withdrawal of surface water varies greatly

depending on its location. In New England, for example,

where rainfall is plentiful, less than 1% of the annual

renewable water supply is used. In contrast, almost the

entire annual supply is consumed in the area of the arid

Colorado River Basin and the Rio Grande Valley.

The availability of fresh water depends on natural

and anthropogenic (human-caused) factors. Two major

anthropogenic factors are dams and land degradation.

DAMS—UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES. Dams have

changed the natural water cycle. The huge dams built

in the United States just before and after World War II

substantially changed the natural flow of rivers. By

reducing the amount of water available downstream and

FIGURE 9.2

Trends in population and use of groundwater and surface water, 1950–2000

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

With

draw

als,

in b

illio

n ga

llons

per

day

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Popu

latio

n, in

mill

ions

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

SOURCE: Susan S. Hutson, Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, “Figure 13. Trends in Population and Freshwater Withdrawals by Source, 1950–2000,” in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (Circular 1268), U.S. Department of theInterior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 2004, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

Groundwater Surface water Total Population

120 Water Issues The Environment

slowing stream flow, a dam not only affects a river but

the river’s entire ecological system.

Some one-hundred thousand dams regulate America’s

rivers and creeks. Large dams provide a source of energy

generation; flood control; irrigation; recreation for plea-

sure boaters, skiers, and anglers; and locks for the passage

of barges and commercial shipping vessels. But dams alter

rivers as well as the land abutting them, the water bodies

they join, and the aquatic life they contain. All this results

in profound changes in water systems and the ecosystems

they support.

Many regions have fallen into a zero-sum game in

which increasing the water supply to one user means

taking it away from another. More water devoted to

human activities means serious and potentially irreversi-

ble harm to natural systems. Many experts believe that

the manipulation of river systems is wreaking havoc on

the aquatic environment and its biological diversity. Hun-

dreds of species or subspecies of fish are threatened or

endangered because of habitat destruction. When rivers

are dammed and water flow is stopped or reduced, wet-

lands dry up, species die, and nutrient loads carried by

rivers into the sea are altered, with many negative con-

sequences. Some rivers, including the large Colorado

River, no longer reach the sea at all except in years of

very high precipitation.

Concern for damage to the environment led Congress

to pass the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The

act directed the secretary of state to protect the Grand

Canyon basin and its life forms and to monitor the effects

of damming the Colorado River. Out of concern for any

damage possibly being done to the canyon, for a two-

week period in 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

conducted a controlled flood of the canyon by releasing

water from the Glen Canyon Dam (up-canyon). The

flooding created dozens of new beaches in the Grand

Canyon, cleared out many harmful nonnative species,

and invigorated fish habitats. The Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) reported that the release of water was

significant in that ‘‘it was the first time in [U.S.] history

that the economic agenda of a large water project was put

aside purely for the good of the ecological resources

downstream.’’

LAND DEGRADATION IS DEVASTATING. Deforestation

and overgrazing destroy vegetation that plays a vital role

in controlling erosion. Erosion leads to soil runoff into

rivers and streams, causing disruption of stream flow.

Destruction of vegetation reduces the amount of water

FIGURE 9.4

Estimated use of groundwater in 2000

Note: Total may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: Adapted from Susan S. Hutson, Nancy L. Barber, Joan F.Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin,“Table 4. Ground-Water Withdrawals by Water-Use Category, 2000,” in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (Circular 1268),U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA,April 2004, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

Thermoelectricpower0.5%Industrial

4%

Mining2%

Aquaculture1%

Livestock1%

Public supply20%

Domestic4%

Irrigation68%

FIGURE 9.3

Estimated use of surface water in 2000

Note: Total may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Irrigation 25%

Public supply

8%

Thermoelectric power 61%

Industrial 5%

Aquaculture 0.1%

Livestock 0.02%

Mining 0.5%

Domestic 0.2%

SOURCE: Adapted from Susan S. Hutson, Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, “Table 3. Surface-Water Withdrawals by Water-Use Category, 2000,” in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (Circular 1268),U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 2004, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Water Issues 121

released into the atmosphere by transpiration, and less

water in the atmosphere can mean less rainfall, which

can, in turn, lead to desertification (transformation to

desert) of once-fertile regions.

The most severe form of land degradation—deserti-

fication—is most acute in arid regions. Where land

degradation has begun, the hydrologic cycle is disrupted,

leaving water tables depleted and causing the sinking and

drying of the land.

Groundwater

Groundwater is water that fills pores or cracks in

subsurface rocks. When rain falls or snow melts on the

Earth’s surface, water may run off into lower land areas or

lakes and streams. Some is caught and diverted for human

use. What is left absorbs into the soil where it can be used

by vegetation; seeps into deeper layers of soil and rock; or

evaporates back into the atmosphere. (See Figure 9.5.)

An aquifer is an underground formation that contains

enough water to yield significant amounts when a well is

sunk. Aquifers vary from a few feet thick to tens or

hundreds of feet thick. They can be located just below

the Earth’s surface or thousands of feet beneath it, and

one aquifer may be only a part of a large system of

aquifers that feed into one another. They can cover a

few acres of land or many thousands of square miles.

Because runoff water can easily seep down to the water

table, aquifers are susceptible to contamination.

Modern technological developments allow massive

quantities of water to be pumped out of the ground. When

large amounts of water are removed from the ground,

underground aquifers can become depleted much more

quickly than they can naturally be replenished. On almost

every continent many major aquifers are being drained

faster than their natural rate of recharge. Depletion is most

severe in India, China, the United States, North Africa, and

the Middle East. In some areas this has led to the subsi-

dence, or sinking, of the ground above major aquifers.

Removal of groundwater also disturbs the natural filtering

process that occurs as water travels through rocks and sand.

Focus on Irrigation

In 2000 irrigation accounted for 40% of all the fresh-

water withdrawn that year. It was by far the largest single

user of groundwater and second-highest user of surface

water (behind thermoelectric power plants). Because irri-

gation consumes more withdrawn water than do thermo-

electric power plants, irrigation is actually the largest

consumer of both surface water and groundwater.

Large-scale irrigation is concentrated in the Midwes-

tern farm belt, southern Florida, the fertile valleys of

California, and along the Mississippi River. Figure 9.6

shows total irrigation withdrawals by state. California

and Idaho withdrew fifteen to thirty-one billion gallons

of water per day for irrigation during 2000. Many states

west of the Mississippi River withdrew at least one bil-

lion gallons per day for irrigation.

A Water Crisis Looming in the West?

In much of the American West millions of acres of

profitable land overlie a shallow and impermeable clay

layer, the residual bottom of an ancient sea, that is some-

times only a few feet below the Earth’s surface. During the

irrigation season, temperatures in much of the region fluc-

tuate between 90 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The good

water evaporates and polluted and saline water seep down-

ward. Very little of this water seeps through the clay. As

the water supplies are replenished with rainfall, the water

table—now high in concentrations of salts and pollu-

tants—rises back up through the root zone (the area con-

taining plant roots), soaking the land and killing crops. (In

general, high salt concentrations obstruct germination and

impede the absorption of nutrients by plants.)

Many of the fastest-growing states, in terms of popu-

lation and economy, are in the West. This is expected to

put enormous pressure on natural resources, including

water, and to force huge changes in water consumption

practices and prices.

LINGERING DROUGHT. The natural hydrologic

cycle, already under pressure by such human uses as

irrigation, is also under strain from years of drought.

Although there is no set definition of what constitutes a

drought, it is commonly used to describe a period of at

least several months in which precipitation is signifi-

cantly less than that normally expected based on histor-

FIGURE 9.5

Runoff

Groundwater flowto lakes and streams

Lake

Well

TranspirationEvaporation

Precipitation

Runoff

Infiltration

Percolation

Water tableUnsaturatedzone

Saturatedzone

Groundwater

Groundwater flow

Groundwater in the hydrologic cycle

SOURCE: “Groundwater in the Hydrologic Cycle,” in Guide for IndustrialWaste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSolid Waste, Washington, DC, June 1999

122 Water Issues The Environment

ical records. During the 1930s the so-called ‘‘Dust

Bowl’’ drought engulfed up to 70% of the country.

In 2002 several years of dry weather led to conditions

of moderate to extreme drought across more than 50% of

the contiguous United States, primarily in the West.

Although precipitation improved over the next few years,

drought conditions persisted in many western states. An

unusually wet winter in 2004–05 helped ease conditions,

particularly in California and the Southwest.

WATER 2025. Although drought is a serious concern

in the West, it is not the only worry related to water

resources. In 2001 the Bush administration asked the

BOR to assess existing water supplies across the West

and identify areas likely to experience severe water

shortages within the coming decades. The result was a

comprehensive report published in May 2003 titled Water

2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West.

The report reviews the factors aggravating the

water problems in the West, mainly booming popula-

tion growth in the most arid regions, aging and poorly

maintained water supply infrastructure, and continuing

drought. However, the report notes that drought is not

the chief cause of the region’s water woes. It provides

this stark assessment: ‘‘Today, in some areas of the

West, existing water supplies are, or will be, inade-

quate to meet the water demands of people, cities,

farms, and the environment even under normal water

supply conditions.’’

FIGURE 9.6

Irrigation withdrawals by state, 2000

MT

OR

AK

HI

AZ

CO

ND

MN

ME

SD

NE

OK

TX

WI

WA

ID

WY

NV

CAUT

NM

KS MO

AR

LA

MS GA

FL

IA

IL

MI

INOH

PA

NY

VTNH

WVVA

NC

KY

TN

AL

SC

MD

DE

NJ

CTRI

MA

1,000 to 5,000 5,000 to 15,000 15,000 to 31,0000 to 200 200 to 1,000

Explanation Water withdrawals, in million gallons per day

U.S. Virgin Islands

Puerto Rico

West-East division

for this report

SOURCE: Susan S. Hutson, Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, “Figure 7. Irrigation Withdrawals by Source and State, 2000,” in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (Circular 1268), U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 2004, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/ (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Water Issues 123

The Water 2025 program proposes the following

approaches to solving the West’s looming water crises:

• Modernizing the existing water supply infrastructure

• Employing water conservation measures to more effi-

ciently use existing water supplies

• Establishing collaborative approaches and a market-

based transfer system to minimize conflicts between

water users

• Conducting research in promising water technology

treatment options, such as desalination

Each year the BOR provides grant money to water

conservation projects in western states. Grants totaled $4

million in 2004 and $10 million in 2005. The agency has

asked for $30 million in the fiscal year 2006 federal

budget to fund the initiatives of the Water 2025 program.

WATER SUITABILITY

Water is a fundamental need in every society.

Families use water for drinking, cooking, and cleaning.

Industry needs it to make chemicals, prepare paper, and

clean factories and equipment. Cities use water to fight

fires, clean streets, and fill public swimming pools. Farm-

ers water their livestock, clean barns, and irrigate crops.

Hydroelectric power stations use water to drive genera-

tors, while thermonuclear power stations need it for cool-

ing. Water quality is important to all users, as differing

levels of quality are required for different uses. While

some industrial users can tolerate water containing high

levels of contaminants, drinking water requirements are

extremely strict.

Clean Water Act

On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland,

Ohio, burst into flames, the result of oil and debris that

had accumulated on the river’s surface. This episode

thrust the problem of water pollution into the public

consciousness. Many people became aware—and

wary—of the nation’s polluted waters, and in 1972

Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(PL 92–500), commonly known as the Clean Water Act.

The objective of the Clean Water Act was to ‘‘restore

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integ-

rity of the nation’s waters.’’ It called for ending the

discharge of all pollutants into the navigable waters of

the United States and to achieve ‘‘wherever possible,

water quality which provides for the protection and pro-

pagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for

recreation in and on the water.’’ The second provision

was that waters be restored to ‘‘fishable/swimmable’’

condition.

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires

states to assess the condition of their waters and report

the extent to which the waters support the basic goals of

the Clean Water Act and state water quality standards.

Water quality standards are designed to protect desig-

nated uses (such as recreation, protection and propaga-

tion of aquatic life, fish consumption, and drinking

water supply) by setting criteria (for example, chemical-

specific limits on discharges) and preventing any waters

that do meet standards from deteriorating from their

current condition.

Each state reports to the EPA data indicating (1) the

water quality of all navigable waters in the state, (2) the

extent to which the waters provide for the protection and

propagation of marine animals and allow recreation in

and on the water, (3) the extent to which pollution has

been eliminated or is under control, and (4) the sources

and causes of the pollution. The act stipulates that the

states must submit this information to the EPA on a

biennial basis (every two years). Under Section 303(d)

of the Clean Water Act, states are required to submit to

the EPA a separate list of waters considered impaired and

requiring pollution controls.

National Water Quality Database

Prior to 2002 the EPA issued a biennial report called

the National Water Quality Inventory that summarized

the state reports required under Section 305(b) of the

Clean Water Act. In 2002 the EPA began electronic

collection of state water quality data and urged states to

combine data required under Sections 305(b) and 303(d).

This information has been compiled into the 2002

National Water Quality Assessment Database, which is

available on the EPA Web site. The interactive database

allows users to access water quality data for individual

states. As of June 2005 not all data were included for all

states. The EPA notes that the database is a work in

progress and will take some time to become complete

as states adjust to the new reporting requirements.

The EPA also cautions against using state data to

form conclusions about national trends in water quality.

This is because the states use differing monitoring and

assessment methods.

In general the states assess surface water quality in

rivers and streams, lakes, ocean shoreline, and estuaries.

Estuaries are areas where ocean and freshwater come

together. Due to the tremendous resources required to

assess all water bodies, only a small portion of each water

body type is actually assessed for each reporting period.

For example, the final 2000 report presented information

on the quality of only 19% of river and stream miles,

43% of lake acres (92% of Great Lakes shoreline), 36%

of estuaries, and 5% of ocean shoreline.

Water bodies meeting applicable water quality stan-

dards for criteria and designated uses are rated ‘‘good.’’

Those water bodies meeting water quality standards but

124 Water Issues The Environment

expected to degrade in the near future are rated ‘‘good,

but threatened.’’ Water bodies that do not meet water

quality standards are rated ‘‘impaired.’’

In 2000 only slightly more than half of the assessed

rivers and streams were rated good. Slightly less than half

of assessed lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and estuaries were

rated good. None of the Great Lakes shoreline assessed

was found to be in good and unthreatened condition. In

fact, 78% of the assessed Great Lakes shorelines were

rated impaired and the remaining 22% were threatened.

This is especially significant, because nearly all (92%) of

the shorelines were assessed. By contrast, only 14% of

ocean shoreline was rated impaired. However, only a tiny

percentage (5%) of it was assessed.

The primary pollutants blamed for impairment of

assessed rivers, lakes, and estuaries were siltation (accu-

mulation of sediment), nutrients, metals, pesticides, oxy-

gen-depleting substances, and habitat alterations.

The three leading pollutants blamed for ocean shore-

line impairment were pathogens (bacteria), oxygen-

depleting substances, and turbidity (high particle content

in the water, causing muddy or cloudy appearance). The

sources of those contaminants were urban runoff/storm

sewers, nonpoint (having no specific point of release)

sources, and land disposal.

For a better picture of the nation’s overall water

quality the EPA recommends ‘‘probability-based’’ stu-

dies conducted at random sites using nationally consis-

tent methods and designs. Two such studies are the

National Coastal Condition Report II and the Wadeable

Streams Assessment.

In December 2004 the EPA published ‘‘National

Coastal Condition: Report II.’’ It presents data from

assessments of 100% of the estuaries in the contiguous

United States and Puerto Rico. The estuary waters were

assessed for five parameters: water quality, sediment

quality, benthic community quality, coastal habitat loss,

and fish tissue contamination. The data were collected

between 1997 and 2000. The conclusions of the report

are summarized in the EPA report, located at http://

www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/Exec_summ.pdf.

Overall the nation’s coastal waters were rated as fair,

the same as in the first report issued in 2001.

As of June 2005 the Wadeable Streams Assessment

was an ongoing study designed to assess stream water

quality at more than one thousand randomly selected sites

across the country. A final report is expected in Decem-

ber 2005.

DO THE NATION’S SURFACE WATERS MEET THE

FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE GOAL? A goal of the Clean

Water Act was to return U.S. waters to a fishable/swim-

mable condition. Meeting the fishable goal means provid-

ing a level of water quality that protects and promotes

the population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. As a result

of polluted waters, fish often become contaminated.

When humans eat these fish, they can suffer health

effects from the toxins. In August 2004 the EPA pub-

lished its latest ‘‘National Listing of Fish Advisories.’’

The report noted that 275 new fish advisories were

issued in 2003, bringing the total number of advisories

to 3,089. (See Figure 9.7.) Most of the advisories (76%)

were issued due to mercury contamination. Other pri-

mary contaminants include polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs), chlordane, dioxins, and DDT.

A total of 101,818 lakes (excluding the Great Lakes)

were under advisory in 2003, representing 35% of the

nation’s total lake acreage. There were 846,310 miles of

rivers under advisory in 2003, representing 24% of the

country’s total river miles. In addition, 100% of the Great

Lakes and their connecting waters and almost 71% of

U.S. coastal waters of the forty-eight contiguous states

were under advisory in 2003.

In 2000 Congress passed the Beaches Environmental

Assessment and Coastal Health Act. It requires the EPA

to collect information from coastal states regarding beach

closings due to environmental problems. Prior to 2004

the EPA compiled this information into an annual report

called BEACH Watch. In 2004 the states began electronic

submission of the data, which were compiled into a

database called BEACON (Beach Advisory and Closing

Online Notification) available on the EPA Web site at

http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.main.

In 2004 data were collected on more than thirty-four

hundred beaches. The EPA reports that one thousand of

these beaches were closed or issued warnings to swim-

mers due to high bacteria levels.

FOCUS ON WATER POLLUTION SOURCES. The main

reason that a body of water cannot support its designated

uses is that it has become polluted. There are a vast

number of pollutants that can make water ‘‘impaired,’’

but in order to control a specific pollutant, it is necessary

to find out where it is coming from. Although there are

many ways in which contaminants can enter waterways,

sources of pollution are generally categorized as point

sources and nonpoint sources.

Point sources are those that disperse pollutants from

a specific source or area, such as a sewage drain or an

industrial discharge pipe. (See Figure 9.8.) Pollutants

commonly discharged from point sources include bac-

teria (from wastewater treatment plants and sewer over-

flow), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals from industrial

plants. Point sources are regulated under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Any

facility using point sources to discharge to receiving

waters must obtain an NPDES permit for them.

The Environment Water Issues 125

Nonpoint sources are those that are spread out over

a large area and have no specific outlet or discharge point.

These include agricultural and urban runoff, runoff from

mining and construction sites, and accidental or deliberate

spills. Agricultural runoff is primarily associated with

nutrients from fertilizers, pathogens from animal waste

operations, and pesticides. Urban runoff can contain a

variety of contaminants, including pesticides, fertilizers,

chemicals and metals, oil and grease, sediment, salts, and

atmospheric deposits. The EPA estimates that as much as

65% of surface water pollutants come from nonpoint

sources. These sources are much more difficult to regulate

than point sources and may require a new approach to

water protection.

Groundwater Quality

The EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory for 2000

reported that thirty-nine states assessed water quality in aqui-

fers in their states and identified sources of contamination. In

general, groundwater quality in the nation was good. The

EPA reports that groundwater can support its many different

uses but is potentially threatened by a variety of sources. The

leading sources were underground storage tanks containing

toxic chemicals, septic systems, landfills, spills, fertilizers,

large industrial facilities, and hazardous waste sites.

The Federal Role in Protecting Groundwater

Parts of several federal laws help to protect ground-

water. The 1972 Clean Water Act provides guidance and

FIGURE 9.7

SOURCE: “Figure 1. Total Number of Fish Consumption Advisories—2003,” in The National Listing of Fish Advisories: Fact Sheet, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, September 21, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/factsheet.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Notes: A statewide advisory is issued to warn the public of the potential for widespread contamination of specific species in certain types of waterbodies. State advisory data should not be used for characterizing geographic distribution of chemical contaminants or for making interstate comparisons. AS is American Samoa; GU is Guam; VI is Virgin Islands; PR is Puerto Rico.

Fish consumption advisories, 2003

2003 total�3,089

AS�1

GU�0

VI�0

PR�0

Statewide rivers and lakes advisory included in count

Statewide advisory for marine fish included in count

Advisories exist for specific waterbodies only

Statewide lakes only advisory included in count

Statewide rivers only advisory included in count

Statewide coastal advisory included in count

Statewide advisory for marine fish included in count

NH�9MA�122

CT�19

NJ�112

RI�9

DE�21

MD�20

DC�1

29

18

16

2

4010

41

5 1,114

1358

1426

30

1

44

22

65 243 81

11

16

16

137

7

20

116

106

19

67

171

6

3

12

4

0

0

2

26

10

VT�12

4

66

126 Water Issues The Environment

money to the states to help develop groundwater pro-

grams. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA;

PL 93–523) and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amend-

ments of 1996 (PL 104–182) require communities to test

their water to make sure it is safe and help communities

finance projects needed to comply with SDWA regula-

tions. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act includes many programs designed to clean up hazar-

dous waste, landfills, and underground storage tanks.

New storage tanks must be made of strong plastics that

will not rust or leak contaminants into the water table.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-

pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96–510) and the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

(PL 99–499; PL 99–563; and PL 100–202) require the

cleanup of hazardous wastes that can seep into the

groundwater. These two laws also require that cities and

industry build better-managed and better-constructed gar-

bage dumps and landfills for hazardous materials so that

groundwater will not be polluted in the future.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (61 Stat 163; amended 1996, PL 100–532) regulates

dangerous chemicals used on farms (http://www.epa.gov/

region5/defs/html/fifra.htm). The act requires the EPA to

register the pesticides farmers use against insects, rats,

mice, and so on. If the EPA thinks the pesticides might be

dangerous to the groundwater, it can refuse to register them.

THE STATUS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. Both poli-

tical conservatives and environmentalists credit the Clean

Water Act with reversing, in a single generation, what

had been a decline in the health of the nation’s water

FIGURE 9.8

Examples of point source pollution are indicated on the left side of the river.

Examples of nonpoint source pollution are indicated on the right side of the river.

Power plant

Wastewater treatment plant

River

Factory

Tributaries

Airborne pollution

Town

Boating

Crop agriculture

Roads

Forestry

Examples of point and nonpoint sources of pollution

SOURCE: “Figure 3. Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution,” in Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, March 2000

Animal agriculture

The Environment Water Issues 127

at the federal, state, and local level. The EPA actively

encourages the participation of private environmental and

conservation groups in the watershed approach. In 2002

the EPA began a grant program to allocate funds to

community-based programs that support watershed mon-

itoring and management techniques. As of early 2005

more than $30 million in grants had been awarded.

The EPA Web site includes a program called Adopt

Your Watershed. It features an online database of infor-

mation and data available to the public for each of the

nation’s watersheds. The database identifies thousands of

local and regional groups that engage in activities to

further watershed protection and improvement.

OCEAN PROTECTION

Throughout history humans have used the oceans

virtually as they pleased. Ocean waters have long served

as highways and harvest grounds. Now, however, human-

kind is at a threshold. Marine debris (garbage created by

humans) is a problem of global proportions and is extre-

mely evident in countries like the United States, where

there is extensive recreational and commercial use of

coastal waterways.

International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution from Ships

Established in 1973, the International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships regulates numer-

ous materials that are dumped at sea. The international

treaty has been in effect in the United States only since its

ratification in 1998. Although eighty-three countries have

ratified the treaty, they have not necessarily complied, as

evidenced by the current level of marine debris.

Ocean Dumping Act

Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act in 1972 (PL 92–532) to regulate

intentional ocean disposal of materials and to authorize

research. Title 1 of the act, known as the Ocean Dumping

Act, contains permit and enforcement provisions for

ocean dumping. Four federal agencies have authority

under the act—the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-

neers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Title 1 prohibits all

ocean dumping, except that allowed by permits, in any

ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction by any U.S. vessel

or by any vessel sailing from a U.S. port. The act bans

dumping of radiological, chemical, and biological war-

fare agents, high-level radioactive waste, and medical

wastes. In 1997 Congress amended the act to ban dump-

ing of municipal sewage sludge and industrial waste.

The act authorizes the EPA to assess civil penalties

of up to $50,000 for each violation, as well as criminal

penalties (seizure and forfeiture of vessels). For dumping

of medical wastes the act authorizes civil penalties of up

to $125,000, criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and

five years in prison, or both.

In July 1999 the world’s second-largest cruise line

pleaded guilty in federal court to criminal charges of

dumping oil and hazardous chemicals in U.S. waters

and lying about it to the Coast Guard. Royal Caribbean

agreed to pay a record $18-million fine, the largest ever

paid by a cruise line for polluting waters, in addition to

the $9 million in criminal fines the company agreed to

pay in a previous plea agreement. Six other cruise lines

have pleaded guilty to illegal waste dumping since 1993

and have paid fines ranging up to $1 million. The cases

have focused attention on the difficulties of regulating the

fast-growing cruise line industry in which most major

ships sailing out of U.S. ports are registered in foreign

countries.

Oil Pollution Act

In 1989 the oil freighter Exxon Valdez ran into a reef

in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than

eleven million gallons of oil into one of the richest and

most ecologically pristine areas in North America. An oil

slick the size of Rhode Island killed wildlife and marine

species. A $5-billion damage penalty was levied against

Exxon, whose ship captain was found to be at fault in the

wreck.

In response to the Valdez oil spill, Congress passed

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101–380) that went

into effect in 1993. The law requires companies involved

in storing and transporting petroleum to have standby

plans for cleaning up oil spills on land or in water. Under

the act a company that does not adequately take care of a

spill is vulnerable to almost unlimited litigation and

expense. The law makes the Coast Guard responsible

for approving cleanup plans and procedures for coastal

and seaport oil spills, while the EPA oversees cleanups

on land and in inland waterways. The law also requires

that oil tankers be built with double hulls to better secure

the oil in the event of a hull breach.

DRINKING WATER

Drinking Water Legislation

Almost any legislation concerning water affects

drinking water, either directly or indirectly. The follow-

ing pieces of legislation are aimed specifically at provid-

ing safe drinking water for the nation’s residents.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 1974. The SDWA

mandated that the EPA establish and enforce minimum

national drinking water standards for all public water

systems—community and noncommunity—in the United

States. The law also required the EPA to develop guide-

lines for water treatment and to set testing, monitoring,

and reporting requirements.

The Environment Water Issues 129

To address pollution of surface water supplies to

public systems, the EPA established a permit system

requiring any facility that discharges contaminants

directly into surface waters (lakes and rivers) to apply

for a permit to discharge a set amount of materials—and

that amount only. It also created groundwater regulations

to govern underground injection of wastes.

Congress intended that, after the EPA had set regu-

latory standards, each state or U.S. territory would run its

own drinking water program. The EPA established the

Primary Drinking Water Standards by setting maximum

containment levels (MCLs) for contaminants known to be

detrimental to human health. All public water systems in

the United States are required to meet primary standards.

Secondary standards cover non-health-threatening

aspects of drinking water such as odor, taste, staining

properties, and color. Secondary standards are recom-

mended but not required.

1986 AMENDMENTS TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER

ACT. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA required that

the EPA set MCLs for an additional fifty-three contami-

nants by June 1989, twenty-five more by 1991, and

twenty-five every three years thereafter. The amendments

also required the EPA to issue a maximum contaminant

level goal (MCLG) along with each MCL. An MCLG is

a health goal equal to the maximum level of a pollutant

not expected to cause any health problems over a lifetime

of exposure. The EPA is mandated by law to set MCLs

as close to MCLGs as technology and economics will

permit.

The 1986 amendments banned the use of lead pipe

and lead solder in new public drinking water systems and

in the repair of existing systems. In addition, the EPA had

to specify criteria for filtration of surface water supplies

and to set standards for disinfection of all surface and

groundwater supplies. The EPA was required to take

enforcement action, including filing civil suits against

violators of drinking water standards, even in states

granted primacy if those states did not adequately enforce

regulations. Violators became subject to fines up to

$25,000 daily until violations were corrected.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT OF 1987. Section 304

(1) of the revised Clean Water Act of 1987 (PL 100–4)

determines the state of the nation’s water quality and

reviews the effectiveness of the EPA’s regulatory pro-

grams designed to protect and improve that water quality.

Section 308—known as the Water Quality Control Act—

requires that the administrator of the EPA report annually

to Congress on the effectiveness of the water quality

improvement program.

The main purpose of the Water Quality Control Act

is to identify water sources that need to be brought up

to minimum standards and to establish more stringent

controls where needed. States are now required to

develop lists of contaminated waters as well as lists of

the sources and amounts of pollutants causing toxic

problems. In addition, each state is required to develop

‘‘individual control strategies’’ for dealing with these

pollutants.

LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT OF 1988. The

Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 (PL 100–572)

strengthened the controls on lead contamination set out in

the 1986 amendments to the SDWA. It requires the EPA

to provide guidance to states and localities in testing for

and remedying lead contamination in drinking water in

schools and day care centers. The act also contains

requirements for the testing, recall, repair, and/or repla-

cement of water coolers with lead-lined storage tanks or

parts containing lead. It attaches civil and criminal penal-

ties to the manufacture and sale of water coolers contain-

ing lead.

The ban on lead states that plumbing must be lead-

free. In addition, each public water system must iden-

tify and notify anyone whose drinking water may be

contaminated with lead, and the states must enforce

the lead ban through plumbing codes and the public-

notice requirement. The federal government gave the

EPA the power to enforce the lead ban law by author-

izing the agency to withhold up to 5% of federal grant

funds to any state that does not comply with the new

rulings.

REINVENTING DRINKING WATER LAW—1996

AMENDMENTS TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER

ACT. In 1996 Congress passed a number of significant

amendments (PL 104–182) to the SDWA. The law chan-

ged the relationship between the federal government and

the states in administering drinking water programs, giv-

ing states greater flexibility and more responsibility.

The centerpiece of the law is the State Revolving

Fund (SRF), a mechanism for providing low-cost finan-

cial aid to local water systems to build the treatment

plants necessary to meet state and federal drinking water

standards. The law also requires states to train and

certify operators of drinking water systems. If they do

not, states risk losing up to 20% of their federal grants.

The law requires states to approve the operation of any

new water supply system, making sure it complies with

the technical, managerial, and financial requirements.

The 1996 SDWA gives the EPA discretion in regulating

only those contaminants that may be harmful to health,

and it requires the EPA to select at least five contami-

nants every five years for consideration for new stan-

dards. A further change is that the EPA, when proposing

a regulation, now must determine—and publish—

whether or not the benefits of a new standard justify

the costs.

130 Water Issues The Environment

Furthermore, the law affirms Americans’ ‘‘right to

know’’ the quality of their drinking water and mandates

notification. Water suppliers must promptly (within

twenty-four hours) alert consumers if water becomes con-

taminated by something that can cause illness and must

advise as to what precautions can be taken. In 1998 states

began to compile information about individual systems,

which the EPA now summarizes in an annual compliance

report. As of October 1999 water systems have been

required to make that data available to the public. Large

suppliers have to mail their annual safety reports to custo-

mers, while smaller systems can post the reports in a

central location or publish it in a local newspaper. (Infor-

mation on individual water systems is available on the

EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov.)

In 1996 Congress directed the EPA to issue a new

standard for arsenic in drinking water by January 1, 2001.

The existing standard at that time was fifty parts per

billion (ppb). The EPA proposed a standard of five ppb

in June 2000. However, this was too late to resolve

scientific and public debate about the new standard in

time to meet the January 1 deadline, so Congress

extended the deadline. A new standard of ten ppb became

effective in February 2002, but public water systems

were given until January 2006 to meet it.

Sources of Drinking Water—Publicand Private Supply

According to the EPA, there were 159,796 public

water supply systems in operation in 2004, serving nearly

297 million people. (See Table 9.2.) These included

systems that served homes, businesses, schools, hospitals,

and recreational parks. Those who did not get their water

from a public system were for the most part in rural areas

and got their water from private wells. Although most

systems obtain their water from groundwater, most peo-

ple receive drinking water from surface water sources.

This is because a relatively small number of public sys-

tems served large metropolitan areas.

The EPA and state health or environmental depart-

ments regulate public water supplies. Public supplies are

required to ensure that the water meets certain govern-

ment-defined health standards. The SDWA governs this

regulation. The law mandates that all public suppliers test

their water on a regular basis to check for the existence of

contaminants and treat their water supplies constantly to

take out or reduce certain pollutants to levels that will not

harm human health.

Private water supplies, usually wells, are not regu-

lated under the SDWA. System owners are solely respon-

sible for the quality of the water provided from private

sources. However, many states have programs designed

to help well owners protect their water supplies. Usually,

these state-run programs are not regulatory but provide

safety information. This type of information is vital

because private wells are often shallower than those used

by public suppliers. The shallower the well the greater is

the potential for contamination.

How Clean Is Our Drinking Water?

Safe drinking water is a cornerstone of public health. In

accordance with the 1996 SDWA amendments, public water

systems are mandated to submit compliance reports on the

quality of their drinking water. According to the EPA, 90%

of the nation’s public water systems achieved water quality

levels or treatment standards in fiscal year 2004. The vast

majority of U.S. residents receive water from systems that

have no reported violations of MCLs and no flaws in treat-

ment techniques, monitoring, or reporting.

Incidence of Disease Caused by TaintedWater—CDC Surveillance Report

It is difficult to know how many illnesses are caused

by contaminated water. People may not know the source

of many illnesses and may attribute them to food (which

may also have been in contact with polluted water),

chronic illness, or other infectious agents. Since 1971

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

and the EPA have collected and reported data that

relate to waterborne-disease outbreaks. The latest report

TABLE 9.2

Public drinking water sources, fiscal year 2004

Type Ground water Surface water Totals

CWS # systems 41,264 11,574 52,838Pop. served 90,499,550 181,996,127 272,495,677% of systems 78% 22% 100%% of pop 33% 67% 100%

NTNCWS # systems 18,647 728 19,375Pop. served 5,356,710 576,610 5,933,320% of systems 96% 4% 100%% of pop 90% 10% 100%

TNCWS # systems 85,587 1,996 87,583Pop. served 15,691,358 2,793,302 18,484,660% of systems 98% 2% 100%% of pop 85% 15% 100%

Total # system 145,498 14,298 159,796

111,547,618 185,366,039

Notes:CWS�Community Water System: A public water system that supplies water to the samepopulation year-round.NTNCWS�Non-Transient Non-Community Water System: A public water system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year,but not year-round. Some examples are schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitalswhich have their own water systems.TNCWS�Transient Non-Community Water System: A public water system that provideswater in a place such as a gas station or campground where people do not remain forlong periods of time.Ground water systems�ground water (GW), purchased ground water (GWP)Surface water systems�surface water (SW), purchased surface water (SWP), groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GU), purchased ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GUP).

SOURCE: “Water Source,” in Factoids: Drinking Water and Ground WaterStatistics for 2004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,Washington, DC, May 2005, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data_factoids_2004.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

The Environment Water Issues 131

available from the CDC, Surveillance for Waterborne-

Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1999–2000 (November

2002), includes data about outbreaks associated with

drinking water, recreational water, and occupational expo-

sure. The CDC defines an outbreak as an incident in which

at least two people develop a similar illness that evidence

indicates was probably caused by ingestion of drinking

water or exposure to water in recreational or occupational

settings.

According to the CDC, from January 2001 through

December 2002 there were thirty-one outbreaks asso-

ciated with drinking water in nineteen states that sickened

1,020 people and were linked to seven deaths. The spe-

cific microbe or chemical cause of the outbreaks was

identified in twenty-four of the cases. Pathogens were

blamed in nineteen of the cases, while chemicals were

blamed in the other five cases. The source of the drinking

water was identified in twenty-five of the outbreaks.

Most (92%) of the outbreaks were linked to ingestion of

groundwater, primarily untreated groundwater from pri-

vate or noncommunity wells.

The CDC found evidence that during 2001–02

recreational water exposure in twenty-three states caused

sixty-five outbreaks that sickened 2,536 people and

caused eight deaths. Nearly half of the cases involved

gastroenteritis. Other illnesses included dermatitis, Pon-

tiac fever, and acute respiratory illness due to chemical

exposure. Most of the cases were associated with swim-

ming pools, wading pools, or spas. The eight deaths

were attributed to primary amebic meningoencephalitis

contracted from swimming in lakes or rivers contami-

nated with Naegleria fowleri.

Table 9.3 identifies waterborne pathogens and the

diseases associated with them.

Milwaukee—‘‘The Nation’s Worst DrinkingWater Disaster’’

In April 1993, 403,000 residents of Milwaukee

became victims of what is considered the worst drinking

water disaster the nation has experienced. Cryptospor-

idium flourished in the city water supply, which had

been turbid (cloudy) for several days. For a week more

than eight hundred thousand residents were without

potable (drinkable) tap water. By the end of the disaster

more than forty people lost their lives because of the

outbreak. In addition to the human suffering, the disease

cost an estimated $37 million in lost wages and produc-

tivity.

Among the possible causes for the outbreak were the

advanced age and flawed design of the Milwaukee water

plant, which returned dirty water back to the reservoir.

Other explanations included failure of plant personnel to

react quickly when turbidity levels rose; critical monitor-

ing equipment that was broken at the time turbidity levels

peaked; a water intake point that was vulnerable to con-

tamination; and a slaughterhouse, feedlot, and sewage

treatment plant that were located upriver from the plant.

Water treatment experts blamed the complacency of offi-

cials and false assumptions based on a history of quality

water dispersal.

TABLE 9.3

Waterborne pathogens found in human waste and associated diseases

Type Organism Disease Effects

Bacteria Escherichia coli (enteropathogenic) Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea, death in susceptible populationsLegionella pneumophila Legionellosis Acute respiratory illnessLeptospira Leptospirosis Jaundice, fever (Well’s disease)Salmonella typhi Typhoid fever High fever, diarrhea, ulceration of the small intestineSalmonella Salmonellosis Diarrhea, dehydrationShigella Shigellosis Bacillary dysenteryVibrio cholerae Cholera Extremely heavy diarrhea, dehydrationYersinia enterolitica Yersinosis Diarrhea

Protozoans Balantidium coli Balantidiasis Diarrhea, dysenteryCryptosporidium Cryptosporidiosis DiarrheaEntamoeba histolytica Amoebiasis (amoebic dysentery) Prolonged diarrhea with bleeding, abscesses of the liver and

small intestineGiardia lamblia Giardiasis Mild to severe diarrhea, nausea, indigestionNaegleria fowleri Amebic Fatal disease; inflammation of the brain

MeningoencephalitisViruses Adenovirus (31 types) Conjunctivitis Eye, other infections

Enterovirus (67 types, e.g., polio-, Gastroenteritis Heart anomalies, meningitisecho-, and Coxsackie viruses)

Hepatitis A Infectious hepatitis Jaundice, feverNorwalk agent Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrheaReovirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrheaRotavirus Gastroenteritis Vomiting, diarrhea

SOURCE: “Table 3-20. Waterborne Pathogens Found in Human Waste and Associated Diseases,” in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC, February 2002

132 Water Issues The Environment

As a result of the disaster, Milwaukee launched one

of the most aggressive drinking water programs in the

country. Each week the city monitors for Cryptospori-

dium and has set a zero standard for the parasite. It has

also adopted a turbidity standard five times tougher than

federal regulations. Turbidity, although harmless in itself,

is often a precursor to the presence of organisms such as

Cryptosporidium.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WATER ISSUES

Each year the Gallup Organization conducts its annual

poll on environmental topics. The last poll dealing speci-

fically with water issues occurred in 2004. The pollsters

found that water issues top the list of Americans’ environ-

mental concerns. The percentage of people expressing a

great deal of worry about a particular environmental pro-

blem was highest for pollution of drinking water. More

than half of those asked (53%) indicated they feel a great

deal of concern about it. Pollution of surface waters ranked

second with 48%. Maintenance of the nation’s fresh water

supply for household needs ranked fourth with 47%.

Gallup concluded that Americans are significantly more

worried about water issues than other environmental

issues, such as air pollution or plant and animal resources.

However, concern about drinking water was down in

2004 compared with all previous years. (See Table 9.4.)

In 1990 nearly two-thirds of the people asked expressed a

great deal of worry about drinking water pollution. The

percentage increased to 72% in 2000 and then decreased

in each subsequent year. Gallup polls conducted through

2004 have also questioned people regarding their concern

about pollution of surface waters, including rivers, lakes,

and reservoirs. Concern about surface water pollution

also shows a downward trend over the years. The

percentage of people expressing a great deal of concern

about this issue in 1989 was at a high of 72%. In 2004

only 48% of those asked expressed this opinion.

When asked about fresh water supplies for household

needs, Gallup poll respondents have indicated varying

levels of concern over the years. The percentage of peo-

ple feeling a great deal of concern about this issue

increased from 42% in 2000 to 50% in 2002 and then

decreased to 47% in 2004.

TABLE 9.4

Public concern about pollution of drinking water“PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREATDEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL. POLLUTION OF DRINKINGWATER?”

Great Fair Only a Not at Nodeal amount little all opinion% % % % %

2004 Mar 8–11 53 24 17 6 *2003 Mar 3–5 54 25 15 6 —2002 Mar 4–7 57 25 13 5 *2001 Mar 5–7 64 24 9 3 *2000 Apr 3–9 72 20 6 2 *1999 Apr 13–14 68 22 7 3 *1991 Apr 11–14 67 19 10 3 11990 Apr 5–8 65 22 9 4 *

SOURCE: “Please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a greatdeal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. Pollution of drinking water?”in Poll Topics and Trends: Environment, The Gallup Organization, Princeton,NJ, March 17, 2004, www.gallup.com (accessed August 4, 2005). Copyright© 2004 by The Gallup Organzation. Reproduced by permission of The Gallup Organization.

The Environment Water Issues 133

CHAPTER 10

T O X I N S I N E V E R Y D A Y L I F E

The medieval alchemist Paracelsus (1493–1541)

once stated that ‘‘it is the dose that makes the poison.’’

Many of the substances naturally found in the environ-

ment or released by modern, industrialized society are

poisonous at certain dosages. These substances may be

found in the home, workplace, or backyard, in the food

and water people eat and drink, and in medications and

consumer products.

WHY ARE TOXINS TOXIC?

A toxin is a substance—bacterial, viral, chemical,

metal, fibrous, or radioactive—that poisons or harms a

living organism. A toxin may cause immediate, acute

symptoms such as gastroenteritis, or cause harm after

long-term exposure such as living in a lead- or radon-

contaminated home for many years. Some toxins can

have both immediate and long-term effects: living in an

environment with poor air quality may trigger an acute

asthma attack, or, after many years’ exposure, it may

contribute to lung cancer. Although the effects of a toxin

may not show up for years, these effects may, never-

theless, be serious.

Toxins are often grouped according to their most

harmful effect on living creatures. These categories

include carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens:

• A carcinogen is any substance that causes cancerous

growth.

• A mutagen is an agent capable of producing genetic

change.

• A teratogen is a substance that produces malforma-

tions or defective development.

The risks posed by environmental contamination may

not be blatantly obvious. For example, people or animals

with impaired immune systems and who are exposed to

these contaminants may take longer (or even be unable)

to recover from infectious diseases. Tracking this

problem to environmental pollutants, however, can be

difficult.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, PROGRAMS,AND FUNDING

Toxins that can be encountered in everyday life are

regulated under a variety of federal and state legislation.

The major pieces of federal legislation are as follows:

The Pure Food and Drug Act was originally passed in

1906 and substantially strengthened in 1938 by passage

of its replacement, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act. That Act was amended during the 1950s and 1960s

to tighten restrictions on pesticides, food additives, and

drugs. Responsibility for enforcement of the Act lies with

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA

oversees food supplies, human and veterinary drugs, bio-

logical products (such as vaccines and blood supplies),

medical devices, cosmetics, and electronic products that

emit radiation.

In 1947 the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Insec-

ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Although it was originally enforced by the U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture (USDA), authority passed to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after its crea-

tion in 1970. FIFRA was strengthened and expanded by

major amendments over the next few decades, particu-

larly in 1996. The Act provides the EPA with primary

control over pesticide distribution, sale, and use. The

states also have authority to regulate pesticides and can

do so at more restrictive levels than used by the EPA. The

EPA studies the environmental and health effects of

pesticide usage and requires some users to register when

purchasing pesticides. All pesticides used in the United

States must be registered with the EPA and the state

before distribution and be properly labeled.

The Environment 135

The Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act was

passed in 1960. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Com-

mission (CPSC) administers the law as it applies to

household products. The CPSC has jurisdiction over

approximately fifteen thousand consumer products that

pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard.

Household products (like cleaners) that contain hazar-

dous chemicals must warn consumers about their poten-

tial hazards.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was

enacted by Congress in 1976. It gives the EPA authority

to track the thousands of industrial chemicals produced or

imported into the United States. Tracking includes che-

mical screening and requirements that industries report

and/or test chemicals that may pose a hazard to the

environment or human health. The EPA can ban chemi-

cals it deems too risky. According to the EPA Web site,

in 2005 approximately seventy-five thousand chemicals

are tracked and controlled by the EPA under TSCA.

Primary responsibility for administering the TSCA lies

with the EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and

Toxic Substances (OPPTS).

In 1984 a deadly cloud of chemicals was released

from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India,

following an explosion in the plant. The methyl isocya-

nate gas killed approximately three thousand people and

injured two hundred thousand others. Shortly after, a

similar chemical release occurred in West Virginia,

where a cloud of gas sent 135 people to the hospital with

eye, throat, and lung irritation complaints. There were no

fatalities. Such incidents fueled the demand by workers

and the general public for information about hazardous

materials in their areas. As a result Congress passed the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

of 1986 (EPCRA; PL 99–499).

The EPCRA established, among other things, the

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a publicly available

database (http://www.epa.gov/tri) that contains informa-

tion on toxic chemical releases by various facilities. More

than 650 toxic chemicals are on the TRI list.

The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an

electronic database available at the EPA Web site (http://

www.epa.gov/iris/index.html). It contains information

on the human health effects believed to be associated

with exposure to hundreds of substances found in the

environment.

Another source of public information on the health

effects of environmental toxins is the American Associa-

tion of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC). Since 1983 the

AAPCC has maintained a database called the Toxic

Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) that presents

information from dozens of poison control centers around

the country. These centers receive their funding from a

variety of federal and state agencies and private sources

(primarily hospitals and universities). TESS data are

reported annually in the American Journal of Emergency

Medicine. The latest data were published in the Septem-

ber 2004 issue.

According to the AAPCC there were 2.4 million

human exposures to toxic substances reported to poison

control centers in 2003. Approximately 85% of these

exposures (two million) were unintentional. One hundred

and fifty of the unintentional exposures resulted in fatal-

ities, of which twenty-six were children less than six

years old. Table 10.1 shows the substances most fre-

quently involved in exposures of children under six years

old. More than half (52%) of all exposures reported

during 2003 occurred in children less than six years old.

CHEMICAL TOXINS

Chemical toxins are the broadest and most common

type of toxic substances that people are likely to encoun-

ter in their daily lives. They can be found in a wide

variety of products. The primary sources are listed below:

• Household cleansers, solvents, adhesives, paints, etc.

• Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides

TABLE 10.1

Substances most frequently involved in pediatric exposuresreported to poison control centers, 2003

[Children under 6 years]

Substance No. %*

Cosmetics and personal care products 166,874 13.4Cleaning substances 121,048 9.7Analgesics 97,463 7.8Foreign bodies 92,166 7.4Topicals 92,091 7.4Cough and cold preparations 68,493 5.5Plants 57,778 4.6Pesticides 50,938 4.1Vitamins 45,352 3.6Antimicrobials 35,152 2.8Antihistamines 32,622 2.6Arts/crafts/office supplies 31,211 2.5Gastrointestinal preparations 29,770 2.4Hormones and hormone antagonists 23,787 1.9Electrolytes and minerals 22,337 1.8

Note: Despite a high frequency of involvement, these substances are not necessarily themost toxic, but rather may be the most readily accessible.*Percentages are based on the total number of exposures in children under six years(1,245,584) rather than the total number of substances.

SOURCE: William A. Watson, Toby L. Litovitz, Wendy Klein-Schwartz,George C. Rodgers, Jr., Jessica Youniss, Nicole Reid, Wayne G. Rouse,Rebecca S. Rembert, and Douglas Borys, “Table 17B. Substances MostFrequently Involved in Pediatric Exposures (Children Under 6 Years),” in“2003 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control CentersToxic Exposure Surveillance System,” American Journal of EmergencyMedicine, Vol. 22, No. 5, September 2004, http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/03report/Annual%20Report%202003.pdf (accessedAugust 4, 2005)

136 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

• Metal, fibrous, and wooden building materials

• Plastics and electronics

In addition, people can be exposed on a daily basis to

chemicals that are purposely introduced to their environ-

ment. These releases may have beneficial purposes (for

example, chlorination and fluoridation of public water

supplies) or they may be consequences of industrial,

commercial, or residential processes.

The prevalence and biological effects of some che-

mical toxins have been studied extensively. However,

experts acknowledge that there are many chemicals for

which little data are available. In general data on the

generation, usage, and levels of chemicals in the environ-

ment (air, water, soil, etc.) are much more plentiful than

data on the known effects of chemicals to human health.

For example, the EPA estimates that there are more than

eighty-five thousand chemicals in use in the United

States. However, the agency’s IRIS database includes

health hazard information for less than one thousand

chemicals. This raises difficulties for regulatory agencies

that wish to set health-based limits. It also makes it

harder for the public to determine whether a particular

exposure is harmful or not.

Toxics Release Inventory

The EPA published its 2003 Toxics Release Inven-

tory (TRI) Public Data Release Report in May 2005. The

EPA says that 4.44 billion pounds of TRI chemicals were

released during 2003 by 23,811 facilities. Figure 8.5 in

Chapter 8 shows the distribution of releases to the envi-

ronment, and Figure 8.6, also in Chapter 8, shows the

breakdown by industry. The primary releasers were the

metal mining industry, electric utilities, and primary

metals production. These three industries accounted for

nearly two-thirds of the releases.

The TRI report for 2001 focused on a group of

chemicals called persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)

chemicals. These are toxic chemicals that persist in the

environment a relatively long time and accumulate in the

tissues of plants, animals, and humans. The TRI describes

releases of 454 million pounds of PBT chemicals in 2001,

including dioxins, lead, mercury, polycyclic aromatic

compounds, PCBs, pesticides, and other complex organic

compounds.

The National Report on Human Exposureto Environmental Chemicals

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) releases a report every two years that assesses

the exposure of the United States population to environ-

mental chemicals. The CDC defines environmental che-

micals as chemicals present in air, water, food, soil, dust,

or other environmental media (including consumer pro-

ducts). The report includes data on the blood and urine

levels of various chemical substances. The first report

was published in 2001 and includes exposure data for

twenty-seven chemicals. The second report, released in

2003, provides data for 116 chemicals. The third report

was published in 2005 and includes exposure data for 155

chemicals in the following categories:

• Metals (such as lead and mercury)

• Pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides

• Phthalates (a class of chemicals used in many con-

sumer products, including adhesives, detergents, oils,

solvents, soaps, shampoos, and plastics)

• Phytoestrogens (naturally occurring plant-based che-

micals with hormonal effects)

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (chemicals result-

ing from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels)

• Polychlorinated compounds (chlorine-containing

organic chemicals used in a wide variety of industrial

and commercial products)

• Cotinine (a component of tobacco smoke)

The CDC warns that its reports do not assess the

potential harmfulness of the chemicals examined. The

reports provide scientists with exposure data so that

research priorities can be set to determine human health

effects for particular exposure levels.

Information on some selected chemical toxins is

given below:

Lead

Lead is a naturally occurring metal. It was commonly

used in many industries prior to the 1970s. Exposure to

even low levels of lead can cause severe health effects in

humans.

SOURCES OF LEAD EXPOSURE. Mined along the east-

ern seaboard since 1621, lead created an important indus-

try, providing bullets, piping, and a base for paint.

Because of its malleability, it was valued as a conduit

for water. The use of wallpaper steadily declined with the

almost universal use of paint, not only for protecting

surfaces but also for interior decorating. ‘‘White lead’’

paint was sold as the best thing to use on interior and

exterior surfaces. In cities teeming with millions of new

immigrants, the glossy, durable finish of white lead-based

paint meant walls could be easily washed. In 1922 a

General Motors researcher discovered that the addition

of lead to automobile fuel reduced the ‘‘knocking’’ that

limited power and efficiency in car engines.

The CDC estimates that approximately thirty-eight

million homes in 2000 still contained lead-based paint.

Painted surfaces pose little danger as long as the paint

remains undamaged. The greatest hazard is when chips of

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 137

paint flake off or when renovations are performed that

involve sanding or stripping paint.

Other products that may contain unacceptable levels

of lead include ceramics and crystal ware, mini-blinds,

weights used for draperies, wheel balances, fishing lures,

seams in stained-glass windows, linoleum, batteries,

solder, gun shot, and plumbing. Test kits and laboratories

that test for lead can check questionable items and loca-

tions for the presence of the heavy metal.

Most of the lead in water comes from lead pipes and

lead solder in plumbing systems. A 1992 EPA report

revealed that 20% of the nation’s large cities exceeded

government limits for lead in drinking water. By 1993 all

large public water-supply systems were required to add

substances such as lime or calcium carbonate to their

water lines to reduce the corrosion of older pipes, which

releases lead.

REDUCING LEAD EXPOSURE. As early as the late

1890s medical reports concerning problems with lead

began to appear. In 1914 the first United States case of

lead poisoning was reported, although the cause was

undetermined. Scientists eventually began to link lead

poisoning to lead paints and, as World War II ended,

began to address the problem. In the mid-1960s medical

reports documented the connection of lead poisoning to

both auto emissions and paint.

In 1971 Congress passed the Lead-Based Poisoning

Prevention Act (PL 91–695), restricting residential use of

lead paint in structures constructed or funded by the

federal government. The phasedown of leaded fuel in

automobiles began in the 1970s. This effort was not to

safeguard health but to protect cars’ catalytic converters,

which were rendered inoperable by lead.

The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 banned

the sale of lead-lined drinking water coolers and author-

ized the CDC to create and expand programs at the state

and local level for screening lead blood levels in infants

and children and referring those with elevated levels for

treatment.

In 1992 Congress amended the Toxic Substances Con-

trol Act (TSCA; PL 94–469, 1976) to add Title IV, entitled

‘‘Lead Exposure Reduction.’’ Title IV directs the EPA to

address the general public’s exposure to lead-based paint

through regulations, education, and other activities. A

particular concern of Congress and the EPA is the poten-

tial lead exposure risk associated with housing renovation.

The law directs the EPA to publish lead hazard informa-

tion and make it available to the general public, especially

to those undertaking renovations.

Also in 1992 Congress passed the Residential Lead-

Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (PL 102–550), which

is known as Title X. The law requires sellers and land-

lords to disclose information about lead-based paint

hazards to buyers and leasers. The law also stopped the

use of lead-based paint in federal structures and set up a

framework to evaluate and remove paint from buildings

nationwide. In 1996 Congress once again amended the

TSCA, adding section 402a to establish and fund train-

ing programs for lead abatement and to set up require-

ments and training of technicians and lead-abatement

professionals.

In 2000 the EPA announced its goal to eliminate

childhood lead poisoning by the year 2010. The plan for

achieving this goal is described in Eliminating Childhood

Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead

Paint Hazards by the President’s Task Force on Environ-

mental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children (Feb-

ruary 2000). The report recommends federal grants for

lead education programs and renovations at low-income

housing projects.

BLOOD LEAD LEVELS. Lead is highly toxic, causing

harm to the brain, kidneys, bone marrow, and central

nervous system. Infants, children, and pregnant women

can experience serious health effects with levels as low as

ten micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. (See Figure

10.1.) At very high levels of exposure (now rare in the

United States), lead can cause mental retardation, con-

vulsions, and even death.

The CDC monitors blood lead levels (BLLs) of chil-

dren and adults. Between the mid-1970s and the year

2000 the concentrations of lead measured in blood sam-

ples of children aged five and under declined dramati-

cally. (See Figure 10.2.) In May 2005 the CDC released

its latest childhood BLL data in ‘‘Blood Lead Levels—

United States, 1999–2002,’’ published in Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report. As shown in Figure 10.3, the

percentage of children ages one to five with BLLs greater

than ten micrograms per deciliter has declined dramati-

cally since the late 1980s. The graph illustrates that

approximately 1–3% of children have elevated BLLs.

The percentages for African Americans and Mexican

Americans are slightly higher than those for white

children.

The EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment 2003

notes that lead poisoning is still a ‘‘serious environmental

hazard in young children in the U.S.’’ This is particularly

true for urban areas. The EPA reports that in 2001

slightly more than 10% of the children screened for lead

in Chicago had elevated blood levels of the metal. The

percentage has fallen dramatically since 1996, when it

exceeded 25%.

Many scientists believe that the federal standards for

exposure should be lowered, and, in fact, some research-

ers believe there is no safe level for lead.

138 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

LEAD DISCLOSURE LAW VIOLATIONS. In March 2000

a two-year-old girl in New Hampshire died of lead poi-

soning. An autopsy revealed her BLL to be 391 micro-

grams per deciliter. It was the first pediatric fatality

attributed to lead poisoning since 1990. Authorities found

that the girl and her family were refugees from Sudan

that had recently moved to the United States from Egypt.

Lead-containing paint and dust in the family’s New

Hampshire apartment were blamed for the poisoning.

Family members reported that the girl had been seen

chewing on paint chips.

In 2001 the building’s property manager was sen-

tenced to fifteen months in jail for failing to provide the

family with the lead hazard warning required by the

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act.

Prosecutors alleged that the man falsified documents

indicating that the family had received the warning.

During the early 2000s the New England EPA office

launched a massive effort to ensure that federal lead

disclosure laws were being met throughout the region.

Hundreds of inspections and investigations were con-

ducted. In June 2005 the agency charged an apartment

owner with sixty-four violations at rental properties in

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The vast

majority of the violations were associated with apart-

ments in low-income neighborhoods. Each civil violation

is subject to a penalty of up to $11,000.

Pesticides

Pesticides are chemicals used to kill pests. These

pests include insects, rodents, snails and slugs, mites,

nematodes, algae, fungi, microorganisms, and unwanted

plants (such as weeds). Insecticides are a subset of pesti-

cides used against insects (such as mosquitoes).

FIGURE 10.1

Death

Severe brain damage

Kidney damage

Severe anemia

Severe stomach cramps

Damage to blood forming system

Reduced Vitamin D metabolism

Impaired nerve function

Reduced IQ, hearing, growth, behavior problems

150

100

50

40

30

20

10

Toxicity of blood lead concentration in children

SOURCE: “Figure 3. Toxicity of Blood Lead Concentration in Children,”in Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal StrategyTargeting Lead Paint Hazards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children, Washington, DC, February 2000

FIGURE 10.2

Bloo

d le

ad c

once

ntra

tions

, mic

rogr

ams

per d

ecili

ter (

�g/

dL)

30

1976–1980

1988–1991

1992–1994

1999–2000

25

20

15

10a,b

5

0

Concentrations of lead in blood of children aged 5 and lessfor various years through 2000

SOURCE: “Exhibit 4-8. Concentration of Lead in Blood of Children Age5 and Under, 1976–1980, 1988–1991, 1992–1994, 1999–2000,” in“Chapter 4—Human Health,” EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2003

a10 �g/dL of blood lead has been identified by CDC as elevated, which indicatesthe need for intervention. (CDC, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children,1991.)bRecent research suggests that blood levels less than 10 �g/dL may stillproduce subtle, subclinical health effects in children. (Schmidt, C.W. PoisoningYoung Minds, 1999.)

90th percentile (10 percent of childrenhave this blood lead level or greater)

Median value(50 percent of childrenhave this blood lead levelor greater)

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 139

Herbicides are chemicals designed to target plant life.

Pesticides are unique, because they are specifically for-

mulated to be toxic (to some living things) and are

deliberately introduced into the environment. Due to

these two facts, they are closely regulated. The EPA

reviews every pesticide for every particular use.

According to the May 2004 EPA report Pesticides

Industry Sales and Usage: 2000 and 2001 Market

Estimates by Timothy Kiely et al. (May 2004, http://

www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_

estimates2001.pdf ), pesticide expenditures during

2001 totaled $11.1 billion in the United States and

$32.8 billion worldwide. Agricultural use accounted

for nearly 70% of the U.S. total.

Agricultural dependence on chemicals developed

since the 1940s. Prior to that time natural methods, such

as crop rotation, mechanical weed control, and other

practices, were used to control pests and weeds. Agricul-

tural use of pesticides in the United States grew steadily

through the 1960s and 1970s and leveled off in the early

1980s at about 1.4 million pounds of active ingredient per

year. This level decreased slightly over the next two

decades, as shown in Figure 10.4. In 2001 pesticide usage

was 1.2 million pounds of active ingredient. Agricultural

uses accounted for 75% of this total. As shown in Figure

10.4, herbicides comprised nearly half of the pesticides

used in 2001. World pesticide usage exceeded five mil-

lion pounds of active ingredient in 2001.

From an environmental and health hazard standpoint,

pesticides of major concern include organochlorine and

organophosphate insecticides. Both types can cause

damage to the human nervous system.

Pesticide use in the 1960s centered around organo-

chlorines, including DDT, aldrin, and chlordane. Scien-

tists soon discovered that these chemicals were extremely

persistent in the environment. Many were removed from

the market and gradually replaced with other types of

pesticides, mainly pyrethroids. Pyrethroid pesticides use

synthetic forms of pyrethrin, a naturally occurring pesti-

cide found in chrysanthemums. According to the EPA,

some types of pyrethroids are toxic to the nervous

system. The use of organophosphates as insecticides

developed during the 1930s. Some of these chemicals

were used during World War II as nerve agents. Despite

their toxicity, organophosphates are not typically persis-

tent in the environment.

Pesticides have been detected in surface waters,

groundwater, and even rainfall. In 2001 the U.S. Geolo-

gical Survey (USGS) announced that testing performed

for the National Water Quality Assessment Program had

found at least one pesticide in more than 95% of stream

samples and in more than 60% of shallow agricultural

wells. Although the concentrations were generally low

and below drinking water standards, their effects on the

environment and human health are not known for certain.

The study also found sediments contaminated with

persistent organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT, diel-

drin, and chlordane, at more than 20% of agricultural

sites tested. Use of these pesticides has been restricted

for several decades, but many of them are ‘‘persistent,’’

which means they do not easily degrade. DDT, in parti-

cular, can latch tightly onto soil particles, where it can

persist for decades. DDT is also bioaccumulative, which

means it can work its way from a nonliving medium,

such as dirt, to a plant or animal. Since it is not easily

broken down by metabolization within living creatures,

DDT moves up the food chain as plants and animals

containing DDT are consumed by others.

While pesticides have important uses, studies show

that some cause serious health problems at certain levels

of exposure. For example, pesticide by-products have

been linked to breast cancer in humans. Researchers have

FIGURE 10.3

1988–1991 1991–1994 1999–20020

5

10

15

20

Percentage of children aged 1–5 years with blood lead levels�10 ug/dl, by race/ethnicity and survey period

SOURCE: “Percentage of Children Aged 1–5 Years with Blood LeadLevels �10 ug/dl, by Race/Ethnicity and Survey Period,” in “BloodLead Levels—United States, 1999–2002,” in Morbidity and MortalityWeekly Report, vol. 54, no. 20, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA,May 27, 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5420.pdf(accessed August 4, 2005)

Survey period

Perc

enta

ge

Black, non-Hispanic Mexican American White, non-Hispanic

140 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

found that breast tissue from some women with mali-

gnant breast tumors contained more than twice as many

PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide

DDT) than are found in the tissue of women who do not

have cancer. Scientists indicate that the carcinogen is

stored in body fat, making obesity a risk factor for breast

cancer.

Pesticide use indoors also poses a serious threat to

human health. The EPA estimates that 75% of all U.S.

households use at least one pesticide product indoors

each year. Insecticides and disinfectants are the most

common pesticides in residential use. As shown in Table

10.1, the American Association of Poison Control Cen-

ters reported household pesticide exposures in more than

fifty thousand children under the age of six during 2003.

In general, the level of persistent toxins, including

pesticides, has declined in humans and wildlife since the

1970s. Newer pesticide compounds are often more toxic

than the older types of pesticides, but they are generally

designed to be less persistent in the environment and tend

to cause fewer chronic problems such as birth defects.

However, even pesticides originally believed safe are

sometimes found to be harmful later. In 1998 the EPA

began reexamining some older pesticides (those

registered prior to November 1984) to assess their envir-

onmental and health effects based on new scientific find-

ings. The program is called the Reregistration Review

Process.

In June 2000 researchers announced that recent tests

of the pesticide Dursban, a very commonly used chemical

in residences, found the substance to be harmful, and

many applications were withdrawn from the market. Iro-

nically, Dursban was often used as a substitute for chlor-

dane, a chemical also withdrawn from use after being

discovered to be harmful.

Fear of agricultural toxins has contributed to a rise in

the interest in ‘‘organic’’ foods. The federal government’s

National Organic Program defines organic agriculture as

that which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and

pesticides. More importantly, it strives for low environ-

mental impact and enlists natural biological systems—

cover crops, crop rotation, and natural predators—to

increase fertility and decrease the likelihood of pest

infestation.

FIGURE 10.4

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Year

Estimated amounts of pesticide active ingredient used by pesticide type, 1982–2001

SOURCE: Timothy Kiely, David Donaldson, and Arthur Grube, “Figure 5.5. Annual Amount of Pesticide Active Ingredient Used in the U.S. by Pesticide Type, 1982–2001 Estimates, All Market Sectors,” in Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, May 2004, http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_estimates2001.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Mill

ions

of p

ound

s of

act

ive

ingr

edie

nt

Herbicides Insecticides Fungicides Other conventional Other

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 141

CHROMATED COPPER ARSENIC. Chromated copper

arsenic (CCA) is a wood preservative, a pesticide

designed to protect wood from damage by insects, fungi,

and other pests. Wood preservatives are widely used in

the developed world on pressure-treated lumber intended

for building purposes. According to the EPA, 797 million

pounds of wood preservatives were used in the United

States during 2001. On a total weight basis this usage

accounted for 16% of all pesticides used during 2001, as

shown in Figure 10.5.

Industrial wood preservatives include creosote-based

formulations, oil-borne preservatives (such as copper

naphthenate) and water-borne preservatives (primarily

CCA). Creosote preservatives contain a mixture of hun-

dreds of chemicals and have been widely used in the

United States for decades. However, improper disposal

has led to environmental problems and health concerns.

The EPA reports that dozens of sites around the country

are contaminated with creosotes, which tend to linger in

the environment and can be absorbed by plants and

animals.

CCA has been widely used on lumber since the

1940s. Beginning in the 1970s CCA became the main

preservative used to protect wood for residential outdoor

applications, such as decks and playground equipment. In

2001 the EPA decided to reassess the safety of CCA

under its Reregistration Review Process. Scientists found

that inorganic arsenic in CCA could migrate from treated

wood into the surrounding soil and even transfer to skin

via direct contact. Because arsenic poses a known health

hazard, the EPA initiated a labeling program for CCA-

treated lumber as part of a public information campaign.

Pesticide manufacturers agreed to a voluntary phase out

of CCA for residential lumber. The ban became manda-

tory at the end of 2003 except for a few exceptions.

In May 2005 the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Pro-

duct Safety Commission released preliminary results of a

study that tested the effectiveness of various sealants at

preventing release of arsenic from CCA-treated wood

(both old and new). The study showed that use of oil-

or water-based penetrating sealant or stain at least once a

year reduced arsenic migration. Paint was not recom-

mended, because it tended to chip or flake off.

Endocrine Disrupters—Environmental Hormones

Medical and scientific researchers are increasingly

linking some environmental chemicals to the endocrine

systems of humans and wildlife. The endocrine system—

also called the hormone system—is made up of glands

located throughout the body, hormones that are synthe-

sized and secreted by the glands into the bloodstream,

and receptors in the various target organs and tissues. The

receptors recognize and respond to the hormones. The

function of the system is to regulate the many bodily

processes, including control of blood sugar, growth and

function of the reproductive systems, regulation of meta-

bolism, brain and nervous system development, and

development of the organism from conception through

adulthood and old age.

Substances that interfere with these processes are

called ‘‘endocrine disrupters.’’ Some effects of certain

estrogenic compounds have been well known for some

time. Among these are the eggshell thinning and cracking

that led to the population decline of the American bald

eagle; the reproductive abnormalities of women exposed

in utero to diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen pre-

scribed between 1948 and 1971 to prevent miscarriages;

and reported declines in the quantity and quality of sperm

in humans. In 1996 researchers at the National Biological

Service, in a study of Columbia River otters, found a

direct correlation between the level of chemicals and

pesticides in the otters’ livers and the size of the males’

genitalia.

Only recently, however, have researchers begun to

realize how many compounds in the environment are

estrogenic. Dozens of these endocrine-disrupting chemi-

cals have been observed to disrupt the hormone or repro-

ductive system, but the remainder of the approximately

eighty-seven thousand chemicals currently in use remains

to be studied. Among them are many herbicides, pesti-

cides, insecticides, and industrial cleaning compounds.

FIGURE 10.5

Estimated breakdown of pesticide usage by type of pesticide,2001

SOURCE: Timothy Kiely, David Donaldson, and Arthur Grube, “Figure3.2. Amount of Pesticides Used in the U.S. by Pesticide Group, 2001Estimates,” in Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and ToxicSubstances, Washington, DC, May 2004, http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_estimates2001.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Wood preservatives16%

Specialty biocides7%

Otherpesticides

6%

Conventionalpesticides

18%

Chlorine/hypochlorites52%

142 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

Many such compounds have been banned in the United

States. Nonetheless, they persist in the food chain for

many years and accumulate in animal tissue. Moreover,

many of these chemicals continue to be used in develop-

ing countries.

Because of the potentially serious consequences of

human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, Con-

gress included specific language on endocrine disruption

in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (PL 104–170)

and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (PL

104–182). The first mandated the EPA to develop an

endocrine-disrupter screening program (EDSP), while

the latter authorized the EPA to screen endocrine disrup-

ters found in drinking water. As of July 2005 the agency

is developing and validating EDSP tests.

ASBESTOS

Asbestos is the generic name for several fibrous

minerals that are found in nature. Very long and thin

fibers are bundled together to make asbestos. First used

as a coating for candlewicks by the ancient Greeks,

asbestos was developed and manufactured in the

twentieth century as an excellent thermal and electrical

insulator. The physical properties that give asbestos its

resistance to heat and decay have long been linked to

adverse health effects in humans. Asbestos is found in

mostly older homes and buildings, primarily in indoor

insulation.

Asbestos tends to break into microscopic fibers.

These tiny fibers can remain suspended in the air for long

periods of time and can easily penetrate body tissues

when inhaled. Because of their durability, these fibers

can lodge and remain in the body for many years. No

‘‘safe’’ exposure threshold for asbestos has been estab-

lished, but the risk of disease generally increases with the

length and amount of exposure. Diseases associated with

asbestos inhalation include asbestosis (scarring of the

lungs), lung and throat cancers, malignant mesothelioma

(a tissue cancer in the chest or abdomen), and nonmalig-

nant pleural disease (accumulation of bloody fluid around

the lungs).

Asbestos was one of the first substances regulated

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA; PL

91–604) as a hazardous air pollutant. The discovery that

asbestos is a strong carcinogen has resulted in the need

for its removal or encapsulation (sealing off so that resi-

due cannot escape) from known locations, including

schools and public buildings. Many hundreds of millions

of dollars have been spent in such cleanups.

Under the CAA, asbestos-containing materials must

be removed from demolition and renovation sites without

releasing asbestos fibers into the environment. Among

other safeguards, workers must wet asbestos insulation

before stripping the material from pipes and must seal the

asbestos debris in leak-proof containers while still wet to

prevent the release of asbestos dust. The laws of most

states have specific requirements for asbestos workers. A

number of legal convictions have resulted from improper

and illegal asbestos removal.

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act was

signed into law in 1986. It requires public and private

primary and secondary schools to inspect their buildings

for asbestos-containing building materials. EPA inspec-

tions conducted during 2002 and 2003 in Puerto Rico

schools resulted in a $5.6 million penalty against the

Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDOE) for vio-

lating the Act. Inspectors found widespread instances of

asbestos dust in buildings where asbestos had been

removed improperly. In addition, people not properly

trained in asbestos removal had been allowed to perform

some removals. The PRDOE was required to use the

penalty money to fund a program to identify and reduce

or eliminate asbestos in the island’s schools.

In 1989 EPA banned the importation, production,

processing, and distribution of many asbestos-containing

products in the United States. The ban was challenged in

court and partially overturned. As a result only a handful

of asbestos-containing products remain banned. How-

ever, the use of asbestos is banned in products that have

not traditionally contained it.

In May 2003 the CDC released its sixth annual Work-

Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report 2002. The

report notes that 1,265 people died in 2002 from asbes-

tosis. This value is up from less than one hundred

recorded in 1968. In total, 10,914 people have died from

asbestosis between 1990 and 1999. (See Figure 10.6.)

The vast majority of the deaths have occurred among

white men aged fifty-five and older. Most were plumbers,

pipe fitters, and steamfitters. Construction accounted for,

by far, the greatest proportion (24.6%) of asbestosis

deaths; second was ship/boat building and repairing

(6.0%). Death from asbestosis usually occurs only after

many years of impaired breathing.

According to the USGS Mineral Commodity Summa-

ries 2005, there was no asbestos production in the United

States in 2003 or 2004. The last United States asbestos

mine closed in 2002. Approximately three thousand

metric tons of asbestos were imported into the country

during 2004. Canada was the primary supplier for the

imported asbestos. The United States’ demand for asbes-

tos peaked in the 1970s, when it reached eight hundred

thousand tons.

World production of asbestos in 2003 was 2.3 million

metric tons, with Russia as the leading producer, fol-

lowed by Kazakhstan and China. World production has

dropped since it peaked in 1975 at five million metric

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 143

tons. Growing pressure to ban asbestos around the world

is expected to keep pushing markets downward.

RADIATION

Radiation is energy that travels in waves or particles.

Radiation exposure comes from natural and human-made

sources. People are exposed to natural radiation from

outer space (cosmic radiation), the Earth (terrestrial

radiation and radon), and their own bodies. According

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these

sources account for about 82% of the average person’s

radiation exposure. (See Figure 10.7.) Radon is, by far,

the largest source of radiation exposure, at 55%. Human-

made sources, mostly medical devices and electromag-

netic equipment, account for 18% of a person’s average

radiation exposure.

Radon

In 1984 a worker in a nuclear plant triggered a

radiation contamination alarm as he entered the plant to

work. Since the alarms were intended to check for con-

tamination as workers left the plant, plant officials were

amazed. Investigations discovered the source of the

worker’s contamination was radon present in extraordi-

narily high amounts in his home.

Radon is an invisible, odorless radioactive gas

formed by the decay of uranium in rocks and soil. This

gas seeps from underground rock into the basements and

foundations of structures via cracks in foundations, pipes,

and sometimes through the water supply. Because it is

naturally occurring, it cannot be entirely eliminated from

the environment. Radon inhaled into the lungs undergoes

FIGURE 10.7

Average radiation exposure by type

SOURCE: Adapted from “Exposure,” in Electronic Reading Room: BasicReferences: Glossary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville,MD, July 21, 2003, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/exposure.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Radon55%

Medical x-rays11%

Internal11%

Terrestrial8%

Cosmic8%

Nuclear medicine4%

Consumer products3%

FIGURE 10.6

Number of deaths attributed to asbestosis, 1968–99Nu

mbe

r of d

eath

s

Rate

(dea

ths/

mill

ion)

Number of deaths, underlying cause Number of deaths, contributing causeU.S. crude rate U.S. age-adjusted rate

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 19980

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOURCE: “Figure 1-1. Asbestosis: Number of Deaths, Crude and Age-Adjusted Mortality Rates, U.S. Residents Age 15 and Over, 1968–1999,” in Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report 2002, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, May 2003

144 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

radioactive decay, releasing particles that damage the

DNA in lung tissue.

In 1988 the EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General

recommended that radon testing be performed in all

U.S. homes and schools. The recommendation applied

to all levels beneath the third floor. The EPA set a

national voluntary action level for radon at four picoCu-

ries per liter (pCi/L). The radon content in most homes

can be reduced to two pCi/L or less by using devices such

as specially designed fans that prevent radon from seep-

ing into a house.

The Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 directed

the EPA to identify areas of the country with the potential

for elevated levels of indoor radon. The EPA assessed

3,141 counties in terms of geology, aerial radioactivity,

soil permeability, foundation type, and indoor radon mea-

surements. Each county was assigned to one of three

zones based on its predicted average indoor radon screen-

ing level:

• Zone 1—predicted level greater than four pCi/L

• Zone 2—predicted level of two to four pCi/L

• Zone 3—predicted level less than two pCi/L

The EPA map of radon zones is shown in Figure

10.8. The map is not intended to indicate which home-

owners should test their homes for radon but to provide a

general guide to state and local organizations dealing

with radon abatement. The EPA cautions that homes with

elevated levels of radon have been found in all three

zones.

In June 2003 the EPA published its latest estimates

of radon-related deaths in EPA Assessment of Risks from

Radon in Homes. The report estimates that radon caused

an estimated 21,800 deaths from lung cancer during

1995, making radon the second-leading cause of lung

cancer after smoking. A synergistic effect has been noted:

when radon levels are high in a home where a smoker

resides, the likelihood of that person contracting lung

cancer is greatly increased. The EPA report estimates in

1995 an average of 13.4% of United States lung cancer

deaths were attributable to radon exposure.

In January 2005 the U.S. Surgeon General issued a

National Health Advisory urging all Americans to test

their homes for radon. The Advisory noted that the EPA

estimates that one in every fifteen homes nationwide

have a radon level at or above the action level of four

picoCuries per liter of air. The EPA and the National

Safety Council (NSC) also recommend home testing for

radon. The NSC offers low-cost test kits for sale at its

Web site.

In June 2005 the World Health Organization (WHO)

launched the International Radon Project to help coun-

tries reduce the health risks associated with radon. The

WHO estimates that radon causes up to 15% of all lung

cancer cases worldwide.

INDOOR AIR TOXINS

Indoor pollution has become a serious problem in

America. Although most people think of outdoor air

when they think of air pollution, studies now reveal that

indoor environments are not safe havens from air pollu-

tion. Modern indoor environments contain a variety of

pollution sources, including building materials and con-

sumer products. People and pets also contribute to air-

borne pollution. Improvements in home and building

insulation and the widespread use of central air condi-

tioning and heating systems have largely ensured that any

contaminant present indoors will not be diluted by out-

side air and, therefore, will become more concentrated.

According to the EPA, the most common pollutants

contributing to poor indoor air quality are as follows:

• Asbestos

• Biological pollutants (animal dander, bacteria, cat

saliva, cockroaches, mildew, mites, mold, pollen,

and viruses)

• Chemicals in household products used for cleaning,

repairs and maintenance, personal care, and hobbies

• Combustion products, such as carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, and particulates

• Formaldehyde and pressed wood products

• Lead

• Pesticides

• Radon

• Smoke from tobacco use

Health Hazards

Exposure to some indoor air pollutants is directly

linked to severe health problems and even death. The

dangers of asbestos, lead, pesticides, and radon have

already been discussed. The potentially deadly effects

of secondhand tobacco smoke are also well known.

Another indoor pollutant known to be life threatening is

carbon monoxide.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas

that results from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels,

such as natural gas and oil. In the January 21, 2005, issue

of Morbidity and Mortality Week, the CDC reported CO

poisoning data for 2001–03. The report notes that an

average of 15,200 people annually were treated in emer-

gency rooms in the United States over this time period for

confirmed or possible CO poisoning not related to fires.

For 2001–02 an average of 480 persons per year died of

CO poisoning not related to fires. Nearly one fourth of

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 145

the deaths were in patients age sixty-five or older.

Although the exact source of CO was not reported for

all cases, the CDC cited faulty furnaces as the main

identifiable source of CO exposures. Other sources

included motor vehicles, gas stoves and water heaters,

leaky gas lines, generators, space heaters, and miscella-

neous machinery.

Most exposures to indoor air pollution are associated

with respiratory problems. Many of the pollutants listed

above can cause or aggravate respiratory conditions, such

as asthma. Asthma is a chronic lung disease characterized

by episodes (attacks) of wheezing, shortness of breath,

coughing, and chest tightness. Environmental irritants are

known to be one of the triggers for asthma attacks.

According to CDC data, nearly thirty million

Americans were afflicted with asthma as of 2003. Nine

million of them were children age eighteen or less.

Approximately eleven million people reported experi-

encing an asthma attack during the previous year. In

2002 asthma was blamed for 1.9 million emergency

room visits, nearly one-half million hospitalizations,

and 4,261 deaths.

FIGURE 10.8

Environmental Protection Agency map of radon zones, by county, 2002

SOURCE: “EPA Map of Radon Zones,” in Indoor Air—Radon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2002, http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/zonemap.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Guam – Preliminary zone designation

Zone designation for Puerto Rico is under development

Zone 1 – Predicted average indoor radon screening level greater than 4 picocuries per liter

Zone 2 – Predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 picocuries per liter

Zone 3 – Predicted average indoor radon screening level less than 2 picocuries per liter

146 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

The prevalence of asthma in American society has

risen dramatically since the 1980s. Health and environ-

mental agencies urge people to educate themselves about

possible asthma irritants in their homes and take mea-

sures to control or eliminate them.

Poorly ventilated buildings sometimes become the

cause of ‘‘sick-building syndrome.’’ The term, first

employed in the 1970s, describes a spectrum of specific

and nonspecific complaints reported by building occu-

pants. Such symptoms might include headaches, fatigue,

or difficulty breathing, which begin soon after entering a

building and subside after leaving that building. When

20% of a building’s occupants report complaints, the

WHO calls that building ‘‘sick.’’ Experts generally

believe there are many people who do not complain,

even when they experience symptoms. Many billions of

dollars in income and productivity are believed lost

annually because of employees falling ill from problems

linked to sick-building syndrome or other indoor air

exposures.

TOXINS IN FOOD

Chemicals and Pesticides

Fish and wildlife can become contaminated with

toxins, such as mercury, dioxins, and pesticides. In order

to protect consumers from health risks associated with

consuming such pollutants, the EPA and the states issue

consumption advisories to inform the public that high

concentrations of contaminants have been found in local

specimens. In 2003 there were 3,089 advisories issued by

the EPA. (See Figure 9.7 in Chapter 9.)

Nearly eight hundred thousand miles of river and

more than thirteen million acres of lakes were under

advisory for mercury during 2003. (See Figure 10.9.)

Other toxins causing advisories included polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, DDT, and dioxins.

• Mercury is a naturally occurring inorganic element.

It is also released by human activities, primarily

waste incineration and fossil fuel combustion. In

the environment inorganic mercury can convert to

an organic form called methylmercury. This is the

type of mercury most often found in fish. It is per-

sistent and bioaccumulative, meaning that it accu-

mulates in fish and shellfish and works its way up

the food chain. The highest concentrations of mer-

cury in fish are found in large predator species, such

as pike, bass, and shark. Methylmercury also accu-

mulates in human tissue when people eat contami-

nated fish. At certain dosages it can damage the

central nervous system, cause severe neurological

impairment, and be fatal.

• PCBs are a group of synthetic organic chemicals that

were primarily used as lubricants and coolants in

electrical equipment prior to the 1970s. Manufacture

of PCBs was halted in the United States in 1977 due

to concerns about their effects on the environment and

human health. PCBs are persistent (not easily

degraded), bioaccumulative, and known to cause in

laboratory animals a wide variety of serious health

problems, including liver cancer. They are classified

as possible carcinogens in humans.

• Chlordane and DDT are insecticides that were once

widely used in the United States. In 1972 DDT was

banned by the EPA after scientists found the chemical

was damaging wildlife. Chlordane was banned in

1988. Both pesticides are toxic, extremely persistent,

and bioaccumulative, making them a threat to the

environment and human health. Both are linked to

severe neurological problems. Chlordane also

adversely affects the liver and digestive system in

animals and humans. DDT is classified as a probable

human carcinogen.

• Dioxins are a group of several hundred chlorinated

organic compounds with similar chemical structures

and biological effects. Dioxin categories include

chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), chlorinated

dibenzofurans (CDFs), and some PCBs. PCBs are

synthetic chemicals. CDDs and CDFs are by-products

of combustion. They are generated by natural sources

(such as forest fires) and from waste incineration and

fossil fuel combustion. Certain industrial processes,

such as chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, also

generate dioxins. In laboratory animal tests dioxins

caused damage to major organs and systems. The

chemicals are also linked with adverse effects to the

skin and liver in humans. Dioxins are classified as

probable human carcinogens.

The Government Accountability Office’s report

Information on EPA’s Draft Reassessment of Dioxins

(April 2002) provided the EPA’s estimates of the average

U.S. adult’s exposure to dioxins in food on a daily basis.

(See Table 10.2.) Beef and freshwater fish and shellfish

are the major sources of exposure. These levels are asso-

ciated with adverse health effects but are below the levels

associated with cancer. Levels of exposure are thought to

be even greater in people who have diets high in fat

content.

Pathogens

According to federal officials, the U.S. food supply is

among the safest in the world. Nevertheless, episodes of

food poisoning and diseases occur in the United States.

Based on ‘‘Food-Related Illness and Death in the United

States’’ by Paul S. Mead et al. (Emerging Infectious

Diseases, vol. 5, no. 5, 1999), the CDC estimates that

as many as seventy-six million illnesses, three hundred

and twenty-five thousand hospitalizations, and five

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 147

thousand deaths annually are caused by ‘‘foodborne’’

(originating from food) hazards. Unfortunately, most of

the incidences cannot be traced to a particular pathogen,

but are attributed to ‘‘unknown’’ agents.

Foodborne illnesses became the object of intense

public scrutiny following an outbreak of Escherichia coli

(E. coli) in 1993 that killed four people and sickened

hundreds. The illness was attributed to undercooked ham-

burgers from fast-food restaurants. The FDA responded

by raising the recommended internal temperature for

cooked hamburgers to 155 degrees Fahrenheit. A sam-

pling program was begun to test for E. coli in raw ground

FIGURE 10.9

Number of lake acres under advisory due to contaminated fish, 1993–2003

SOURCE: “Number of Lake Acres Under Advisory,” in 2003 National Listing of Fish Advisories, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,August 24, 2004, http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/briefing.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Millions

Notes: PCB is polychlorinated biphenyls; DDT is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.

Mercury

PCBs

Chlordane

Dioxins

DDT

Others

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2003

2002

2001

1999

1998

1997

1995

1994

1993

2000

1996

148 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

beef. New labels containing food handling instructions

were required on consumer packages of raw meats and

poultry.

In 1996 more illnesses were attributed to E. coli, this

time in unpasteurized apple juice. The FDA proposed

new regulations to improve the safety of fresh and pro-

cessed juices. In that same year several federal and state

agencies established a surveillance program called Food-

Net to monitor laboratory-identified foodborne diseases

related to seven pathogens in parts of five states. By 2004

the program had grown to monitor nine pathogens and

syndromes in ten states, encompassing 44.1 million peo-

ple (15% of the U.S. population). Preliminary FoodNet

data for 2004 were published in 2005 and are presented in

Table 10.3.

FoodNet identified 15,806 cases of foodborne

illnesses related to monitored pathogens in 2004. Salmo-

nella accounted for 41% of cases, followed by Campylo-

bacter (36%) and Shigella (14%).

The incidence of diseases attributed to Campylobacter,

Cryptosporidium, STEC 0157, Listeria, S. Typhimurium,

and Yersinia decreased dramatically between 1996 and

2004. The CDC attributes the decline to several factors,

including increased public awareness about foodborne

diseases and food safety, new pathogen reduction measures

TABLE 10.2

EPA’s estimates of the average adult’s daily exposure to dioxinsfrom dietary intake

[Picograms per day]

Dietary exposure Dietary Total dietaryto CDDs exposure exposure

Food type and CDFs to PCBs to dioxins

Beef 9.0 4.2 13.2Freshwater fish and

shellfish 5.9 7.1 13.0Dairy products (cheese,

yogurt, etc.) 6.6 3.2 9.8Other meats (lamb,

baloney, etc.) 4.5 1.0 5.5Marine fish and shellfish 2.5 2.4 4.9Milk 3.2 1.5 4.7Pork 4.2 0.2 4.4Poultry 2.4 0.9 3.3Eggs 1.4 1.7 3.1Vegetable fat (oils,

margarine, etc.) 1.0 0.6 1.6

Total 40.7 22.8 63.5

Note: The average adult is assumed to weigh 70 kilograms (154 pounds). A picogram isone-trillionth of a gram.CDDs�Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxinsCDFs�Chlorinated dibenzofuransPCBs�Polychlorinated biphenyls

SOURCE: “Table 1. EPA’s Estimates of the Average U.S. Adult’s DailyExposure to Dioxins from Dietary Intake, Picograms per Day,” inInformation on EPA’s Draft Reassessment of Dioxins, GAO-02-515, U.S.General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, April 2002

TABLE 10.3

National health New objective

Pathogen California

Bacteria

Campylobacter b

Escherichiacoli O157b

Salmonellab

Shigellab

Vibrioc

Yersiniac

Parasites

Cryptosporidiumc

Cyclosporac

Population insurveillance(millions)d

28.6

0.84.7

14.87.08.17.8

6.1NR

3.2

Colorado

19.6

0.83.6

12.93.84.42.8

9.51.2

2.5

Connecticut

16.7

0.95.2

13.32.02.95.5

8.32.0

3.5

Georgia

6.6

0.31.7

21.97.42.84.7

19.70.2

8.7

Maryland

5.3

0.43.3

14.32.65.11.5

4.40.4

5.5

Minnesota

17.7

2.21.0

12.71.30.64.3

27.7NR

5.1

Mexico

18.9

0.51.1

14.97.21.60.5

6.9NR

1.9

New York

11.4

1.33.9

10.55.00.22.3

22.50.2

4.3

Oregon

18.0

1.71.4

10.42.22.54.2

8.1NR

3.6

Tennessee

7.1

0.82.7

13.09.51.54.3

8.9NR

5.8

Overall

12.9

0.92.7

14.75.12.83.9

13.20.3

44.1

for 2010a

12.3

1.02.56.8NANANA

NANA

—

aObjectives are for year 2010 incidence for campylobacter, e. coli 0157:H7, and salmonella and for year 2005 incidence for listeria.bPer 100,000 persons.cPer 1 million persons.dPopulation for some sites is entire state, for other sites, selected counties. For some sites, the catchment area for cryptosporidium and cyclospora is larger than for bacterial pathogens.NA�Not applicable.NR�Not reported.

SOURCE: “Incidence of Cases of Bacterial and Parasitic Infection under Surveillance in the Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network, by Site, Comparedwith National Health Objectives for 2010—United States, 2004,” in “Preliminary Food Net Data on the Incidence of Infection with Pathogens TransmittedCommonly Through Food—10 Sites, United States, 2004,” in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 54, no. 14, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, April 15, 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5414.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Cases of bacterial and parasitic infection under surveillance by site, compared with national health objectives for 2010, 2004

The Environment Toxins in Everyday Life 149

implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) at meat and poultry slaughterhouses and

processing plants, egg quality assurance programs, better

agricultural practices that ensure produce safety, increased

regulation of imported foods and fruit and vegetable juices,

and the introduction of hazard reduction measures in the

seafood industry.

During 2003 (the latest year for which data are avail-

able) the CDC attributed eighty-three deaths to foodborne

contamination with identifiable agents. (See Table 10.4.)

TABLE 10.4

Number of cases and deaths due to specific foodborne organisms,2003

Cases Deaths

Organism Number (ratea) Number (rateb)

Campylobacter 5273 (12.60) 9 (0.22)Cryptosporidium 481 (1.09) 3 (0.68)Cyclospora 15 (0.03) 0 (0)E. coli O157 444 (1.06) 4 (0.94)Listeria 139 (0.33) 22 (16.54)Salmonella 6043 (14.43) 34 (0.68)Shigella 3041 (7.27) 2 (0.08)Vibrio 110 (0.26) 7 (7.69)Yersinia 162 (0.39) 2 (1.53)

aCases per 100,000 population.bDeaths per 100 cases with known outcome.

SOURCE: “Table 1. Incidence and Death Rate by Organism, FoodNet 2003,”in Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) EmergingInfections Program Report on Foodborne Pathogens, 2003, U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Atlanta, GA, April 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pub/publications/2005/FNsurv2003.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

150 Toxins in Everyday Life The Environment

CHAPTER 11

D E P L E T I O N A N D CO N S E R V A T I O N OF N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S

Throughout history humans have relied on the

world’s natural resources for survival. Early civilizations

were dependent on sources of clean water, soils suitable

for growing crops to feed people and livestock, and wild

animals that could be hunted for meat, skins, and fur. As

time passed societies learned to harvest and use other

natural resources, primarily wood, metals, minerals, and

fossil fuels. For centuries there was little thought given to

the consequences of depleting these resources. The sup-

ply appeared to be never-ending.

The early American colonists were impressed by the

country’s abundance of natural resources. Settlers

migrated west and south, building towns and developing

land for agriculture and industry. New modes of trans-

portation allowed access to areas that had previously

been undisturbed by humans. Widespread development

and demand for food, water, lumber, and other goods

began to stress some natural resources. Massive areas of

forest were cleared of trees. Passenger pigeons and heath

hens were driven to extinction. Buffalo, elk, and beaver

stocks were nearly wiped out.

During the nineteenth century awareness grew in the

United States about the scarcity and value of natural

resources. In 1892 John Muir (1838–1914) established the

Sierra Club, an organization devoted to recreation, educa-

tion, and conservation. President Theodore Roosevelt

(1858–1919) set aside millions of acres of land under

federal government control for national refuges, forests,

and parks. Over the next century people began to notice

the environmental toll of mining, agriculture, timber

harvesting, urban development, and pollution. The avail-

ability and condition of natural resources became a national

priority.

Despite many technological advances, humans of the

twenty-first century are still dependent on some of the

same natural resources that sustained the first civiliza-

tions—clean water and productive soils. In addition,

there is enormous demand for wood, metals, minerals,

and other natural materials from which goods are manu-

factured. Finally, fossil fuels (coal, oil, petroleum, and

natural gas) provide the bulk of the world’s power. Today

scientists know that these natural resources have limits in

terms of quantity and quality.

Natural resources are valued not only for their prac-

tical and economical worth but for their contribution to

environmental health. For example, forests and wetlands

provide habitat for a wide variety of plant and animal life.

These ecosystems are also appreciated by humans for

their aesthetic appeal and recreational purposes. How-

ever, developers and industrial entities have an interest

in using these lands for different purposes. To balance

competing interests, the government has developed a

number of agencies with responsibility for overseeing

the management of natural resources. They are listed in

Table 11.1.

FORESTS

For millennia humans have left their mark on the

world’s forests, although it was difficult to see. By the

twenty-first century, however, forests that humans once

thought were endless are shrinking before their eyes.

Forests are not only a source of timber, they perform a

wide range of social and ecological functions. They pro-

vide a livelihood for forest workers, protect and enrich

soils, regulate the hydrologic cycle, affect local and

regional climate through evaporation, and help stabilize

the global climate. Through the process of photosynth-

esis, they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) and release the

oxygen humans and animals breathe. They provide habi-

tat for many plant and animal species, are the main

source of wood for industrial and domestic heating, and

are widely used for recreation.

Forests are attractive and accessible sources of natural

wealth. They are not, however, unlimited. Deforestation is

The Environment 151

caused by farmers, ranchers, logging and mining compa-

nies, and fuel wood collectors. Governments have often

encouraged the settlement of land through cheap credit,

land grants, and the building of roads and infrastructure.

Much of these activities led to the destruction of forests,

causing some governments to reverse their policies.

Forests play a particularly crucial role in the global

cycling of carbon. When trees are cleared the carbon they

contain is oxidized and released into the air, adding to the

atmospheric store of carbon dioxide. Many scientists

believe that carbon dioxide contributes to global warm-

ing. This release happens slowly if the trees are used to

manufacture lumber or are allowed to decay naturally. If

they are burned as fuel, however, or in order to clear

forestland for farming, almost all of their carbon is

released rapidly. The clearing for agriculture in North

America and Europe has largely stopped, but the burning

of tropical forests has taken over the role of producing the

bulk of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by land

use changes.

In 2001 a study published in the journal Science

estimated that the forests of the coterminous United

States (i.e., excluding Alaska and Hawaii) absorbed

0.14–0.30 petagrams of carbon per year for the period

1980–89 (S. W. Pacala et al, ‘‘Consistent Land- and

Atmosphere-Based U.S. Carbon Sink Estimates,’’ June

22, 2001). A petagram is 1015 grams. The researchers

note that the large carbon ‘‘sink’’ supplied by forests is

due to ongoing regrowth of trees in large areas of

forest that were cleared during the late 1800s and early

1900s for timber and agricultural purposes. They

predict that the ‘‘sink’’ effect of the forests will gra-

dually diminish as these areas become completely

re-vegetated.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a

private organization that supports environmental health,

reports that nearly half of the forests on the planet have

been decimated and every year more than thirty million

acres of tropical forests and woodlands are destroyed for

agriculture or logging. Exacerbating this problem, global

wood consumption is set to double over the next thirty

years, according to the NRDC, further stressing the sur-

vival of global forests (http://www.nrdc.org).

Tropical Rain Forests

Tropical forests lie in a broad belt centered at the

Earth’s equator, extending as far north as Mexico and

as far south as northern Australia. They cover much of

South America, central Africa, and southeast Asia. In

2000 the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of

the United Nations estimated that tropical forests account

for nearly half (47%) of the world’s forest acreage of 9.6

billion acres (Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000,

www.fao.org/forestry/site/fra2000report/en). Rain forests

are a subset of tropical forests that receive a large amount

of precipitation. The hot moist conditions are very con-

ducive to plant and animal growth. Scientists believe that

tropical rain forests are home to thousands and perhaps

even millions of different species. The Smithsonian Tro-

pical Research Institute calls them ‘‘the world’s most

biologically rich ecosystem’’ (http://www.ctfs.si.edu/ ).

Despite their ecological importance, tropical forests

are being cleared for timber production and agricultural

development. According to the FAO’s 2000 assessment,

approximately thirty-five million acres of tropical forests

were cleared annually during the 1990s. This means that

an area nearly the size of Alaska was deforested over that

decade.

TABLE 11.1

Federal agencies that oversee natural resources

Federal agency Founded Description

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1802 Grants permits for dredging and filling in certain waterways, including many wetlands.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service 1905 Manages more than 190 million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands.Natural Resources Conservation Service 1935* Helps private land owners/managers conserve their natural resources. Participation is voluntary.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs 1824 Manages 55.7 million acres of land held in trust for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.Bureau of Land Management 1812* Manages 262 million acres of public lands (mostly in the West) and 300 acres of subsurface mineral resources.Bureau of Reclamation 1902 Provides water and energy to more than 30 million people via hundreds of dams, reservoirs, canals, and power plants

it has constructed in 17 western states.Fish and Wildlife Service 1871* Conserves, protects and enhances fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the benefit of the public.Minerals Management Service 1982 Manages the nation’s natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf.National Park Service 1916 Preserves the resources of more than 80 million acres comprising the national park system.Office of Surface Mining 1977 Oversees surface mining on federal lands and some tribal and state lands.U.S. Geological Survey 1879 Provides data related to Earth sciences, natural disasters, and management of natural resources.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1970 Develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress.

*Date of founding of predecessor agency that evolved into current agency.

SOURCE: Created by Kim Masters Evans for Thomson Gale, 2005

152 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

Rain forests also play an essential role in the weather.

They absorb solar energy, which affects wind and rainfall

worldwide. Regionally, they reduce erosion and act as

buffers against flooding. Tropical trees contain huge

amounts of carbon, which, when the trees are destroyed,

is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Species in tropical rain forests possess a high degree

of mutuality, in which two species are completely depen-

dent on one another for survival; for example, a species

of wasp and a species of fig tree. Such relationships are

believed to evolve as a result of the relatively constant

conditions in the tropics. Any species dependent on trees

therefore becomes imperiled when a tree is cut down.

THE AMAZON—AN EXAMPLE. The Amazon rain for-

ests, located in South America, are the most famous of

the Earth’s tropical forests. They serve as a good example

of the controversies surrounding rain forests worldwide.

This controversy generally centers on the interest of

environmentalists (often from developed countries) in

stabilizing the environment and the developing world’s

basic need to cut down its forests for fuel and livelihood.

Most developing nations claim that these needs are too

great to be set aside for the sake of the environment. They

also resent the industrialized world’s disdain of practices

the developed countries once followed themselves in

building their own nations. These poorer, developing

countries also wonder why they are expected to pay for

the cleanup of a world that they did not contaminate.

There are also international incentives for continuing

to cut down the rain forests. Foreign countries, especially

Asian nations, are increasingly eyeing the Amazon for-

ests as a source of ancient trees to make plywood, orna-

mental moldings, and furniture. Granting logging rights

to these nations may seem an appealing option for those

South American countries desperate for money.

UNITED STATES FORESTS UNDER STRESS

The United States has 747 million acres of forested

lands; they comprise roughly one-third of the nation’s

total land area. (See Figure 11.1.) The U.S. Forest Ser-

vice, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), estimates that in the 1600s the land that would

become America contained more than a billion acres of

forests. Widespread deforestation occurred during the

nineteenth century when forestland was converted to

agricultural use.

Forests are valued for a variety of ecological and

economical reasons. In their natural state they provide

vital habitat for wildlife and play an important role in the

carbon cycle. Forests are also a source of recreation for

humans and provide wood for fuel and lumber. Human

uses combined with natural environmental stresses (such

as disease and drought) pose a constant threat to the

health and vitality of the nation’s forests.

As shown in Figure 11.2, in 2003 almost half of

America’s forested lands were in the hands of private

owners with no ties to industry. Another 20% were part

of the National Forest System overseen by the U.S.

Forest Service. Other federal agencies control 13% of

the country’s forest lands. Industrial entities (such as

timber companies) own 10% of America’s forests, while

the remaining 8% are under state control.

Stresses on Forests

In May 2003 the U.S. Forest Service published its latest

comprehensive assessment on the health and well-being

of the nation’s forests. According to America’s Forests:

2003 Health Update (http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/

documents/forest-health-update2003.pdf), there are five

key areas of concern:

• Wildfires

• Outbreaks of native insects

• Nonnative invasive insects and pathogens (diseases)

• Invasive plant species

• Ecologically damaging changes in forest type

WILDFIRES. The Forest Service manages about 155

national forests across the country, covering 188 million

acres. About 70% of these lands are located in the dry,

interior areas of the western United States. (See Figure

11.3.) Management practices in the past called for the

Forest Service to put out all wildfires in the national

forests. Scientists have recently put forward the idea that

wildfires are necessary for forest health. They point out

that wildfires are natural occurrences that serve to

remove flammable undergrowth without greatly damag-

ing larger trees.

Before pioneers settled the West, fires occurred about

every five to thirty years. Those frequent fires kept the

forest clear of undergrowth, fuels seldom accumulated,

and the fires were generally of low intensity, consuming

undergrowth but not igniting the tops of large trees.

Disrupting this normal cycle of fire has produced an

accumulation of vegetation capable of feeding an increas-

ing number of large, uncontrollable, and catastrophic

wildfires. Thus, the number of large wildfires has

increased over the past decade, as have the costs of

attempting to put them out.

Because the national forests are attractive for recrea-

tion and enjoyment, human population has grown rapidly

in recent years along the boundaries scientists refer to

as the ‘‘wildland/urban interface.’’ According to a 1999

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study,

Western National Forests—A Cohesive Strategy Is

Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 153

(http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99065.pdf ), this

combination of rising population and increased fire risk

poses a catastrophic threat to human health and life

along the wildland/urban interface areas. In addition to

the risk fires pose to nearby inhabitants, smoke from

such fires contains substantial amounts of particulate

matter that contaminates the air for many hundreds of

miles. In addition, forest soils become subject to erosion

and mud slides after fires, further threatening the eco-

system and those who live near the forests.

In 1997 the Forest Service began an attempt to

improve forest health by reducing, through ‘‘controlled

burns,’’ the amount of accumulated vegetation, a program

to be completed by 2015. The GAO found that lack of

funding and inadequate preparedness may render the pro-

gram ‘‘too little, too late.’’ The National Commission on

Wildfire Disasters concluded: ‘‘Uncontrollable wildfire

should be seen as a failure of land management and public

policy, not as an unpredictable act of nature. The size,

intensity, destructiveness and cost of . . . wildfires . . . is

no accident. It is an outcome of our attitudes and prior-

ities . . . . The fire situation will become worse rather than

better unless there are changes in land management prior-

ity at all levels.’’

According to annual end-of-year reports compiled by

state and federal fire agencies (http://www.nifc.gov/stats/

wildlandfirestats.html), the summer of 2000 was consi-

dered the worst fire season in fifty years in the United

States. Nearly 123,000 fires burned more than 8.4 million

acres. Ironically, one of these fires resulted when a ‘‘con-

trolled burn’’ near Los Alamos, New Mexico, raged out

of control, sweeping across hundreds of acres of land and

destroying homes and businesses for miles. In June 2002

a massive fire swept through Arizona destroying hun-

dreds of homes and businesses and causing thirty thou-

sand people to flee. The fire burned 375,000 acres in only

a week and was called a ‘‘tidal wave’’ by fire fighters

trying to contain it. Numerous other fires roared through

FIGURE 11.1

Protected forest Other forest

Location of protected forests and other forests in the United States, 2001

SOURCE: “Figure 4-2. Location of Protected Forests in the United States, 2001,” in National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, October 2003

154 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

the American West during the summer of 2002. The

summer of 2004 saw only 77,534 fires, the lowest num-

ber recorded since these statistics originated in 1960.

However, the fires burned nearly 6.8 million acres, mak-

ing 2004 the fourth-worst fire season on record. Figure

11.4 shows the number of acres burned by wildland fires

between 1960 and 2004.

In 2004 federal agencies spent $890 million putting

out destructive fires. This was far less than the $1.66

billion spent during 2002, the most expensive year on

record.

Following the disastrous 2000 fire season, the Forest

Service collaborated with other agencies to develop The

National Fire Plan, a long-term strategy for more effec-

tively dealing with fire threats and preventing future

wildfires. In August 2002 the Bush administration pre-

sented its plan for wildfire management in Healthy For-

ests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger

Communities. The so-called Healthy Forests Initiative

implements core strategies of the National Fire Plan.

According to America’s Forests: 2003 Health

Update, catastrophic fires are due to decades of fire

suppression that have allowed forests to become over-

crowded with highly combustible undergrowth. The

situation is aggravated by a lingering drought in the West

and trees stressed by pests and disease. The report warns

that ‘‘the fire risk in many forested areas remains high.’’

In July 2005 the Forest Service published an update

on its progress in implementing the National Fire Plan

and Healthy Forests Initiative. Healthy Forests Report

(http://www.healthyforests.gov/projects/healthy_forests_

report_08_01_2005.pdf ) notes that land managers are

focusing on two approaches—reducing hazardous under-

growth and other ‘‘fuels’’ for fires, particularly in the

wild/urban interface, and restoring forests and grasslands

to more historical conditions by eliminating pests and

invasive species.

OUTBREAKS OF NATIVE INSECTS. Native insects of

concern in American forests include bark beetles and

southern pine beetles. Under certain conditions these

insects can infest huge areas of forests and kill thousands

of trees. This is damaging by itself and exaggerates other

threats to forests, such as wildfires. Wildfires are more

likely to spread quickly and burn hotter when forests

contain large amounts of trees that have been weakened

or killed by insect damage.

The Forest Service estimates that southern pine

beetles pose a moderate to high risk to more than ninety

million forested acres across the Southeast. In 2001

beetle outbreaks affected tens of thousands of acres in

the South, resulting in $200 million in damages. The

Forest Service spent $10 million that year alone fighting

the beetle outbreak. In the western United States the bark

beetle known as the mountain pine beetle is a major killer

of pine trees. Thousands of acres of pine forest across the

West are considered at risk. The Forest Service focuses

its resources on tracking, suppressing, and preventing

beetle outbreaks and on replanting forests decimated by

the pests.

NONNATIVE INVASIVE INSECTS AND PATHOGENS

(DISEASES). Another major threat to America’s forests

is the spread of nonnative invasive insects and pathogens.

Nonnative (or exotic) species can be very harmful,

because they do not have natural predators in their new

environment. This allows them to ‘‘invade’’ their new

territory and spread very quickly.

Species of major concern to forest health are as

follows:

• Gypsy Moths—An insect that arrived in the United

States during the 1800s from Europe and Asia. In the

springtime they devour newly emerged leaves on

hundreds of tree species (primarily oaks). They are

concentrated in eastern forests where they are

blamed for defoliating more than eighty million

acres of trees.

• Hemlock Woolly Adelgid—An insect that arrived in

the United States during the 1920s from China and

Japan. The pest eats the leaves off of eastern hemlock

trees. It has infested hemlock forests across the North-

east and South Central states from Maine to northern

Georgia. Trees die within only a few years of being

infested.

FIGURE 11.2

Ownership of U.S. forests, 2003

SOURCE: Adapted from data in America’s Forests: 2003 Health Update,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, May2003

Nonindustriallandowners

49%

National forestsystem20%

States8%Industrial

landowners10%

Other federalagencies

13%

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 155

• White Pine Blister Rust—A fungus native to Eur-

ope introduced to western Canada around 1910. It

migrated quickly southward across the mountainous

states where it is particularly lethal to high-altitude

pine forests. Once firmly entrenched in an area, the

fungus can kill more than 95% of the trees it

infects.

• Sudden Oak Death—A disease caused by the patho-

gen Phytophthora ramorum. Its origin is unknown,

but it was introduced to the United States within the

past few decades. So far, it has been found in forests

in California and southern Oregon where it has killed

thousands of trees (primarily oak) and ornamental and

wild shrubs. Scientists fear that it could spread east-

ward and cause enormous damage to the country’s

massive oak forests.

• Emerald Ash Borer—An exotic wood-boring beetle

from Asia that targets ash trees. Believed to have

entered the United States in cargo packing materials,

the beetle was discovered in southeastern Michigan in

the summer of 2002 and has so far killed millions of

trees. Ashes are killed when the beetles’ larvae bore

tunnels within the wood, cutting off the tree’s water

and nutrients. Infested ash trees, which are predomi-

nantly in the northeastern United States and Canada,

die within two to three years of infestation.

The Forest Service employs a variety of measures to

combat nonnative invasive pests, including application

of insecticides and release of biological control agents.

These agents include insects and pathogens found to

prey upon the nonnative invasive pests. For example,

since 1999 the Forest Service has raised and released

more than five hundred thousand ladybird beetles into

forests infested with Hemlock Woolly Adelgids. The

beetles, which are native to the United States, feed on

the Adelgids and their eggs. Experts hope this measure

will wipe out nearly all of the Adelgid population in the

forests treated.

FIGURE 11.3

National forest and grassland areas, 2001

SOURCE: “Find National Forests and Grasslands,” in Recreation, Heritage, & Wilderness Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,Washington, DC, April 13, 2004, http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/finder.shtml (accessed August 4, 2005)

National forest National grassland

156 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES. Insects and pathogens are

not the only invaders causing damage to America’s for-

ests. Certain plants (native and nonnative) become a

threat when they grow out of control and overpower

regular forest vegetation. Invasive plants of major con-

cern include leafy spurge in northern states (particularly

in the West), kudzu in the South, and mile-a-minute weed

in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states.

Although these plants are most often a problem in

rangelands, they are increasingly affecting forests. Inva-

sive plants strangle and smother young seedlings and

gobble up resources, such as water and nutrients needed

by other plants. They also contribute to buildup of highly

combustible undergrowth, making forests more suscepti-

ble to hot-burning wildfires. This is one of the reasons

that the National Fire Plan targets invasive plants for

reduction. In addition, there is the Federal Interagency

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic

Weeds. This is a collaboration of seventeen agencies

working to develop control techniques for invasive plants

across the country. The Forest Service is working on a

variety of measures, primarily biological agents (such as

insects or fungi known to attack invasive plants).

Figure 11.5 shows the breakdown by acreage of the

pests and diseases targeted for treatment by the Forest

Service during fiscal year 2005. Approximately 868,000

acres are to be treated. More than half of the acres are

being targeted for treatment of gypsy moth infestation.

ECOLOGICALLY DAMAGING CHANGES IN FOREST

TYPE. America’s forests have been changed over the

years by many human and natural factors. This has led

to ecological changes in entire forest types. For example,

prior to the 1900s the forests of the Appalachian Moun-

tains were dominated by the American Chestnut. A fun-

gus introduced from Europe virtually wiped out the

chestnut population by the 1950s. Other species of trees

soon became predominant. Today scientists consider this

type of forest change to be harmful from an ecological

standpoint. Major changes in forest type have profound

effects on the overall health of a forest, wildlife habitat,

and even soil conditions. The Forest Service worries

that a combination of stressors, including fire, drought,

destructive pests, and human activities, pose major

dangers to forests. Human activities that can negatively

affect forests include agriculture and residential

development.

Timber Harvesting and Replanting

Environmentalists fear that forests of the United States

are being depleted by ‘‘clear-cutting’’ practices—the

method of logging in which all trees in an area are

FIGURE 11.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Number of wildland fires and acres affected, 1960–2004

SOURCE: Adapted from “Total Fires and Acres 1960–2004,” in Wildland Fire Statistics, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID, 2005, http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html (accessed August 4, 2005)

Note: 2004 fires and acres do not include state lands in North Carolina.

Num

ber o

f acr

es (i

n m

illio

ns)

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 157

cut—as opposed to ‘‘selective management’’ techniques,

in which only certain trees are removed from an area.

According to the Forest Service, nearly ten million

acres of forests are harvested annually. This represents

approximately 1% of all forested land. More than half of

the harvested area lies in the South, which supplies nearly

60% of the country’s total forest products each year. The

Forest Service reports that approximately 38% of the

country’s annual harvest area is cleared using the clear-

cut method.

The lumber industry continually battles with envi-

ronmentalists and the Forest Service over the right to

clear-cut ancient forests, particularly in the Northwest.

Experts believe that North American ‘‘old growth’’ for-

ests (stands of old, large trees) may store more carbon

than any of the world’s other sinks (repositories).

Many observers believe that the biggest threat from

this logging technique is the loss of diversity of species in

the area. The logging industry contends that restrictions

on logging devastate rural communities by causing the

loss of thousands of jobs and leading to an increase in

retail prices for lumber nationwide.

Logging roads are increasingly blamed for contribut-

ing to landslides, floods, and changes in rivers and

streams. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was

adopted in January 2001 to protect nearly sixty million

acres of national forests from further road building and

logging, while keeping them open for recreational uses.

The rule had both environmental and economic goals.

The Forest Service oversees approximately 386,000

miles of roads, and their upkeep costs billions of dollars.

The high cost of building and maintaining these roads is

often cited as a reason many national forests lose money

on timber sales. The rule was immediately challenged in

court by a variety of groups, but a federal appeals court

upheld the rule in December 2002.

In an effort to counteract tree loss, forests are often

‘‘replanted’’ or replaced. Most experts contend that, when

a natural forest is clear-cut and replanted with commer-

cially valuable trees, the plot becomes a tree farm, not a

forest, and the biological interaction is damaged. Primary

forests represent centuries, perhaps a millennium, of

undisturbed growth. Trees will rebound after clear-

cutting within seventy to one hundred and fifty years

but, researchers have found, the plants and herbs of the

understory (growth under the canopy of the trees) never

regain the richness of species diversity and complexity of

their predecessors.

The Effects of Pollution

Many biologists believe that regional air pollution is a

serious anthropogenic (made by humans) threat to tem-

perate forest ecosystems. The most dangerous impact on

forests comes from ozone, heavy metals, and acid deposi-

tion. Ozone exposure reduces forest yields by stunting the

growth of seedlings and increasing stresses on trees. Such

damage can take years to become evident. Numerous

studies suggest that both photosynthesis and growth

decline significantly after one or two weeks of ozone at

levels of fifty to seventy parts per billion (ppb), more

than twice the normal background level of twenty to

thirty ppb. During growing seasons average ozone levels

are highest in the West (California, Nevada, Utah, and

Arizona) and on the East Coast south of Pennsylvania.

WETLANDS—FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS

Marshes, swamps, bogs, estuaries, and bottomlands

comprise about 5–9% of the forty-eight contiguous states

and about 40% of Alaska. Although these terms refer to

specific biosystems with sometimes very distinctive char-

acteristics, they are commonly grouped together under

the name ‘‘wetlands.’’ Wetlands provide a vivid example

of the dynamic yet fragile interactions that create, main-

tain, and repair the world’s ecological system. Unfortu-

nately, the fate of many wetlands can also offer concrete

evidence of the harmful consequences of human acti-

vities that are carried out without regard for, and often

without knowledge of, the relationship of each part of the

ecosystem to the whole.

FIGURE 11.5

Acres of land to be treated by Forest Service, by pest, fiscalyear 2005

SOURCE: Adapted from “Acres of Land Planned for Treatment by ForestService Forest Health Protection Activities for Forest Insects, Diseases and Invasive Plants Using FY05 Funding,” in Healthy Forests Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, July 1, 2005, http://www.healthyforests.gov/projects/healthy_forests _report_07_01_2005.pdf (accessed August 4, 2005)

Gypsy moth 472,000

Invasive plants 182,000

Western bark beetles95,000

Southern pine beetles 72,000

White pine blister rust

6,000 Others 41,000

158 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

Once regarded as useless swamps, good only for

breeding mosquitoes and taking up otherwise valuable

space, wetlands have become the subject of increasingly

heated debate. Many people want to use them for com-

mercial purposes such as agricultural and residential

development. Others want them left in their natural state

because they believe that wetlands and their inhabitants

are indispensable parts of the natural cycle of life on

Earth.

What Are Wetlands?

‘‘Wetlands’’ is a general term used to describe areas that

are always or often saturated by enough surface or

groundwater to sustain vegetation that is typically

adapted to saturated soil conditions, such as cattails,

bulrushes, red maples, wild rice, blackberries, cranber-

ries, and peat moss. The Florida Everglades and the

coastal Alaskan salt marshes are examples of wetlands,

as are the sphagnum-heath bogs of Maine. Because some

varieties of wetlands are rich in minerals and nutrients

and provide many of the advantages of both land and

water environments, they are often dynamic systems that

teem with a diversity of species, including many

insects—a basic link in the food chain.

Wetlands are generally located along sloping areas

between uplands and deep-water basins such as rivers,

although they may also form in basins far from large

bodies of water. Of the ninety million acres of wetlands

in the lower forty-eight states, almost all (95%) are

inland, freshwater areas; the remaining 5% are coastal

saltwater wetlands. Alaska is estimated to have more than

two hundred million acres of wetlands.

There are several distinct forms of wetlands, each

with its own unique characteristics. The main factors that

distinguish each type of wetland are location (coastal or

inland), source of water (precipitation, rivers and streams,

groundwater), salinity (freshwater or saltwater), and the

dominant type of vegetation (peat mosses, soft-stemmed,

or woody plants). Wetlands are a continuum in which

plant life changes gradually from predominantly aquatic

to predominantly upland species. The difficulty in defin-

ing the exact point at which a wetland ends and upland

begins results in much of the confusion as to how wet-

lands should be regulated.

The Many Roles of Wetlands

Productive wetlands are rich ecosystems that support

diverse forms of plant and wildlife. Wetlands also play

many other roles in the environment. Their primary con-

tributions are noted below:

• Food and habitat—Wetlands are a source of food and

habitat for numerous game and nongame animals. For

some species of waterfowl and freshwater and salt-

water fish, wetlands are essential for nesting and

breeding. They also provide way stations for migrat-

ing birds. About one in five plant and animal species

listed as endangered by the U.S. government depend

on wetlands for their survival. Two-thirds of the spe-

cies of Atlantic fish and shellfish that humans con-

sume depend on wetlands for some part of their life

cycle, as do nearly half of all species listed as endan-

gered or threatened.

• Water quality improvements—Wetlands can tempora-

rily or permanently trap pollutants such as excess

nutrients, toxic chemicals, suspended materials, and

disease-causing microorganisms—thus cleansing the

water that flows over and through them. Some pollu-

tants that become trapped in wetlands are biochemi-

cally converted to less harmful forms; other pollutants

remain buried there; still others are absorbed by wet-

land plants and either recycled through the wetland or

carried away from it. (See Figure 11.6.)

• Commercial fishing—Between 60–90% of the United

States’ commercial fish species spawn in coastal wet-

lands. More than one-half of the country’s seafood

catch depends on wetlands during some part of their

life cycle.

• Floodwater reduction—Isolated and floodplain wet-

lands can reduce the frequency of flooding in down-

stream areas by temporarily storing runoff water.

• Shoreline stabilization—Because of their density of

plant life, wetlands can dramatically lessen shoreline

erosion caused by large waves and major flooding

along rivers and coasts.

• Recreation—Many popular recreational activities,

including fishing, hunting, and canoeing, occur in wet-

lands. In addition, wetland areas provide open space,

an important but increasingly scarce commodity.

History of Wetlands Use

When the first Europeans arrived in America, there

were an estimated 215 million acres of wetlands. By the

beginning of the twenty-first century, only about ninety

million or so acres remained.

Early Americans considered wetlands nature’s fail-

ure, a waste in nature’s economy. They sought not to

preserve nature in its original form but to increase the

efficiency of natural processes. In an agricultural eco-

nomy, land unable to produce crops or timber was con-

sidered worthless. Many Americans began to think of

draining these lands, an undertaking requiring govern-

ment funds and resources.

During the 1800s the U.S. Congress passed a number

of Swamp Land Acts that allowed states to drain

(reclaim) wetlands. By the end of the century these

acts applied to fifteen states and encompassed nearly

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 159

sixty-five million acres of wetlands (Thomas E. Dahl and

Gregory J. Allord, Technical Aspects of Wetlands: His-

tory of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States,

http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html).

Major factors driving wetland reclamation projects

included the spread of agriculture, railroad building,

and the Civil War. The invention of steam-powered

equipment meant that wetlands could be drained much

faster than in the past.

After the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s,

programs such as the Works Progress Administration and

the Reconstruction Finance Corporation encouraged wet-

land conversion to form land for urban development. In

1945, at the end of World War II, the total area of drained

farmland increased sharply.

Since the birth of the United States more than 50% of

the wetlands in the forty-eight contiguous states have

been taken over for agriculture, mining, forestry, oil and

gas extraction, and urbanization. Some loss resulted from

natural causes such as erosion, sedimentation (the

buildup of soil by the settling of fine particles over a

long period of time), subsidence (the sinking of land

because of diminishing underground water supplies),

and a rise in the sea level. However, experts estimate that

more than three-fourths of the wetland conversions have

been for agricultural purposes. Figure 11.7 shows the

number of wetland acres lost annually over recent

decades.

FIGURE 11.6

Storm water runoff reduction

Sediment trapping

Chemical detoxification

Nutrient removal

Wetlands’ contribution to improving water quality and reducing storm water runoff

SOURCE: “Figure 5. Wetlands’ Contribution to Improving Water Quality and Reducing Storm Water Runoff,” in Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality, GAO-02-12, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, October 2001

FIGURE 11.7

500,000

400,000

200,000

100,000

0

300,000

1990s

Number of wetland acres lost annually, 1950s–70s,1970s–80s, and 1990s

SOURCE: “Figure 4. Wetland Acres Lost Annually,” in Protecting andRestoring America’s Watersheds, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, June 2001

1950s–1970s 1970s–1980s

160 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

Wetlands use is affected by two major pieces of

federal legislation—the Clean Water Act (CWA) and

the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899

(RHA). Regulations carrying out the intent of these acts

are promulgated by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

Sections of the CWA regulate activities that impact

wetlands, particularly discharges to them of dredged or

fill material. These discharges are subject to the require-

ments of Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA. They are

also regulated under numerous state regulations. The

RHA regulates activities that could obstruct navigation

of the country’s waterways. For example, the building of

dams, bridges, wharves, and piers is regulated as well as

excavation and fill activities. Creation of any obstruction

requires the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-

neers. The restrictions of the RHA apply only to wetlands

that are navigable. The federal government defines navig-

able as meaning a body of water is subject to tides and/or

has been, is, or could likely be used to transport interstate

or foreign commerce.

There are other federal laws and programs designed

to protect wetlands through the use of incentives (such as

grants) or disincentives (denial of federal funding for

certain projects that affect wetlands). In addition, wet-

lands are regulated by a host of state and local agencies.

Overall, there is no one federal program that oversees all

aspects of wetland protection. In addition, the existing

federal legislation regulates the filling of wetlands, but

not other activities that could damage them. Critics com-

plain that these policies do not provide adequate protec-

tion for wetlands. However, many private landowners,

farmers, and developers believe that existing legislation

is too restrictive.

During the late 1980s President George H. W. Bush

set a national goal for eliminating wetland losses in the

short term and achieving net gains in wetlands over the

long term. The concept is called ‘‘no-net-loss.’’ Land

developers were encouraged to offset wetland losses by

developing or buying shares in wetland mitigation banks.

For example, a utility company that wanted to destroy

wetlands in one location to build a power plant could

develop a larger acreage of wetlands in another suitable

location to offset the loss. Wetland banking became very

popular during the 1990s and 2000s as the ‘‘no-net-loss’’

policy was endorsed by both Presidents Clinton and

George W. Bush.

LAND USE BATTLES

The debate about natural resources depletion and con-

servation centers on a key question—who gets to decide

how land should be used? This issue has been a long-

standing battle between the government and private citi-

zens. As shown in Figure 11.2, more than half of the

nation’s forests lie in private hands (those of nonindus-

trial and industrial landowners). It is estimated that three-

fourths of U.S. wetlands belong to private owners. In

recent decades landowners have become increasingly

resistant to government intervention in how private lands

are used and managed.

For example, there are complaints that wetland reg-

ulations devalue property by blocking its development.

Some landowners argue that efforts to preserve the wet-

lands have gone too far, citing instances where a small

wetland precludes the use of much larger surrounding

areas. Some large landowners have long opposed any

federal (and state and local) powers to protect resources

such as wetlands that might limit their land use options.

Another policy question of concern to the public is

the right of the federal government to take property with-

out compensation. The ‘‘takings’’ clause of the Constitu-

tion (the Fifth Amendment) provides that, when private

property is taken for public use, just compensation must

be paid to the owner. Owners claim that when the gov-

ernment—through its laws—eliminates some uses for

their land, the value is decreased and they should, there-

fore, be paid for the loss.

There is also debate about how and when govern-

ment-owned lands should be used. The GAO reported in

2001 that the federal government managed just over 680

million acres, or about 29%, of the nation’s total land

surface. Of these lands, 96% are managed by four agen-

cies—the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest

Service. Most public lands are located in western states.

In much of the West ranchers have petitioned Con-

gress to loosen restrictions on grazing on thousands of

acres of federally owned ranch land. Environmental

groups strongly oppose the proposal, claiming that graz-

ing imperils land conservation, wildlife, and recreation.

Grazing, they charge, is especially destructive to stream

banks and sensitive wildlife habitat. Such concern for the

soil and wildlife also lies at the heart of the dispute

between oil companies and environmentalists over con-

trol of public lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge in Alaska.

SOILS

The nations’ soils are a major natural resource. Good

soil conditions are crucial for healthy ecosystems and

productive agriculture. Soil abundance and health are

affected by many factors, both natural and anthropogenic.

Major examples include pollution and erosion. The

effects on soil of acid rain, water pollution, toxic releases,

and waste disposal have already been discussed else-

where in this publication. This section will focus on the

effects of erosion.

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 161

Erosion

Erosion is the process in which the materials of the

Earth’s crust are worn and carried away by wind, water,

and other natural forces. The destruction of forests and

native grasses has allowed water and wind greater oppor-

tunity to erode the soil. Changes in river flow and seep-

age from human technology have shifted the runoff

patterns of water and the sediment load of rivers that, in

turn, deposit into lakes and oceans. Erosion has become a

problem in much of the world in areas that are over-

farmed or where topsoil cannot be protected, such as on

coasts, which are often overdeveloped.

Soil Erosion and Agriculture

Agricultural lands are the principal source of eroded soil.

According to the USDA, approximately 20% of the

nation’s land is set aside for cropland. Three-quarters of

this land is actively used to grow crops for harvesting. The

remainder is used for pasture or is idled for various rea-

sons. This would include cropland enrolled in the Federal

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). (See Figure 11.8.)

Agriculture depends primarily on the top six to

eight inches of topsoil. Fields planted in rows, such

as corn, are most susceptible to soil runoff. In 2002

corn comprised 22% of total acres used for crops in

the United States. Cover crops, such as hay, provide

more soil cover to hold the land. Hay crops accounted

for 17% of total acres used for crops in 2002. (See

Figure 11.9.)

According to Excessive Erosion on Cropland, 1997

(2000; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/

m5083.html), the USDA’s Natural Resources Conserva-

tion Service found that 108 million acres were eroding

excessively.

The amount of erosion has declined in past decades.

The USDA attributes the decline to the CRP, which pays

farmers to take land out of production for ten years, and to

the Conservation Compliance Program. As part of the 1985

Farm Act (PL 99–198), the Conservation Compliance

Program was initiated as a major policy tool. To be eligible

for agricultural program benefits, farmers must meet mini-

mum levels of conservation on highly erodible land.

Historically, when most of the topsoil was lost, farm-

ers would abandon the land. Now, however, farmers

continue to plow the soil, even when it consists of as

much subsoil as topsoil. It costs more money to produce

food on such land than on land where topsoil is present.

Farmers often use more fertilizer to make up for the

decreasing productivity of the soil, and that, in turn, adds

to environmental pollution.

COASTAL EROSION. In Evaluation of Erosion

Hazards (http://www.heinzctr.org/Programs/SOCW/ero-

sion.htm), a study prepared for the Federal Emergency

FIGURE 11.8

Land use, 1997

SOURCE: “Figure 2-2. U.S. Land Use: 1997,” in U.S. Climate ActionReport 2002, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, May 2002

Grassland, pasture,and range

26%

Cropland idled,including

ConservationReserve Program

2%

Urban land3%

Cropland usedfor pasture

3%

Miscellaneousother land

10% Special uses13%

Cropland usedfor crops

15%

Forest-use land 28%

FIGURE 11.9

Farm acres by crop, 2002

SOURCE: Adapted from “Field Crops: Acreage, Yield, Production, Price,and Value,” “Fresh Vegetables: Acreage, Yield, Production, Price, and Value,” “Fruits and Nuts: Noncitrus Fruit Acreage, UtilizedProduction, Price, and Value,” “Fruits and Nuts: Citrus Fruit Acreage,Utilized Production, Price, and Value,” and “Fruits and Nuts: NutAcreage, Utilized Production, Price, and Value,” in StatisticalHighlights of United States Agriculture, 2002/2003, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC,June 2003

Soybeans20%

Hay17%

Wheat16%

Other fieldcrops10%

Corn22%

Hops8%

Fruits & nuts1%

Other vegetables2%

Cotton4%

162 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

Management Agency in April 2000, the H. John Heinz III

Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, a

nonprofit research organization, found that approximately

25% of structures within five hundred feet of the U.S.

coastline will suffer the effects of coastal erosion within

sixty years. Especially hard hit will be areas along the

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, which are expected

to suffer 60% of nationwide losses.

The nation’s highest average erosion rates—up to six

feet or more per year—occur along the Gulf of Mexico.

The average erosion rate on the Atlantic coast is two to

three feet per year. A major storm can erode one hundred

feet of coastline in a day. The Heinz Center estimates that

roughly ten thousand structures are within the estimated

ten-year erosion zone closest to the shore. This does not

include structures in the densest areas of large coastal

cities, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and

Miami, which are heavily protected against erosion.

The powerful effects of erosion were dramatized by

the predicament of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse in North

Carolina. When it was constructed in 1870 the lighthouse

was 1,500 feet from the shore. By 1987 the lighthouse

stood only 160 feet from the sea and was in danger of

collapsing. In 1999 the National Park Service, at a cost of

$9.8 million, successfully moved the lighthouse back

2,900 feet.

Erosion of beaches on the East Coast is becoming a

more serious problem as development inches closer to the

ocean. The Army Corps of Engineers has been rebuilding

eroded beaches since the 1950s. Many experts, however,

believe that beach replenishment is a futile effort and that

funds could be better spent elsewhere.

BIODIVERSITY

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to the full

range of plant, animal, and microbial life and the ecosys-

tems that house them. Environmentalists began using the

term during the 1980s when biologists increasingly

warned that human activities were causing a loss of plant

and animal species.

No one knows how many species of plants and ani-

mals exist in the world. By the beginning of the twenty-

first century scientists had named and documented 1.4

million species. Educated guesses of the total number of

different species range from five million to one hundred

million. Just as the health of a nation is promoted by a

diverse economy, the health of the biosphere is promoted

by a diverse ecology.

The loss of diversity leads to problems beyond the

simple loss of animal and plant variety. When local

populations of species are wiped out, the genetic diversity

within that species that enables it to adapt to environ-

mental change is diminished, resulting in a situation of

‘‘biotic impoverishment.’’ Those organisms that do sur-

vive are likely to be hardy, ‘‘opportunistic’’ organisms

tolerating a wide variety of conditions—characteristics

often associated with pests. Experts suggest that, as some

species dwindle, their places may be taken by a dispro-

portionate number of pest or weed species that, while a

natural part of life, will be less beneficial to human

beings.

The loss of habitats, the contamination of water and

food supplies, poaching, and indiscriminate hunting and

fishing have depleted the population of many species.

Most scientists agree that prospects for the survival of

many species of wildlife, and hence biodiversity, are

worsening.

Endangered Species Act

The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed into

law during the administration of President Richard

Nixon, was originally intended to protect creatures like

grizzly bears and whales with whose plight Americans

found it easy to identify. In the words of its critics,

however, it has become the ‘‘pit bull of environmental

laws,’’ policing the behavior of entire industries. In three

decades the ESA has gone from being one of the least

controversial laws passed by Congress, to one of the most

contentious.

The ESA regulates industries that can cause fish and

wildlife populations to decline. It also determines the

criteria to decide which species are endangered. Since

the act was first passed, the pendulum has periodically

swung between increased protection and the need to

soften the law’s economic impact.

There were 1,264 species in the United States listed

as endangered or threatened as of July 2005. Another 563

species are listed for foreign countries. (See Table 11.2.)

The number of endangered or threatened species listed in

the United States has increased dramatically since 1980,

when less than three hundred species were listed.

SOME CASES OF THREATENED SPECIES. Almost daily

the decline or threat to some plant or animal is reported.

Scientists attribute the decline of salmon on the West

Coast to spoiled habitat and disruption of river flow.

Erosion of the coastline in Florida has left no place for

sea turtles to dig their nests, and they are dying off.

Peregrine falcons, one of the first species to be

listed on the Endangered Species List, were dying

because they were consuming DDT in the food chain.

Following their listing under the ESA, and the banning

of DDT in 1972, the falcon population has rebounded.

In 1999 they were officially removed from the Endan-

gered Species List.

The ivory tusks of African elephants are very valu-

able, as they can be fashioned into jewelry and artwork.

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 163

In the mid-twentieth century African elephants were so

extensively hunted for their ivory that their population

dropped to dangerous levels. The international commu-

nity responded in 1990 by banning trade in African

elephant ivory under the Convention on the International

Trade in Endangered Species. Poaching of elephants con-

tinued but their population began to rebound. By 1999

there were so many elephants in Zimbabwe, Namibia,

and Botswana that those countries (unsuccessfully)

requested permission to resume limited trade in ivory.

Dolphins tend to swim with schools of tuna in the

Pacific Ocean, and nets used by commercial fisheries to

catch tuna also entrap dolphins. Since netting began in

1958 an estimated seven million dolphins have been

killed. In 1972 Congress passed the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (PL 92–522) to reduce the deaths of the

dolphins. The law was amended in 1985 and 1988 to

regulate tuna imported from other countries. Trade

groups have challenged these regulations by pointing to

the economic losses of companies and nations that abide

by the law. Some companies ignore the law, while other

companies have printed a ‘‘Dolphin Safe’’ label on their

tuna products to show that they obey the law.

Scientists investigating a worldwide decline in frogs

and other amphibians have found evidence identifying a

number of factors that have contributed to the decline:

ultraviolet radiation caused by the thinning of the ozone

layer, chemical pollution, and a human taste for frog

meat. These species are considered indicator species

because their sensitivity makes them early indicators of

environmental damage. Butterflies, another creature con-

sidered an indicator species, are also disappearing in

many areas.

Species Loss—Crisis or False Alarm?

A 1996 study by the Nature Conservancy on more than

twenty thousand American plant and animal species

found that about one-third of species were rare or imper-

iled, a larger fraction than some scientists had expected.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment to date of

the state of American plants and animal species, found

that mammals and birds were doing relatively well com-

pared to other groups, but that a high proportion of

flowering plants and freshwater marine species, like mus-

sels, crayfish, and fish, were in trouble. Of the 20,481

species examined, about two-thirds were secure, 1.3%

was extinct or possibly extinct, 6.5% were critically

imperiled, 8.9% were imperiled, and 15% were consi-

dered vulnerable. The destruction or degradation of

habitat was considered to be the main threat.

As with most environmental questions, not all

experts agree about the threat to species diversity.

Some observers believe that extensive damage to spe-

cies diversity has not been proven and claim that,

while wild habitats are disappearing because of human

expansion, the seriousness of the extinction has been

exaggerated and is unsupported by scientific evidence.

They point to the fact that the total number of species

and their geographic distribution are unknown. How,

they ask, can forecasts be made based on such sketchy

data?

Other observers contend that extinctions, even mass

ones, are inevitable and occur as a result of great geolo-

gical and astronomical events that humans cannot affect.

They do not believe that disruptions caused by human

activity are enough to create the mega-extinction prophe-

sied by people they consider ‘‘alarmists.’’

Furthermore, some critics of the environmental

movement believe that the needs of humans are being

made secondary to those of wildlife. They contend that

the Endangered Species Act protects wildlife regardless

of the economic cost to human beings. Sometimes, as in

the case of the spotted owl of the Pacific Northwest

forests, that cost is the loss of jobs for people. The owl’s

presence halted logging there—following protests by

environmental groups—at considerable economic loss to

communities and families in the area. Furthermore,

critics contend that halting development because it threat-

ens a species whose whole population occupies only a

TABLE 11.2

Number of endangered and threatened species, U.S. and foreign,as of July 1, 2005

Endangered Threatened

Group U.S. Foreign U.S. Foreign

Mammals 68 251 10 20 349Birds 77 175 13 6 271Reptiles 14 64 22 16 116Amphibians 11 8 10 1 30Fishes 71 11 43 1 126Clams 62 2 8 0 72Snails 21 1 11 0 33Insects 35 4 9 0 48Arachnids 12 0 0 0 12Crustaceans 18 0 3 0 21

Animal subtotal 389 516 129 44 1,078

Flowering plants 571 1 144 0 716Conifers and cycads 2 0 1 2 5Ferns and allies 24 0 2 0 26Lichens 2 0 0 0 2

Plant subtotal 599 1 147 2 749

Grand total 988 517 276 46 1,827

Total U.S. endangered—988 (389 animals, 599 plants)Total U.S. threatened—276 (129 animals, 147 plants)Total U.S. species—1264 (518 animals*, 746 plants)*9 animal species have dual status in the U.S.

SOURCE: Adapted from “Summary of Listed Species: Species and RecoveryPlans as of 7/01/2005,” in Threatened and Endangered Species System, U.S.Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, July 1,2005, http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_public.servlets.TESSBoxscore?format�print&type�archive&sysdate�7/01/2005(accessed August 4, 2005)

Total species

164 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

few acres and numbers only in the hundreds is simply

nonsense.

Environmentalists have long argued with government

and industry over the question of logging in the Pacific

Northwest forests. Environmentalists claim that the bio-

logical health of the ecosystem is in decline and more

than one hundred species of plants and animals are threa-

tened with extinction, while the timber industry responds

that the forest provides jobs for thousands of Americans

and lumber for millions of people.

The argument came to a head in 1990 when the

spotted owl—which lived only in this particular

region—was added to the list of endangered species.

Logging was halted and a succession of lawsuits was

filed against the Forest Service and the Department of

the Interior. In 1992 President George H. W. Bush grudg-

ingly restricted logging in that area but, at the same

time, moved to amend the law to allow economic con-

siderations to be taken into account. In 1994 President

Clinton worked out what was claimed to be a compro-

mise between environmentalists and business interests,

allowing logging to resume with restrictions on the size,

number, and distribution of trees to be cut.

Earth Summit Biodiversity Treaty

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 156

nations signed a pact to conserve species, habitats, and

ecosystems. This Biodiversity Treaty is regarded as one

of two main achievements of the United Nations Con-

ference on Environment and Development, the other

being a treaty on global warming. The Biodiversity

Treaty makes nations responsible for any environmental

harm in other countries produced by companies head-

quartered in their country.

One provision of the treaty concerns ‘‘biotechno-

logy,’’ a term referring to the ownership of genetic mate-

rial. Plants, seeds, and germplasm have historically been

in the public domain (belonging to the general public),

rather than belonging to any particular government.

Therefore, anyone could exploit or use them without

compensation to the country of origin. For example, the

rosy or Madagascar periwinkle, a plant found only in the

tropical rain forests of Madagascar, is used as a base for

medication to treat Hodgkin’s disease and childhood

leukemia. Madagascar receives no compensation for use

of the plant. The biotechnology treaty drafted in Rio

called for compensation to be paid for the use of those

genetic materials.

The United States did not sign the treaty at the time.

The administration of George H. W. Bush, while agree-

ing with many provisions of the pact, believed the eco-

nomic requirements for accomplishing those goals were

unacceptable to American businesses, because they

would be forced to compensate for the use of these

species. President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993.

However, as of July 2005 the treaty had not been ratified

by the U.S. Senate.

Invasive Species

An invasive species is one that is not native to a parti-

cular ecosystem and whose presence there causes envir-

onmental or economic harm or harm to human health.

This includes species purposely introduced (such as the

plant saltcedar, which was brought to the United States to

control erosion) and unintentionally introduced (such as

zebra mussels, which are thought to have arrived in the

ballast water of ships). Invasive species often have high

reproductive rates and lack predators in their new envir-

onments. They can choke out or ‘‘out-compete’’ native

species.

Many scientists consider invasive species to be one

of the most serious issues threatening the environment. In

response to this threat, the National Invasive Species

Council was established by the U.S. government in

1997. The council includes members from a variety of

agencies including the EPA, the USDA, and the U.S.

Department of the Interior. In 2001 the council issued

its management plan for dealing with the invasive species

problem in Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.

The report states that invasive plants infest approxi-

mately one hundred million acres in the United States and

cost around $137 billion annually for prevention and

control. Zebra mussels, which are believed to have

arrived in the ballast of ships in the Great Lakes, are

one invasive species that has spread rapidly. By 1999

zebra mussel populations extended all the way to the

Gulf Coast. The zebra mussel is considered so perma-

nently entrenched that wholesale eradication would be

virtually impossible. Instead, authorities are concentrat-

ing on limiting further spread of the pests, which clog

water intake pipes.

In addition, authorities are increasingly concerned

about the West Nile virus, an invasive pathogen that is

thought to have originated in Africa. The virus was first

detected in the United States in 1999 in New York. It

infected animals and birds throughout the East and spread

west quickly, carried by migratory birds. The virus can be

transmitted to humans by mosquitoes that have bitten

infected animals and birds.

In 1999 there were sixty-two human cases reported to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

and seven people died from the virus. The number of

cases and fatalities grew quickly until 2003 when more

than 9,800 cases resulted in 264 deaths. In 2003 and 2004

case numbers were down dramatically. In 2004 there

were 2,539 cases reported to the CDC and one hundred

deaths. Figure 11.10 shows the case rate by state.

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 165

Sharing the Planet

In the nineteenth century, miners took parakeets with

them into the mines. If a bird died, they knew they were

in danger from noxious gases. While more scientific and

humane procedures now exist to determine how danger-

ous the situation is, some scientists believe that plants

and animals may still serve as indicators of the safety of

the world. When biologists discover toxic amounts of

poisons in wildlife, they ask whether human beings are

also ingesting these poisons.

Some observers believe that animals should be pro-

tected out of an intrinsic respect for life, aside from any

market value or use to humans. Others contend that

humankind must manage wildlife correctly because bio-

diversity makes good economic and survival sense. Still

others believe that there is no species-loss ‘‘problem,’’

that species loss is a natural part of evolution. All of these

issues are being deliberated as the people of the worldstruggle to decide how best to live with the other animalsand plants that populate the Earth.

ROADS AND WILDLIFE. Almost four million miles of

public roads cross the forty-eight contiguous states. As

roadways reach further and further into undeveloped areas,

encounters with wildlife are inevitable. In Critter Cross-

ing: Linking Habitats and Reducing Roadkill (2000; http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifecrossings/) the U.S.

Department of Transportation reported that roads impact

wildlife in several ways:

• Roadkill—Vehicles traveling U.S. roads kill millions

of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians every

year. The ocelot, an already endangered cat, is in

further jeopardy due to highway kills. In addition,

humans are sometimes killed or injured in animal–

vehicle collisions. The insurance industry estimates

FIGURE 11.10

Cases of West Nile virus, 2004

SOURCE: “Final 2004 West Nile Virus Activity in the United States,” in West Nile Virus: Statistics, Surveillance, and Control, U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, June 21, 2005, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/surv&control04Maps_PrinterFriendly.htm (accessed August 4, 2005)

Avian, animal or mosquito infectionsIndicates human disease case(s)

WA

OR3 ID

3

MT6

WY10

CA779

NV44 UT

11

AZ391 NM

88

TX176

OK22

KS43

NE53

SD51

ND20

MN34

IA23

MO36

AR28

LA109

FL41

CO291

MS51

TN14

AL16

GA21

SC2

NC3

KY7

WI12

IL60

IN13

OH12

PA15

NY10

MI16

VA5

AK

HI

Puerto Rico

ME

VTNH

MA

NJ

MDWV

DC 2

16

DE

1

CT 1

RI

166 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

the cost of these fatalities and injuries is about $200

million; motorists pay at least $2,000 in vehicle repair

when they hit a large animal.

• Habitat loss—When humans build highways and

develop areas, they destroy habitat. This forces ani-

mals into smaller and smaller areas and into areas

inhabited by humans. Some species cannot migrate,

and therefore die; others are forced to compete for

fewer resources to live and breed.

• Habitat fragmentation—When roads cut through wild

areas, they divide wildlife populations into smaller,

more isolated, and less stable groups. These animals

become more vulnerable to predators and are given to

inbreeding with its resulting genetic defects.

Under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the

Twenty-First Century (PL 105–l178), the Federal High-

way Administration can provide wildlife crossings—

‘‘habitat connectivity measures’’—for new and existing

roads. Among the strategies used to counteract habitat

loss and roadkill are overpasses and underpasses, tunnels,

and culverts.

Deep-Sea Harvesting

Worldwide, after centuries of steady growth, the total

catch of wild fish peaked in the early 1990s and has

declined ever since. In State of World Fisheries and

Aquaculture, 2004 (http://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_

en.htm), the FAO reported that just over 50% of all

commercial fish stocks have been fully exploited. A

further 25% of stocks were reported to be overexploited.

A result of the declining catches of fish in shallow

fisheries is the recent scouring of the deep seas for other

varieties of fish such as the nine-inch-long royal red

shrimp, rattails, skates, squid, red crabs, orange roughy,

oreos, hoki, blue ling, southern blue whiting, and spiny

dogfish. Although limited commercial fishing of the deep

has been practiced for decades, new sciences and tech-

nologies are making it more practical and efficient. As

stocks of better-known fish shrink and international quo-

tas tighten, experts say the deep ocean waters will

increasingly be targeted as a source of seafood. Scientists

worry that the rush for deep-sea food will upset the

ecology of the ocean.

MINERALS AND OIL

Materials extracted from the Earth are needed to pro-

vide humans with food, clothing, and housing and to

continually upgrade the standard of living. Some of the

materials needed are renewable resources, such as agri-

cultural and forestry products, while others are nonre-

newable, such as minerals and fossil fuels.

According to the Web site of the U.S. Department of

Energy Industrial Technologies Program, nearly forty-

seven thousand pounds of materials are mined each year

for each person in the United States.

The large-scale exploitation of minerals began in

earnest with the Industrial Revolution around 1760 in

England and has grown rapidly ever since. In a world

economy based on fossil fuels, minerals and oil are valu-

able. The value increases in proportion to demand—

which is increasing—and supply—which is decreasing.

The result is that the search for minerals and fuel sources

has become very aggressive and may be detrimental to

the environment.

Mining has always been a dirty industry. As early as

1550, German mineralogist and scholar Georgius Agri-

cola wrote: ‘‘The fields are devastated by mining oper-

ations . . . the woods and groves cut down . . . then are

exterminated the beasts and birds. . . . Further, when the

ores are washed, the water that has been used poisons the

streams, and either destroys the fish or drives them

away.’’

Centuries later mining still pollutes the environment,

only on a larger scale. The Clean Air Act (PL 101–576),

the Clean Water Act (PL 92–500), and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94–580)

regulate certain aspects of mining but, in general, the

states are primarily responsible for regulation, which

varies widely from state to state.

Oil in the Arctic

The search for oil has led to the exploration of the

Alaskan wilderness. Since the oil supply from the exist-

ing North Slope Reserve will steadily decline and then

eventually disappear, exploratory oil drillers are focusing

their attention on the National Petroleum Reserve in

Alaska (NPRA) in the Arctic wilderness. The NPRA is

a twenty-three-million-acre area in northwestern Alaska.

(See Figure 11.11.) Geologists consider northern Alaska

to be the last, great untapped oil field in North America.

Environmental experts fear that oil and gas development

will seriously harm the area.

In 2002 the USGS assessed the NPRA and found a

significantly greater supply of petroleum (5.9 to 13.2

billion barrels) than previously estimated. Only up to

5.6 billion barrels of this petroleum are technically and

economically recoverable at existing market prices. The

USGS suspects that there may be as much as 83.2 trillion

cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas in the same area.

Transportation of this gas to markets would require a new

pipeline. There is already a pipeline system in place

for oil—the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS),

which lies between the NPRA and the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as shown in Figure 11.11. The

ANWR is a nineteen-million-acre area of pristine wild-

erness along the Alaska–Canada border. It, too, is being

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 167

considered for oil exploration, a move strongly opposed

by environmentalists.

The future of the refuge lies in the hands of the federal

government. The administration of George H. W. Bush

made drilling there a major foundation of the national

energy policy. Under the Clinton administration, oil and

mineral development was prohibited within the wildlife

refuge. In April 2002, following heated debate, the U.S.

Senate killed a proposal by the administration of George

W. Bush to allow oil companies to drill in ANWR. The

proposal was raised again in subsequent years. However,

as of July 2005 federal legislation has not been passed that

would allow drilling in ANWR.

Antarctic Resources—Regulate or Prohibit?

THERE ARE MINERALS THERE . . . Dispute is ongoing

over another polar area—Antarctica—as the southern

polar region attracts new interest as a source of petroleum

and minerals. Antarctica covers an area of 5.4 million

miles—one-tenth of the Earth’s land surface—and is

larger than the United States and Mexico combined.

Geologists believe that considerable quantities of mineral

deposits probably exist there, as in all large landmasses.

Based on the geology of the region, geologists believe

they can find base metal (copper, lead, and zinc) and

precious metal (gold and silver) deposits. There are

already some known mineral deposits in Antarctica. The

huge mass of ice would make recovery difficult, espe-

cially in some areas and seasons.

. . . BUT INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT PROHIBITS

THEIR MINING. In 1959 twelve countries (Argentina,

Australia, Norway, South Africa, Chile, the United

Kingdom, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Belgium,

Japan, and the United States) agreed to preserve the

region south of sixty degrees south latitude, which

includes Antarctica, as an area for scientific research

and as a zone of peace. They concluded the Antarctic

Treaty, giving equal participation in governance to the

signing countries ‘‘in the interests of all mankind.’’ The

treaty established provisions for new member nations;

thirty-nine countries representing more than three-fourths

of the world’s population are party to the treaty.

Seven nations claim territorial sovereignty in

Antarctica—Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Great

Britain, New Zealand, and Norway. A 1991 agreement

prohibits all mining exploration and development for

fifty years, protects wildlife, regulates waste disposal

and marine pollution, and provides for increased scienti-

fic study of the continent.

Environmentalists want to ban all mining in Antarctica

indefinitely. Critics of mining believe the ultimate

solution to the problem of mining’s destruction of the

environment lies in changes in mineral use and a shift from

fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. These changes,

however, would represent huge transformations in the way

people live. Whether these changes are justified, and

whether many people are prepared to make them, will be

a matter of debate for years to come.

FIGURE 11.11

Northern Alaska, showing locations and relative sizes of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

Native lands

Arctic Ocean

AlpinePrudhoe Bay

Pt. Barrow

NPRA

Northern margin of Brooks Range

Pt. Thomson

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

ANWR

1002 Area

Canada

United States

71˚

70˚

69˚

68˚

165˚

160˚

155˚

150˚

145˚

0

0

Wilderness AreaTAPS

Alaska

Areaof map

SOURCE: “Figure 1. Map of Northern Alaska Showing Locations and Relative Sizes of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),” in U.S. Geological Survey 2002 Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 2002

168 Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources The Environment

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES

Periodically, the Gallup Organization conducts a com-

prehensive poll of Americans on environmental issues.

The latest poll with results dealing with natural resource

issues was conducted in March 2004. Poll participants

were asked to express their level of concern about two

issues: loss of tropical rain forests and extinction of plant

and animal species.

As shown in Table 11.3, only 35% of the respondents

expressed a great deal of concern about the loss of tropi-

cal rain forests in 2004. This value is down from a high of

51% recorded in 2000. Concern about this issue has

varied over the years but made a noticeable drop in

priority over the last three years. In 2004 just over a

quarter of those asked (26%) expressed a fair amount of

concern about the loss of tropical rain forests, while 23%

felt a little concern and 15% expressed no concern at all.

Poll participants were slightly more worried about

the extinction of plant and animal species. (See Table

11.4.) In 2004 more than a third (36%) indicated they felt

a great deal of worry about this issue, while 26%

expressed a fair amount of worry and 23% felt a little

concerned. Only 15% of those asked expressed no worry

at all. In 2000 the percentage of people expressing a great

deal of concern about this issue was 45%.

TABLE 11.3

Public concern about loss of tropical rain forests, 1989–2004“PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREATDEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL. THE LOSS OF TROPICALRAIN FORESTS?”

Great Fair Only a Not at Nodeal amount little all opinion% % % % %

2004 Mar 8–11 35 26 23 15 12003 Mar 3–5 39 29 21 11 *2002 Mar 4–7 38 27 21 12 22001 Mar 5–7 44 32 15 8 12000 Apr 3–9 51 25 14 9 11999 Apr 13–14 49 30 14 6 11991 Apr 11–14 42 25 21 10 21990 Apr 5–8 40 24 19 14 31989 May 4–7 42 25 18 12 3

SOURCE: “Please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a greatdeal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. The loss of tropical rainforests?” in Poll Topics and Trends: Environment, The Gallup Organization,Princeton, NJ, March 17, 2004, www.gallup.com (accessed August 4, 2004).Copy © 2004 by The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permission of TheGallup Organization.

TABLE 11.4

“PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU PERSONALLY WORRY ABOUT THIS PROBLEM A GREATDEAL, A FAIR AMOUNT, ONLY A LITTLE, OR NOT AT ALL. EXTINCTION OF PLANT ANDANIMAL SPECIES?”

Great Fair Only a Not at Nodeal amount little all opinion% % % % %

2004 Mar 8–11 36 26 23 15 *2003 Mar 3–5 34 32 21 12 12002 Mar 4–7 35 30 22 12 12001 Mar 5–7 43 30 19 7 12000 Apr 3–9 45 33 14 8 *

SOURCE: “Please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a greatdeal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. Extinction of plant and animalspecies?” in Poll Topics and Trends: Environment, The Gallup Organization,Princeton, NJ, March 17, 2004, www.gallup.com (accessed March 30, 2004).Copyright © 2004 by The Gallup Organization. Reproduced by permissionof The Gallup Organization.

Public concern about extinction of plant and animal species,2000–04

The Environment Depletion and Conservation of Natural Resources 169

I M P O R T A N T NA M E S A N D A D D R E S S E S

American Association of Poison ControlCenters3201 New Mexico Ave., Suite 330Washington, DC 20016(202) 362-7217E-mail: info@aapcc.orgURL: http://www.aapcc.org

American Geophysical Union (AGU)2000 Florida Ave. NWWashington, DC 20009-1277(202) 462-69001-800-966-2481FAX: (202) 328-0566E-mail: service@agu.orgURL: http://www.agu.org/

American Lung Association61 Broadway, 6th FloorNew York, NY 10006(212) 315-87001-800-LUNGUSA (1-800-586-4872)E-mail: info@lungusa.orgURL: http://www.lungusa.org

Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC)1600 Clifton Rd.Atlanta, GA 30333(404) 639-33111-800-311-3435URL: http://www.cdc.gov

Clean Water Fund4455 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite A300-16Washington, DC 20008-2328(202) 895-0432FAX: (202) 895-0438E-mail: cwf@cleanwater.orgURL: http://www.cleanwaterfund.org

Council on Environmental Quality722 Jackson Pl. NWWashington, DC 20503(202) 395-5750

FAX: (202) 456-6546URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq

Environmental Business International Inc.4452 Park Blvd., Suite 306San Diego, CA 92116(619) 295-7685FAX: (619) 295-5743E-mail: ebi@ebiusa.comURL: http://www.ebiusa.com

Environmental Defense Fund257 Park Ave. SouthNew York, NY 10010(212) 505-2100FAX: (212) 505-2375E-mail: members@environmentaldefense.orgURL: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm

Environmental Industry Associations (EIA)4301 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20008(202) 244-4700FAX: (202) 966-4824E-mail: membership@envasns.orgURL: http://www.envasns.org

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Ariel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20460(202) 272-0167URL: http://www.epa.gov/

Freshwater Society2500 Shadywood Rd.Excelsior, MN 55331(952) 471-9773FAX: (952) 471-7685E-mail: freshwater@freshwater.orgURL: http://www.freshwater.org

Friends of the Earth1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036-2002

1-877-843-8687FAX: (202) 783-0444E-mail: foe@foe.orgURL: http://www.foe.org

Government Accountability Office (GAO)441 G St. NWWashington, DC 20548(202) 512-3000E-mail: webmaster@gao.govURL: http://www.gao.gov/

Greenpeace702 H St. NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20001(202) 462-11771-800-326-0959E-mail: info@wdc.greenpeace.orgURL: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org

Idaho National Laboratory2525 North Fremont Ave.P.O. Box 1625Idaho Falls, ID 83415(208) 526-0111

URL: http://www.inl.gov/

Izaak Walton League of America707 Conservation Ln.Gaithersburg, MD 20878(301) 548-01501-800-453-5463FAX: (301) 548-0146E-mail: general@iwla.orgURL: http://www.iwla.org

National Acid Precipitation AssessmentProgramNOAA, Mail Code R/SAB1315 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910(301) 713-0460, ext. 202FAX: (301) 713-3515E-mail: napap@noaa.govURL: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/organization/napap.html

The Environment 17 1

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA)Goddard Space Flight CenterCode 130, Office of Public AffairsGreenbelt, MD 20771(301) 286-2000FAX: (301) 286-1707E-mail: gsfcpao@pop100.gsfc.nasa.govURL: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/

National Atmospheric DepositionProgram, Illinois State Water Survey2204 Griffith DriveChampaign, IL 61820E-mail: nadp@sws.uiuc.eduURL: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu

National Audubon Society700 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003(212) 979-3000FAX: (212) 979-3188E-mail: jbianchi@audubon.orgURL: http://www.audubon.org

National Coalition against the Misuseof Pesticides701 E St. SE, Suite 200Washington, DC 20003(202) 543-5450FAX: (202) 543-4791E-mail: info@beyondpesticides.orgURL: http://www.beyondpesticides.org

National Interagency Fire Center3833 S. Development Ave.Boise, ID83705-5354(208) 387-5512URL: http://www.nifc.gov

National Mining Association (NMA)101 Constitution Ave. NW, Suite 500 EastWashington, DC 20001-2133(202) 463-2600FAX: (202) 463-2666E-mail: craulston@nma.orgURL: http://www.nma.org

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA)14thSt.andConstitutionAve.NW,Room6217Washington, DC 20230(202) 482-6090FAX: (202) 482-3154E-mail: answers@noaa.govURL: http://www.noaa.gov

National Safety Council1121 Spring Lake Dr.Itasca, IL 60143-3201(630) 285-1121FAX: (630) 285-1315E-mail: info@nsc.orgURL: http://www.nsc.org

National Weather Service ClimatePrediction Center5200 Auth Rd.

Camp Springs, MD 20746(301) 763-8000E-mail: Carmeyia.Gillis@noaa.govURL: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov

National Wildlife Federation11100 Wildlife Center Dr.Reston, VA 20190-53621-800-822-9919URL: http://www.nwf.org

Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC)40 West 20th St.New York, NY 10011(212) 727-2700FAX: (212) 727-1773E-mail: nrdcinfo@nrdc.orgURL: http://www.nrdc.org

The Nature Conservancy4245 North Fairfax Dr., Suite 100Arlington, VA 22203-1606(703) 841-53001-800-628-6860E-mail: comment@tnc.orgURL: http://nature.org

Rachel Carson Council, Inc.P.O. Box 10779Silver Spring, MD 20914(301) 593-7507FAX: (301) 593-6251E-mail: rccouncil@aol.comURL: http://members.aol.com/rccouncil/ourpage

Sierra ClubNational Headquarters85 Second St., 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105-3441(415) 977-5500FAX: (415) 977-5799E-mail: information@sierraclub.orgURL: http://www.sierraclub.org

Union of Concerned Scientists2 Brattle Sq.Cambridge, MA 02238-9105(617) 547-5552FAX: (617) 864-9405E-mail: ucs@ucsusa.orgURL: http://www.ucsusa.org

United Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552, 00100Nairobi, Kenya(254-20) 621234E-mail: unepweb@unep.orgURL: http://www.unep.org

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation1849 C St. NWWashington, DC 20240-0001(202) 513-0501FAX: (202) 513-0315URL: http://www.usbr.gov/

U.S. Climate Change Science Program1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 250Washington, DC 20006(202) 223-6262FAX: (202) 223-3065E-mail: information@climatescience.govURL: http://www.climatescience.gov

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)1000 Independence Ave. SWWashington, DC 20585(202) 586-55751-800-342-5363FAX: (202) 586-4403E-mail: the.secretary@hq.doe.govURL: http://www.energy.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1849 C St. NWWashington, DC 202421-800-344-9453E-mail: contact@fws.govURL: http://www.fws.gov

U.S. Geological Survey12201 Sunrise Valley Dr.Reston, VA 20192(703) 648-40001-888-275-8747FAX: (703) 648-4888URL: http://www.usgs.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Public Affairs (OPA)Washington, DC 20555(301) 415-82001-800-368-5642E-mail: opa@nrc.govURL: http://www.nrc.gov

USDA Forest Service1400 Independence Ave. SWWashington, DC 20250-0003(202) 205-8333E-mail: webmaster@fs.fed.usURL: http://www.fs.fed.us/

The Wilderness Society1615 M St. NWWashington, DC 200361-800-843-9453E-mail: member@tws.orgURL: http://www.wilderness.org

World Wildlife Fund1250 24th St. NWWashington, DC 20037(202) 293-4800E-mail: PIResponse@wwfus.orgURL: http://www.worldwildlife.org

Worldwatch Institute1776 Massachusetts Ave. NWWashington, DC 20036-1904(202) 452-1999FAX: (202) 296-7365E-mail: worldwatch@worldwatch.orgURL: http://www.worldwatch.org

172 Important Names and Addresses The Environment

R E S O U R C E S

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moni-

tors the status of the nation’s environment and publishes

a wide variety of materials on environmental issues.

Publications consulted for this book include EPA’s Draft

Report on the Environment 2003 (2003), 2000 National

Water Quality Inventory (2002), Water on Tap: What You

Need to Know (2003), Factoids: Drinking Water and

Ground Water Statistics for 2004 (2005), Protecting

and Restoring America’s Watersheds (2001), Maps of

Lands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise (2001), Acid Rain

Program: 2003 Progress Report (2004), Hypoxia and

Wetland Restoration (2002), What Are Wetlands?

(2003), Air Trends: More Details on Lead (2003), Pesti-

cides Industry Sales and Usage (2004), Final Report:

Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Coun-

cil for Environmental Policy and Technology (2004),

About Superfund (2005), RCRA Orientation Manual

(2003), The Particle Pollution Report: Understanding

Trends through 2003 (2004), The Ozone Report: Measur-

ing Progress through 2003 (2004), Air Emissions

Trends—Continued Progress through 2004 (2005), The

Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act (1993), and

Taking Toxics out of the Air (2000). The EPA Office of

Inspector General published Evaluation Report: Progress

Made in Monitoring Ambient Air Toxics, but Further

Improvements Can Increase Effectiveness (2005).

Also useful from the EPA were The National

Coastal Condition Report II: Fact Sheet (2005), Super-

fund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future

(2004), National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste

Report: Based on 2001 Data (2003), Managing Your

Hazardous Waste: A Guide for Small Businesses (2001),

EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (2003),

Guide for Industrial Waste Management (1999), Latest

Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and

Trends (2003), Clean Air Mercury Rule: Charts and

Tables (2005), Municipal Solid Waste Generation,

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: 2003

Data Tables (2005), Municipal Solid Waste Generation,

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and

Figures for 2003 (2005), Light-Duty Automotive Tech-

nology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2004

(2004), Drinking Water: Past, Present, and Future

(2000), 2005 EPA WIPP Recertification Fact Sheet

No. 1 (2005), and Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2003 (2005). The EPA and

the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks to Children published Eliminat-

ing Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy

Targeting Lead Paint Hazards. The EPA also provided

The National Listing of Fish Advisories: Fact Sheet

(2004) and the 2003 TRI Public Data Release: eReport

(2005).

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Emissions of Green-

house Gases in the United States 2002 (2003) was a

source of data on global warming. The EIA also pub-

lished International Energy Outlook 2004 (2005), Inter-

national Energy Annual 2003 (2005), Renewable Energy

Trends 2002 (2003), Future U.S. Highway Energy Use: A

Fifty Year Perspective (2001), and Annual Energy

Review 2003 (2005). Also helpful from the DOE were

Model Year 2002 Fuel Economy Guide (2001) and Spent

Nuclear Fuel Transportation (2002). Oak Ridge National

Laboratory produced Transportation Energy Data Book:

Edition 24 (2004). The Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory of the DOE published

National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (2004).

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention’s (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

Surveillance Summaries, Healthy People 2000, and

Health, United States, 2003 were invaluable. The CDC

also published the Third National Report on Human

Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (2005).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA—Goddard Space Flight Center) publishes a vari-

ety of materials on environmental and space issues.

The Environment 173

Useful in this book were NASA Facts (2004), Under-

standing Our Changing Climate (1997), and Looking at

the Earth from Space (1994). The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration provided valuable informa-

tion, including Twenty Questions and Answers about the

Ozone Layer (2002). The U.S. Department of Transporta-

tion produced Automotive Fuel Economy Program:

Annual Update Calendar Year 2003 (2004) and Critter

Crossings (2000), a study of the conflicts between

humans and wildlife along U.S. roads and highways.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has published many

useful reports on environmental issues, including acid

rain, nuclear energy, air and water quality, solid and

nuclear waste, wetlands, landfills, and pollution. The

U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommit-

tee on Global Change Research published The U.S. Cli-

mate Change Science Program Vision for the Program

and Highlights of the Scientific Strategic Plan (2003).

The Climate Action Report (2002), prepared by the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change, was useful

in explaining the scientific community’s determinations

about global warming.

Numerous other U.S. government publications

were used in the preparation of this book. They

included National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003,

America’s Forests: 2003 Health Update (2003), U.S.

Forest Facts and Historical Trends (2001), and Healthy

Forests (2005) from the U.S. Forest Service, an agency

under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The

USDA also provided Statistical Highlights of United

States Agriculture, 2002/2003 (2003). The U.S. Geologi-

cal Survey (USGS; Denver, Colorado) documents the use

of the nation’s waters every five years. Estimated Use of

Water in the United States in 2000 (2004) was used in the

preparation of this book. The USGS also produced U.S.

Geological Survey 2002 Petroleum Resource Assessment

of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA)

(2002) and Obsolete Computers, ‘‘Gold Mine,’’ or

High-Tech Trash? Resource Recovery from Recycling

(2001). The U.S. Census Bureau published Pollution

Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1999 (2002). The

U.S. Department of State provided U.S. Climate Action

Report 2002 (2002). The U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights published Not in My Backyard: Executive Order

12,898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmen-

tal Justice (2003). Also useful were Safety of Spent Fuel

Transportation (2003) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and National Resources Inventory: 2002

Annual NRI (2004) from the Natural Resources Conser-

vation Service.

Environmental Market Outlook to 2010, Briefing for

EPA-NACEPT (2002), prepared by Environmental

Business International (San Diego, California), an envi-

ronmental research and consulting group, was the source

of data on the status of the environmental industry. The

Rubber Manufacturers of America published U.S. Scrap

Tire Markets: 2003 Edition (2004).

Material from the Gallup Organization’s public opi-

nion surveys was extremely useful. The National Envi-

ronmental Education & Training Foundation provided

valuable information in Understanding Environmental

Literacy in America: And Making It a Reality (2004). Also

helpful was Garbage Then and Now (undated) by the

National Solid Waste Management Association. The

American Lung Association published State of the Air:

2005 (2005). The American Cancer Society provided

data on skin cancer through its Cancer Reference Informa-

tion. Population statistics were provided by the Population

Reference Bureau. The Environmental Investigation

Agency, a private organization based in London that

investigates international environmental crimes, provided

information on the illegal trade in ozone-depleting

substances.

The National Safety Council produced Reporting on

Climate Change: Understanding the Science (2000),

A Guide to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Low-Level

Radioactive Waste (2002), and A Reporter’s Guide to

Yucca Mountain (2001).

The J. G. Press provided its important biennial study,

‘‘The State of Garbage in America,’’ from BioCycle

Magazine (2004). Resources for the Future provided

information on the Superfund in Superfund’s Future:

What Will It Cost? (2001) and Success for Superfund:

A New Approach to Keeping Score (2004). The American

Journal of Emergency Medicine published ‘‘2003 Annual

Report of the American Association of Poison Control

Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System.’’ The

Environmental Defense Fund in New York discussed

the leading environmental concerns of Americans and

also published Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, prepared

by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics,

and the Environment for the Federal Emergency Manage-

ment Agency (April 2000) on the erosion of U.S.

coastlines.

174 Resources The Environment

INDEX

Page references in italics refer to photo-graphs. References with the letter t follow-

ing them indicate the presence of a table.

The letter f indicates a figure. If more than

one table or figure appears on a particular

page, the exact item number for the table or

figure being referenced is provided.

AAAPCC (American Association of Poison

Control Centers), 136, 141

Accelerated Vehicle Retirement program(Cash for Clunkers), 33–34

Acid rain

Acid Rain Program, 70–71

definition of, 65

ecosystem recovery, 72

effects on environment, 67–69

effects on human health, selectedecosystems, anticipated recoverybenefits, 68 (t5.1)

emissions, deposition, 71–72

fish, generalized short-term effects ofacidity on, 68 (t5.2)

natural factors that affect, 66

origins of acid rain, 66 (f 5.1)

pH values, field measurements of,from National AtmosphericDeposition Program/NationalTrends Network, 67f

politics of, 69–70

potential hydrogen scale, 66 (f 5.2)

public opinion about, 72

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

soil acidity/nutrients relationship, 69f

sulfate, nitrate, sources in atmosphere,65–66

sulfur dioxide and, 26

Acid Rain: Emissions Trends and Effects inthe Eastern United States (EnvironmentalProtection Agency and GovernmentAccountability Office), 72

Acid Rain Program

description of, 70–71

goals of, 26

progress of, 71–72

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

Acid Rain Program, 2003 Progress Report(Environmental Protection Agency),71–72

Addresses/names, organizations, 171–172

Adirondacks region, New York

acid rain and birds, 69

acid rain damage in, 70

acid rain in, 65

acid rain, recovery from, 72

Adopt Your Watershed program, 129

Advanced technology vehicles (hybridvehicles)

development of, 32

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

sales, specifications of availablevehicles, 33t

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), 111

Aerosols, 45

African-Americans, 7, 8

African elephants, 163–164

AFVs. See Alternative fuel vehicles

Agricola, Georgius, 167

Agricultural runoff, 126

Agriculture

erosion and, 162

farm acres by crop, 162 (f 11.9)

global warming and, 52

nitrous oxide source, 40

organic foods to avoid pesticides, 141

pesticides for, 140

regulation of chemicals for, 127

wetlands conversion for,159, 160

Air movement, 66

Air pollutants

Air Quality Index (AQI): Ozone, 23t

air toxics, 27

carbon monoxide, 19–20

carbon monoxide air qualityconcentrations, 20 (f2.2)

carbon monoxide emissions, 19f

Clean Air Interstate Rule, 26–27

emissions, EPA estimates of national,19t

health risks, contributing sources, 26t

lead, 20–21

lead air quality, 20 (f2.4)

lead emissions, 20 (f2.3)

mercury, sources of atmosphericmercury emissions, 28f

nitrogen dioxide, 21

nitrogen oxide emissions, 21 (f2.5)

nitrogen oxides air quality, 21 (f2.6)

ozone, 22–23

ozone air quality, trends in eight-hour,22 (f2.7)

ozone air quality, trends in one-hour,22 (f2.8)

ozone pollution, American LungAssociation’s list of 25metropolitan areas withworst, 24t

particulate matter, 23–25

particulate matter less than 2.5micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.11)

particulate matter less than 10micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.10)

particulate matter smaller than 10micrometers in diameter,emissions of, 24f

sulfur dioxide, 25–26

sulfur dioxide air quality, 26f

trends, 18–19

Air pollution

Clean Air Act list of titles, 18t

cost of, 32–33

indoor air toxins, 145–147

legislation, history of, 17–18

The Environment 175

public concern about, 35t

public opinion about, 35

WTE plant emissions and, 88

See also Air quality

Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, 17

Air quality

air pollutant emissions, EPA estimatesof national, 19t

air pollutants, 18–27

air pollutants, health risks, andcontributing sources, 26t

air pollution legislation, history of,17–18

Air Quality Index (AQI): Ozone, 23t

alternative fuel vehicles in use, numberof, 32t

alternative fuels, characteristics of, 31t

antiregulatory rebellion, 34–35

automobile’s contribution to airpollution, 27–30, 32

carbon monoxide air qualityconcentrations, 20 (f2.2)

carbon monoxide emissions, 19f

Clean Air Act list of titles, 18t

Clear Air Act, 33–34

cost of air pollution, pollution control,32–33

deterioration from increasedtemperature, 52

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

importance of, 17

lead air quality, 20 (f2.4)

lead emissions, 20 (f2.3)

mercury, sources of atmosphericmercury emissions, 28f

nitrogen oxide emissions, 21 (f2.5)

nitrogen oxides air quality, 21 (f2.6)

ozone air quality, trends in eight-hour,22 (f2.7)

ozone air quality, trends in one-hour,22 (f2.8)

ozone pollution, American LungAssociation’s list of 25metropolitan areas withworst, 24t

particulate matter less than 2.5micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.11)

particulate matter less than 10micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.10)

particulate matter smaller than 10micrometers in diameter,emissions of, 24f

public concern about air pollution, 35t

public opinion about air pollution, 35

sulfur dioxide air quality, 26f

vehicle fuel economy by model, 29f

vehicles, sales/specifications ofavailable advanced technologyvehicles, 33t

Air Quality Index (AQI), 23, 23t

Air toxics. See Hazardous air pollutants

Alaska

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

oil in, 167–168

wetlands of, 158, 159

Aleklett, Kjell, 49

Allord, Gregory J., 160

Allowance trading

description of, 71

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

number in use, 32t

sales, specifications of availableadvanced technology vehicles, 33t

types of, 30, 32

Alternative fuels

characteristics of, 31t

types of, 30, 32

Aluminum Association, 93

Aluminum, recycling, 93

Amazon rain forests, 153

American Association of Poison ControlCenters (AAPCC), 136, 141

American Cancer Society, 57

American Chemistry Council, 8

American Indians and Alaska Natives, 1

American Lung Association

air quality assessment, 23

new Clean Air Act standards and, 35

ozone pollution, list of 25metropolitan areas withworst, 24t

American Society of Civil Engineers, 75

America’s Forests: 2003 Health Update(U.S. Forest Service), 153, 155

Amphibians, decline in, 164

Animals

acid rain’s effects on, 67–68, 69

biodiversity, 163–167

ecosystem damage from ozonedepletion, 57

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species,169, 169 (t11.4)

wetlands support, 159

See also Wildlife

Antarctic Treaty, 168Antarctica

minerals of, 168

ozone depletion consequences, 57

ozone depletion evidence in, 55

ozone hole, assessment of, 62

ozone hole over, trends in sizeof, 56 (f4.3)

ozone hole trends, 56

Antiregulatory movement, 5–6, 34–35

ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

oil exploration in, 167–168

Appalachian Mountains

acid rain in, 65, 69

ecological changes in, 157

AQI (Air Quality Index), 23, 23t

Aquatic systems

acid rain, recovery from, 72

acid rain’s effects on, 67–68

fish, generalized short-term effects ofacidity on, 68 (t5.2)

See also Water

Aquifers, depletion of, 122

Arctic

oil in, 167–168

ozone hole over, 62

ozone thinning over, 57

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR)

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

oil exploration in, 167–168

Arizona, wildfire in, 154

Arrhenius, Svante, 42

Arsenic

chromated copper arsenic, 142

in drinking water, 131

Asbestiosis, 144 (f10.6)

Asbestos

asbestosis, number of deathsattributed to, 144 (f10.6)

health effects, ban on, production of,143–144

Asbestos Hazard Emergency ResponseAct, 143

Asthma

from indoor air toxins, 146–147

from ozone exposure, 23

Athens, Greece, 73

Atlantic coast, 163

Atmosphere

changes in, 42

greenhouse gases and, 39, 40

layers of, 39f

ozone in Earth’s atmosphere,56 (f4.1)

ozone layer of Earth, 55

sulfate/nitrate sources in, 65–66

See also Greenhouse effect

Atomic bomb, 110, 111

Atomic Energy Act, 110–111

Atomic Energy Commission(AEC), 111

Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act, 29

176 Index The Environment

Automobilesair pollution control and, 33

air pollution from, 27–28

alternative fuel vehicles in use,number of, 32t

alternative fuels, 30, 32

alternative fuels, characteristics of, 31t

CAFE standards, 29

Clean Air Act Amendmentsand, 33–34

fuel economy estimates, 29

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

market factors, 29–30

reformulated gasoline, 28–29

sulfate/nitrate emissions from, 66

vehicle fuel economy by model, 29f

vehicles, sales/specifications ofavailable advanced technologyvehicles, 33t

B‘‘Backgrounder: Basic Facts and Data on

the Science and Politics of OzoneProtection’’ (United NationsEnvironment Programme), 60

Bacteria, 149 (t10.3)

Bark beetles, 155

Barry, Ellen, 8

Basic chemicals, 66

Batteries

Mercury-Containing andRechargeable BatteryManagement Act, 97

metal in, 93

BEACH Watch (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 125

Beaches, 125

Beaches Environmental Assessment andHealth Act, 125

Beachfront Management Act, 7

BEACON (Beach Advisory and ClosingOnline Notification), 125

Beetles, 155, 156

Beijing Amendment, 59, 60

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,1970 to 1990 (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 34

The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 (EnvironmentalProtection Agency), 34

Berlin Mandate, 47

BioCycle (journal)

on composting, 97

curbside recycling programs, 94–95

on garbage disposal methods, 81

on garbage import/export, 83–84

recovery rates of MSW, 91–92

Biodiversity

deep-sea harvesting, 167

description of, 163

Earth Summit Biodiversity Treaty, 165

Endangered Species Act, 163–164

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign,164t

global warming and, 52

invasive species, 165

logging and, 158

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species,169 (t11.4)

rain forests and, 152

sharing the planet, 166–167

species loss, 164–165

West Nile virus cases, 166f

Biological control agents, 156

Biomass fuels, 87t

Biotechnology, 165

Birds

acid rain’s effects on, 69

wetlands and, 159

Birth rates, 3

Black ducks, 69

Blood lead levels (BLLs)

concentrations of lead in blood ofchildren aged 5 and less forvarious years, 139 (f10.2)

lead poisoning cases, 139

percentage of children aged 1–5 yearswith blood lead levels <10 ug/dl,by race/ethnicity, survey period,140f

statistics on, 138

toxicity of blood lead concentration inchildren, 139 (f10.1)

‘‘Blood Lead Levels—United States,1999–2002’’ (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention), 138

BOR (Bureau of Reclamation),121, 123–124

Border Environment CooperationCommission, 13

Bradley, Raymond S., 43

Breast cancer, 140–141

Bromine

concentrations, 62

from halon, 59

ozone depletion from, 55

Buildings

acid rain’s effects on, 69

asbestos removal, 143

lead paint in, 137–138

radon in, 144–145

Bureau of Land Management, 161

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR),121, 123–124

Bush administration

role in environmental protection,public opinion on, 14

water supply assessment, 123

wildfire plan of, 155

Bush, George H. W.

drilling in ANWR and, 168

at Earth Summit, 1992, 12

endangered species and logging, 165

global warming and, 49

Kyoto Protocol and, 48

UNFCCC treaty and, 47

wetland goal of, 161

Bush, George W.

Clear Skies Act and, 18

drilling in ANWR and, 168

global warming and, 50

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative of, 32

wetlands and, 161

Yucca Mountain and, 115

Business

environmental crime and, 9

of environmental protection, 5

environmental regulationattitudes, 4–5

government regulations and, 3–4

growth expected in U.S.environmental industry sectors, 6t

hazardous waste from, 102

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures by mediaprotected, 4t

of recycling, 97–98

small businesses, typical hazardouswaste generated by, 103t

Toxics Release Inventory and,103–104

U.S. environmental industry market, 5f

Butterflies, decline in, 164

Buy-back center, 95

CC & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, 88

CAA. See Clean Air Act

CAAA. See Clean Air Act Amendments

Cadmium, 83

CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule), 26–27

Calcium, 69

California

alternative fuel stations of, 30

Electronic Waste Recycling Act, 100

emission standards of, 28

irrigation, water use for, 122

reformulated gasoline and, 28, 29

sudden oak death in, 156

water use, 118, 119

Campbell, Colin, 49

CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule), 27

The Environment Index 177

Canada

acid rain improvements, 72

acid rain politics and, 70

North American Free TradeAgreement, 13

Cancer

lung cancer from radon, 145

pesticides and, 140–141

skin cancer, 57

Cape Hatteras lighthouse, 163

Carbon, 109

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

atmosphere changes from, 42

carbon dioxide emissions, projectedsources of, 50 (f3.13)

concentration, trend in globalaverage, 42f

emissions, reduction of, 50

forests and, 151, 152

forests, effects on carbon dioxideconcentrations, 41(f3.4)

as greenhouse gas, 38–39

international greenhouse gasemissions, 48

rain forests and, 153

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, 51

world carbon dioxide emissions byregion, 49f

world carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, 48f

Carbon monoxide (CO)

air quality, 19–20

air quality concentrations, 20 (f2.2)

from automobile emissions, 28

emissions, 19f

emissions, sources, 19

health hazards of, 145–146

as major air pollutant, 18

Carbon sinks, 39, 152

Carcinogen

definition of, 135

toxins in food, 147

Carson, Rachel, 1

Cash for Clunkers (Accelerated VehicleRetirement program), 33–34

Cassettes, packaging for, 94

Cataracts, 57

CCA (chromated copper arsenic), 142

CCSP (Interagency Climate ChangeScience Program), 50–51

CDC. See Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

CDs (compact discs), packaging for, 94

Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC)

on asbestos, 143

disease caused by tainted water,131–132

human exposure to environmentalchemicals, national report on, 137

on indoor air toxins, 145–146

on lead exposure, 137–138

on ozone health effects, 23

on pathogens in food, 147–148,149–150

West Nile virus cases reportedto, 165

CERCA (Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, andLiability Act), 106–108, 127

CFCs. See Chlorofluorocarbons

CH4 (methane), 51

Chemical industry, 102

Chemical toxins

endocrine disruptors, 142–143

human exposure to environmentalchemicals, national reporton, 137

lead, 137–139

pesticides, 139–142

sources of, 136–137

Toxics Release Inventory, 137

Chemical Waste Management Inc. v. Hunt,84, 88

Chemicals

disease caused by tainted water, 132

in food, 147

lifetime/ozone depletion potential ofvarious chemicals, 58t

Montreal Protocol, phase-out scheduleunder, for ozone-depletingsubstances, 59t

ozone-depleting, 57–59, 62

ozone-depleting substances, U.S.emissions of, 63t

ozone depletion evidence, 55

substitutes, new technologies, 63–64

trends in atmospheric concentrationsof controlled ozone-depletingchemicals, 61f

U.S. ozone depletion efforts, 62–63

See also Toxins in everyday life

Chernobyl nuclear power plant, Ukraine,109–110

Children

blood lead levels, 138

blood lead levels <10 ug/dl,percentage of children aged 1–5years with, by race/ethnicity andsurvey period, 140f

lead, concentrations of, in blood ofchildren aged 5 and less forvarious years, 139 (f10.2)

lead poisoning cases, 139

ozone health effects, 23

particulate matter health effects, 25

pediatric exposures reported to poisoncontrol centers, substances mostfrequently involved in, 136t

toxicity of blood lead concentration inchildren, 139 (f10.1)

toxins exposure of, 136

The Children’s Health EnvironmentalExposure Research Study(Environmental Protection Agency), 8

Chlordane, 147

Chlorine

from CFCs, 58

concentrations, 62

ozone depletion from, 55

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

concentrations, decline of, 61–62

emissions reduction with MontrealProtocol, 59

illegal trade, smuggling of, 60

ozone depletion from, 55, 57–58

substitutes for, 63

U.S. ozone depletion efforts and, 63

Chromated copper arsenic (CCA), 142

Citizens Against Pollution, 8

Civil rights, environmental justice and,7–8

Clarkstown, C & A Carbone v., 88

Class I chemicals

ozone depletion from, 58–59

U.S. emissions of, 63

Class I injection well, 105 (f8.3)

Class II chemicals

types of, 59

U.S. emissions of, 63

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)

Acid Rain Program under,26, 70–71

automobile emissions and, 28

description of, 18

ozone depletion, efforts to end, 62, 63

success of, 33–34

Clean Air Act (CAA)

asbestos regulation, 143

automobile emissions and, 28

on HAPs, 27

list of titles, 18t

new standards, 34–35

particulate matter and, 25

protections of, 76–77

reformulated gasoline and, 28

requirements of, 17–18

success of, 33

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),26–27

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), 27

Clean Water Act (CWA)

antiregulatory movement and, 5, 6

creation of, 76

fishable/swimmable goal, 125

groundwater protection under,126–127

objectives of, 124

status of, 127–128

wetlands use and, 161

‘‘Clear-cutting’’ practices, 157–158

Clear Skies Act, 18

178 Index The Environment

Climate

definition of, 37

influences on, 43–45

potential effects of warming, 51–52

warming trend, 42–43

Climate change

international action regarding, 45–48

international treaties related to, 46t

See also Greenhouse effect

Climate Change Action Plan (U.S.Department of State), 49

Climate Monitoring and DiagnosticsLaboratory (CMDL), 42, 61–62

Clinton, Bill

drilling in ANWR and, 168

endangered species and logging, 165

environmental justice and, 7

global warming and, 49–50

hazardous waste incinerator ban, 103

UNFCCC treaty and, 47

wetlands and, 161

Clouds, 43–44

CMDL (Climate Monitoring andDiagnostics Laboratory), 42, 61–62

CO. See Carbon monoxide

CO2. See Carbon dioxide

Coal

acid rain politics and, 70

sulfur dioxide emissions from, 25, 26

Coal-burning plants, 70, 71

Coastline

coastal erosion, 162–163

sea level rise, areas of Gulf Coast lyingat low elevations vulnerableto, 52f

sea level rise from warmingclimate, 51

water quality assessment, 125

Coghlan, Andy, 49

Collection, of recyclable materials, 94–95

Colorado River, 121

Combustion, incineration

biomass fuels, average heat content ofselected, 87t

description of, 86

energy consumption associated withfuel from waste, 88f

incinerator, WTE emissions, 87–88

MSW management methods, 82f

MSW management with, 81

of scrap tires, 98

waste combustion plant with pollutioncontrol system, 87f

waste combustion process, 89f

Commercial recyclables, 95

Compact discs (CDs), packaging for, 94

Composting

definition of, 91

description of, 97

MSW management with, 81

Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCA), 106–108, 127

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines(CPG), 96

Computers

computers/components, what happensto obsolete, 100f

electronic waste recycling, 98–100

models for global warming prediction,52–53

Conservation Compliance Program, 162

‘‘Consistent Land- and Atmosphere-Based U.S. Carbon Sink Estimates’’(Pacala), 152

Constitution, U.S., 7, 161

Consumer electronics

computers/components,what happens to obsolete, 100f

electronic waste recycling, 98–100

estimated life of selected, 74t

municipal solid waste composition,80–81

throwaway society and, 74–75

total units shipped of selected, 75f

Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC), 136

Containers, recycling, 94

Contamination pathways,multi-exposure, 76f

Convention on the International Trade inEndangered Species, 164

Copenhagen Amendment, 59

Cornell University, 69

Cost

of air pollution, control, 32–33

of extinguishing wildfires, 155

Council on Environmental Quality, 70

Court cases

C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, 88

Chemical Waste Management Inc. v.Hunt, 84, 88

on environmental policy, 6–7

Lucas v. South Carolina CoastalCouncil, 7

CPG (Comprehensive ProcurementGuidelines), 96

CPSC (Consumer Product SafetyCommission), 136

Crime. See Environmental crime

Critter Crossing: Linking Habitats andReducing Roadkill (U.S. Department ofTransportation), 166–167

CRP (Federal Conservation ReserveProgram), 162

Cryptosporidium, 132–133

CSD (UN Commission on SustainableDevelopment), 12

Curbside programs

for recycling, 94–95

of states, 96

Curies, 109

Cuyahoga River(Cleveland, Ohio), 1, 124

CWA. See Clean Water Act

DDahl, Thomas E., 160

Dams, 120–121

DDT

ban on, 4

in food, 147

Peregrine falcons and, 163

persistence of, 140

Deaths

from asbestos, 143

asbestosis, number of deathsattributed to, 144 (f10.6)

from asthma, 146

food, number of cases/deaths due tospecific foodborne organisms,150t

from foodborne contamination, 147–148, 150

mortality rates, 3

radon-related, 145

from West Nile virus, 165

Decomposition, 82–83

Deep-sea harvesting, 167

Deforestation

impact of, 151–152

of rain forests, 152–153

timber harvesting, replanting, 157–158

water supply and, 121–122

Denver (CO), 28

Deposit systems, 95

Deposition, 65, 66

Desertification, 122

Design standards, landfill, 83

Developing nations

environmental problems/protectionand, 10–12

Kyoto Protocol and, 47, 48

Montreal Protocol and, 59, 60

rain forests and, 153

Dioxins

EPA’s estimates of average adult’sdaily exposure to dioxins fromdietary intake, 149 (t10.2)

in food, 147

incinerator, WTE emissions, 88

Disease

from asbestos, 143

caused by tainted water, 131–132

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated diseases, 132t

West Nile virus cases, 166f

See also Health effects

Dobson, G. M. B., 55

Dobson units, 55

DOE. See U.S. Department of Energy

The Environment Index 179

Dolphins, 164

Drinking water

disease caused by tainted water,131–132

lead plumbing and, 138

legislation, 129–131

Milwaukee disaster, 132–133

public concern about pollutionof, 133, 133t

quality of, 131

sources of, 131

sources, public, 131t

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated disease, 132t

Drop-off centers

description of, 95

of states, 96

Drought, 122–123

Ducks, 69

Dumping, ocean protectionagainst, 129

Dumps

history of, 73

use of, 84–85

See also Landfills

DuPont Corporation, 63

Durable goods, 80

Dursban, 141

EE. coli (Escherichia coli), 148–149

‘‘E-Waste Recycling Program Hits Stride’’(Schoenberger), 100

Earth

atmosphere changes, 42

climate, influences on, 43–45

climate of, 37

as one ecosystem, 1

ozone in Earth’s atmosphere, 56 (f4.1)

ozone layer of, 55

photograph from U.S. satellite, 2f

population of, environment and, 3

Earth Day, 2

Earth Liberation Front, 10

Earth Summit, 1992, 12, 165

Earthgrains Baking Companies, 63

‘‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmationand Implications’’ (Hansen et al.), 53

Earthwatch, 11

EBI (Environmental BusinessInternational Inc.), 5

Economy, U.S.

antiregulatory movement and, 6

clean air program benefits, 34

environmental industry market,U.S., 5f

environmental industry sectors, U.S.,growth expected in, 6t

impact of environmentalprotection on, 3–5

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures by mediaprotected, 4t

public opinion on environment vs.economic growth, 15

Ecosystems

acid rain, effects on, 67–69

acid rain, recovery from, 72

effects of acid rain on human health,selected ecosystems, anticipatedrecovery benefits, 68 (t5.1)

Ecoterrorism, 10

Education, environmental, 16

Edward I, King of England, 17

EIA (Environmental InvestigationAgency), 60

El Chichon volcano, Mexico, 45

El Nino, 44

Electric utilities

Acid Rain Program and, 70–72

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

Electric vehicle (EV), 30

Electronic waste, recycling, 98–100

Electronic Waste Recycling Act, 100

Electronics. See Computers; Consumerelectronics

Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: AFederal Strategy Targeting Lead PaintHazards (President’s Task Force onEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks to Children), 138

Emerald ash borer, 156

Emergency Planning and CommunityRight-to-Know Act (EPCRA),103, 136

Emission trading system, 47–48

Emissions

acid rain from sulfur dioxide, nitrousoxide, 65

Acid Rain Program and, 70–71

of air pollutants, 18–19

from automobiles, 28

carbon dioxide emissions, projectedsources of, 50 (f3.13)

carbon monoxide, 19, 19f

Clean Air Act Amendments on, 33–34

Clean Air Interstate Rule, 26–27

EPA estimates of national airpollutant emissions, 19t

greenhouse gas emissions, by gas,41(f3.5)

greenhouse gas emissions, projected,by gas, 50 (f3.12)

lead, 20

lead emissions, 20 (f2.3)

nitrogen oxide emissions, 21 (f2.5)

nitrogen oxides, 21

of ozone, 22

of particulate matter, 24

particulate matter, smaller than 10micrometers in diameter, 24f

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

of sulfur dioxide, 25–26, 71–72

trends in U.S. greenhouse gasemissions, sinks, in teragrams ofcarbon dioxide equivalents,40t–42t

See also Greenhouse gas emissions;specific emissions

Endangered species

Endangered Species Act, 163

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign, 164t

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species,169, 169 (t11.4)

species loss, 164–165

wetlands and, 159

Endangered Species Act

antiregulatory movement and, 5, 6

description of, 163

species loss and, 164

Endangered Species List, 163–164

Endocrine disruptors, 142–143

Energy Security Act, 70

Energy supplies, 15

Engineered gases, 41–42

England

air pollution in, 17

garbage in, 73

Envirocare, 113

Environment

acid rain, effects on human health,selected ecosystems, anticipatedrecovery benefits, 68 (t5.1)

acid rain’s effects on, 67–69

antiregulatory movement, 5–6

Earth, 2f

environmental crime, 8–10

environmental education, 16

environmental industry market,U.S., 5f

environmental industry sectors,U.S., growth expected in, 6t

environmental justice, 7–8

EPA civil enforcement program, 11f

EPA criminal enforcementprogram, 10f

historical attitudes toward, 1–3

international conventions, treaties,declarations related to, 11t

international response to problems,10–13

landfills and, 83

legislation, federal environmental andwildlife protection acts, 9t

180 Index The Environment

litigation, environmentalpolicy, 6–7

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by mediaprotected, 4t

population, world population growthin more/less developedcountries, 3f

population’s role in, 3

public opinion, Americans’ concernabout environmentalproblems, 16f

public opinion on, 13–16

public opinion on problems facingcountry, 15f

public opinion on quality ofenvironment, 14 (f1.7)

public opinion on success ofenvironmental movement,14 (f1.8)

recycling benefits for, 91

U.S. economy and, 3–5

Environmental activism, 2–3

Environmental Business InternationalInc. (EBI), 5

Environmental crime

attitudes toward, 8–9

EPA civil enforcement program, 11f

EPA criminal enforcementprogram, 10f

federal environmental, wildlifeprotection acts, 9t

types of, 9–10

Environmental education, 16

Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk forAll Communities (EnvironmentalProtection Agency), 7

Environmental Health Center of theNational Safety Council, 38

Environmental industry market,U.S., 5f

description of, 5

environmental industry sectors,growth expected in, 6t

See also Business

Environmental Investigation Agency(EIA), 60

Environmental justice, 7–8

Environmental movement

public opinion on, 13

public opinion on success ofenvironmental movement, 14(f1.8)

Environmental policy, 6–7

Environmental protection

antiregulatory rebellion, 34–35

environmental industry market,U.S., 5f

environmental industry sectors, U.S.,growth expected in, 6t

federal environmental, wildlifeprotection acts, 9t

historical attitudes towardenvironment, 1–3

impact on U.S. economy, 3–5

international response to problems,10–13

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by mediaprotected, 4t

public opinion on, 13–14

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Acid Rain Program progress, 71–72

acid rain report by, 72

on air, 17

air pollutant emissions, estimates ofnational, 19t

air pollution trends, 18–19

allowance trading, 71

atmosphere changes and, 42

civil enforcement program, 11f

Clean Air Act and, 17–18, 34–35

Clean Air Interstate Rule and, 26–27

on composting, 97

creation of, 2

criminal enforcement program, 10f

dioxins, estimates of average adult’sdaily exposure to dioxins fromdietary intake, 149 (t10.2)

drinking water legislation and,129–131

environmental crime investigationsby, 9

environmental education and, 16

environmental justice and, 7–8

fuel economy estimates, 29

greenhouse gas emissions, U.S., 51

groundwater quality and, 126

hazardous air pollutants and, 27

hazardous waste and, 101

hazardous waste regulations, 103–105

on ice age, 37

on incinerator emissions, 88

on indoor air toxins, 145

on industrial hazardous wastes,101–102

landfill development trends, 85

landfills, environment and, 83

lead disclosure law violations, 139

on lead emissions, 20

on lead exposure, 138

‘‘Milestones in Garbage’’ timeline, 73

municipal solid waste composition,78–81

municipal solid waste definition, 78

municipal solid waste generationestimates, 77

municipal solid waste management, 81

on nitrogen oxide emissions, 21

ocean protection and, 129

on ozone depletion, 57

ozone depletion efforts, 63

ozone monitoring, 22, 23

paper products, recommendedrecovered fiber content for, 96t

particulate matter tracking by,23–24, 25

pesticides and, 140, 141, 142

radiation exposure and, 145

radioactive waste regulation by, 109

radon zones map, by county, 146f

on recovery rates, 91–94

recycling programs and, 95, 96

Resource Conservation andRecovery Act and, 76

on sulfate/nitrate sources, 65–66

sulfur dioxide emissions and, 26

Superfund program and, 106–108

toxic food advisories, 147

Toxics Release Inventory, 137

toxins regulation by, 135, 136

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and,114, 115

water quality and, 124–125

on watershed protection, 128–129

Yucca Mountain and, 115, 116

Environmental Protection Agency Officeof Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance, 63

Environmental protection industry

description of, 5

growth expected in U.S.environmental industry sectors, 6t

U.S. environmental industrymarket, 5f

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon inHomes (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 145

EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment2003 (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 138

EPCRA (Emergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know Act),103, 136

EPR (Extended ProducerResponsibility), 98

Erosion

farm acres by crop, 162 (f11.9)

rain forests and, 153

soil erosion, 162–163

ESA (European Space Agency), 56

Escherichia coli (E. coli), 148–149

Estimated Use of Water in the United Statesin 1995 (Solley, Pierce, and Perlman), 117

Estimated Use of Water in the United States(U.S. Geological Survey),117–120

Estuaries, 124, 125

Ethanol, 28

The Environment Index 181

Europe, ozone thinning over, 56

European Commission, 62

European Space Agency (ESA), 56

EV (electric vehicle), 30

Evaluation of Erosion Hazards (FederalEmergency Management Agency),162–163

Excessive Erosion on Cropland, 1997 (U.S.Department of Agriculture), 162

Executive Order 12,898 (Federal Actionsto Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations), 7

Export, of municipal solid waste, 83–84

Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR), 98

Extinction

of American animals, 151

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species,169, 169 (t11.4)

species loss, 164–165

Exxon Valdez oil spill, 129

FFAO (Food and Agricultural

Organization), 152

Farm Act, 162

FDA. See U.S. Food and DrugAdministration

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 10

Federal Conservation Reserve Program(CRP), 162

Federal Emergency Management Agency,162–163

Federal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct, 135

Federal government

environmental crime and, 9

federal agencies that oversee naturalresources, 152t

federal environmental, wildlifeprotection acts, 9t

groundwater protection and, 126–128

land use battles, 161

MSW management role, 88

radioactive waste from military/defense sources, 110–111

recycling programs and, 96–97

role in environmental protection,public opinion on, 14

toxins, regulations/programs/funding,135–136

See also Government regulations

Federal Hazardous Substances LabelingAct, 136

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (FIFRA), 127, 135

Federal Interagency Committee for theManagement of Noxious and ExoticWeeds, 157

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 76

Ferrous metals

municipal solid waste composition, 80

recycling rate of, 93

FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act), 127, 135

Fifth Amendment, 7, 161

‘‘Final Report: Superfund Subcommitteeof the National Advisory Council forEnvironmental Policy andTechnology’’ (EnvironmentalProtection Agency), 108

Fires

wildfires and forests, 153–155

wildland fires, number of, acresaffected, 157f

First International Symposium on AcidPrecipitation and the ForestEcosystem, 69–70

Fish

acid rain’s effects on, 67–68

contaminated fish, number of lakeacres under advisory due to, 148f

deep-sea harvesting, 167

El Nino and, 44

fish consumption advisories, 126f

generalized short-term effects ofacidity on, 68 (t5.2)

salmon, 163

toxins contamination, 147

water quality and, 125

wetlands and, 159

Fishing

deep-sea harvesting, 167

in wetlands, 159

Florida

sea level rise, areas of Gulf Coast lyingat low elevations vulnerable to, 52f

water use, 118, 119

Florida Everglades, 159

Flow control laws, 88

Fog, 69

Food and Agricultural Organization(FAO), 152

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, 143

‘‘Food-Related Illness and Death in theUnited States’’ (Mead et al.), 147

Food scraps

composting, 97

municipal solid waste composition, 79

Food, toxins in

bacterial/parasitic infection casesunder surveillance by site,compared with national healthobjectives, 149 (t10.3)

chemicals, pesticides, 147

contaminated fish, number of lakeacres under advisory due to, 148f

dioxins, EPA’s estimates of averageadult’s daily exposure to dioxinsfrom dietary intake, 149 (t10.2)

fish consumption advisories, 126f

number of cases/deaths due to specificfoodborne organisms, 150t

pathogens, 147–150

FoodNet, 149

Ford, Henry, 74

Forests

acid rain, recovery from, 72

acres of land to be treated by ForestService, by pest, 158f

as carbon sinks, 39

depletion of, 151–152

effects on carbon dioxideconcentrations, 41(f3.4)

location of protected forests/otherforests in U.S., 154f

national forest/grassland areas, 156f

ownership of U.S. forests, 155f

pollution and, 158

public concern about loss of tropicalrain forests, 169 (t11.3)

public opinion about loss of rainforests, 169

stresses on, 153–157

timber harvesting, replanting, 157–158

tropical rain forests, 152–153

wildland fires, number of, acresaffected, 157f

Fossil fuels

acid rain and, 66

carbon dioxide emissions from, 38–39

sulfur dioxide emissions from, 25

world carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, 48f

Fourier, Jean-Baptiste, 42

France, 73

Freedom Cooperative AutomotiveResearch (FreedomCAR), 32

Freon

ban in U.S., 62

illegal trade, smuggling of, 9, 60

ozone depletion from, 58

Freshwater

supply, 120–122

use trends, 119

Frogs, 164

Fuel

alternative fuel vehicles in use, numberof, 32t

alternative fuels, 30, 32

alternative fuels, characteristics of, 31t

combustion, sulfur dioxide emissionsfrom, 25–26

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

reformulated gasoline, 28–29

Fuel economy

CAFE standards, 29

market factors, 29–30

vehicle fuel economy by model, 29f

182 Index The Environment

Fugitive dust, 24

Funding

for Superfund, 107–108

Superfund budget sources, 108f

Fungus

forests threatened by, 156

trees destroyed by, 157

GGallup Organization

Americans’ concern aboutenvironmental problems, 16f

environmental issues poll, 13–16

public concern about damage toEarth’s ozone layer, 64t

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species, 169(t11.4)

public concern about loss of tropicalrain forests, 169 (t11.3)

public opinion about air pollution,35, 35t

public opinion about naturalresources, 169

public opinion about water issues,133, 133t

public opinion on acid rain, 72

public opinion on global warming, 53

public opinion on level ofunderstanding of greenhouseeffect, 53 (f3.15)

public opinion on ozone depletion, 64

public opinion on problems facingcountry, 15f

public opinion on quality ofenvironment, 14 (f1.7)

public opinion on success ofenvironmental movement, 14 (f1.8)

public opinion on whether U.S. shouldabide by Kyoto agreement onglobal warming, 53 (f3.16)

GAO. See U.S. Government AccountabilityOffice

Garbage. See Nonhazardous waste

Garbage dumps. See Landfills

Garbage Project, 82–83

Gasoline, reformulated, 28–29

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT), 12, 13

General Motors, 137

Genetic material, 165

Genetically modified food, 13

Geologic repositories

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 114–115

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, layout of,115f

Yucca Mountain, 115–116, 116f

Glass

from computer recycling, 100

generated/recovered, 93 (f7.3)

recycling rates, 92

Global Change Research Act, 49

Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000(Food and Agricultural Organization), 152

Global warming

concern about, 2

forests and, 152

from greenhouse effect, 37

public opinion about, 53

public opinion on level ofunderstanding of greenhouseeffect, 53 (f3.15)

public opinion on whether U.S. shouldabide by Kyoto agreement onglobal warming, 53 (f3.16)

questions about causes of, 48–49

See also Greenhouse effect, enhanced

Goldstein, Nora

recovery rates of MSW, 91–92

‘‘The State of Garbage in America,’’ 81

Government regulations

antiregulatory movement, 5–6, 34–35

attitudes of business towardenvironmental protection, 4–5

CAFE standards, 29

description of, 3–4

federal agencies that oversee naturalresources, 152t

of hazardous waste, 103–108

of toxins, 135–136

Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, 121

‘‘Grandfather’’ clauses, 33

Grasslands, 156f

Grazing, 161

Great Lakes, 124, 125

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

acid rain in, 65, 69

smog in, 23

Greece, 73

Greenhouse effect

atmosphere changes, 42

atmosphere, layers of, 39f

carbon dioxide concentration, trend inglobal average, 42f

carbon dioxide emissions, projectedsources of, 50 (f3.13)

causes of global warming, questionsabout, 48–49

climate, 37

computer models for prediction of,52–53

Earth’s climate, influences on, 43–45

effects of warming climate, 51–52

forests, effects on carbon dioxideconcentrations, 41(f3.4)

greenhouse gas emissions, by gas,41(f3.5)

greenhouse gas emissions, projectedU.S., by gas, 50 (f3.12)

greenhouse gases, 37–42

illustration of, 38 (f3.2)

international community actions, 45–48

international treaties related to climatechange, 46t

Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gasemission reduction targetsunder, 47t

methane concentrations, globalaverage, 43 (f3.7)

public opinion about globalwarming, 53

public opinion on level ofunderstanding of greenhouseeffect, 53 (f3.15)

public opinion on whether U.S. shouldabide by Kyoto agreement onglobal warming, 53 (f3.16)

radiation, role in greenhouse effect,38 (f3.1)

sea level rise, areas of Gulf Coastlying at low elevations vulnerableto, 52f

solar radiation changes caused byvolcanic eruptions, 45f

temperatures, trend in annual globalmean, 43 (f3.8)

trends in U.S. greenhouse gasemissions, sinks, in teragrams ofcarbon dioxide equivalents,40t–42t

United States and, 49–51

warming trend, 42–43

world carbon dioxide emissions byregion, 49f

world carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, 48f

Greenhouse gas emissions

carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, world, 48f

greenhouse gas emissions, by gas,41(f3.5)

international, 48

Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gasemission reduction targetsunder, 47t

Kyoto Protocol provisions about,47–48

projected U.S., by gas, 50 (f3.12)

trends in U.S. greenhouse gasemissions, sinks, in teragramsof carbon dioxide equivalents,40t–42t

U.S. reduction of, 49–50

U.S. trends, 51

Greenhouse gases

carbon dioxide, 38–39

carbon dioxide concentration, trend inglobal average, 42f

engineered gases, 41–42

function of, 37–38

methane, 39

methane concentrations, globalaverage, 43 (f3.7)

The Environment Index 183

nitrous oxide, 40–41

ozone, 39

warming trend from, 43

water vapor, 38

Groundwater

depletion of, 122

estimated use of, 121 (f9.4)

federal role in protection of, 126–128

in hydrologic cycle, 122f

landfill design standards and, 83

quality of, 126

trends in population, use ofgroundwater, surface water, 120f

use trends, 119

A Guide to Waste Reduction at ShoppingCenters (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 95

Gulf Coast, 52f

Gulf of Mexico, 163

Gypsy moths, 155, 157

HH. John Heinz III Center for Science,

Economics, and the Environment, 163

Habitat, 167

Half life, 109

Halon

emissions reduction with MontrealProtocol, 59

ozone depletion from, 58–59

recycled, 63

Hansen, James, 53

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

atmospheric mercury emissions,sources of, 28f

classification of, 18

sources, health risks, 27

Hazardous waste

class I injection well, 105 (f8.3)

definition of, 101

environmental crime and, 9

government regulation of, 103–108

household hazardous wastes, 104 (t8.2)

industrial, 101–102

management methods, 102–103

management methods for hazardouswastes included in Toxics ReleaseInventory, 105 (f8.4)

National Priorities List site actions,milestones, number of, 106t

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct and, 76

from small businesses, households, 102

small businesses, typical hazardouswaste generated by, 103t

Superfund budget sources, 108f

Superfund site constructioncompleted, 107f

technologies to neutralize/destroytoxic compounds in hazardouswaste, 104 (t8.3)

Toxic Release Inventory, distributionof, 105 (f8.5)

Toxics Release Inventory, sources ofmaterials disposed or otherwisereleased in, 106f

types of, 102f

waste management hierarchy, 104f

Hazardous waste facilities, 7

HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons),59, 63

Health

Clean Air Act’s impact on, 34

disease caused by tainted water,131–132

drinking water legislation and, 130

exposure to environmentalchemicals, 137

toxins and, 135

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated diseases, 132t

Health effects

acid rain, 69

acid rain, health effects on humanhealth, selected ecosystems,anticipated recovery benefits,68 (t5.1)

air pollutants, health risks, andcontributing sources, 26t

asbestos, 143

asbestosis, number of deathsattributed to, 144 (f10.6)

carbon monoxide, 20

chemical toxins, 137

cost of air pollution, 32–33

effects of acid rain on human health,selected ecosystems, anticipatedrecovery benefits, 68 (t5.1)

endocrine disruptors, 142–143

hazardous air pollutants, 27

hazardous waste exposure, 101

increased temperature, 52

indoor air toxins, 145–146

lead exposure, 20, 138

nitrogen oxides, 21

ozone, 23

ozone depletion, 57

particulate matter, 25

pesticide exposure, 140–141

radiation exposure, 145

sulfur dioxide, 26

temperature increase, 52

toxins, 135, 136

toxins in food, 147–149

Healthy Forests: An Initiative for WildfirePrevention and Stronger Communities(U.S. State Department), 155

Healthy Forests Report (U.S. ForestService), 155

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, 155, 156

Herbicides, 140

HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), 41, 42

HFI (Hydrogen Fuel Initiative), 32

HHW (household hazardous waste), 102,104 (t8.2)

High-level radioactive waste, 112–113

Highways, 96–97

Hill, Gladwin, 1

Hispanic Americans, 7

Hormones, 142–143

Household hazardous waste (HHW), 102,104 (t8.2)

Human exposure. See Toxins in everydaylife

Human health. See Health; Health effects

Hunt, Chemical Waste Management Inc. v.,84, 88

Hybrid vehicles (advanced technologyvehicles)

development of, 32

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

sales, specifications of availablevehicles, 33t

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),59, 63

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 41, 42

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), 32

Hydrogen-fueled vehicles, 30, 32

Hydrologic cycle

description of, 117

diagram of, 118f

groundwater in, 122f

IIce age, 37

Idaho, 122

Illegal dumping, 86

‘‘Illegal Trade in Ozone-DepletingSubstances Is Thriving over ThreeContinents, Says Report’’ (Maliti), 60

Illness

caused by tainted drinking water,131–132

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated diseases, 132t

See also Disease; Health effects

Import, of municipal solid waste, 83–84

In-stream use

definition of, 117

trends, 120

water users, 118–119

Incineration. See Combustion, incineration

Incinerators

emissions from, 87–88

history of, 73

pros/cons of, 86

India, Union Carbide pesticideplant, 136

Indonesia, Tambora volcano, 45

Indoor air toxins, 145–147

Indoor Radon Abatement Act of1988, 145

184 Index The Environment

Indoors

indoor air toxins, 145–147

pesticide use, 141

radon in buildings, 144–145

Industrial hazardous waste

generators of, 101–102

management methods, 102–103

Industrial nonhazardous waste, 77–78

Industrial Revolution

air pollution and, 17

atmosphere changes from, 42

attitudes towards environmentduring, 1

carbon dioxide levels and, 38

mineral exploitation in, 167

Industrialized nations

environmental problems/protectionand, 10–11, 12

Kyoto Protocol and, 47, 48

Montreal Protocol and, 59

rain forests and, 153

Information on EPA’s Draft Reassessmentof Dioxins (U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office), 147

Injection wells

class I injection well, 105 (f8.3)

for hazardous waste management, 103

Insecticides

to combat forest pests, 156

definition of, 139

in food, 147

human health damage from, 140

indoor use of, 141

Insects

acres of land to be treated by ForestService, by pest, 158f

forests threatened by, 155–156

Integrated Risk Information System(IRIS), 136

Interagency Climate Change ScienceProgram (CCSP), 50–51

Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

on climate change, 46

climate change assessment, 48

landmark judgment of, 47

Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act, 96

International community

carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, world, 48f

carbon dioxide emissions, world, byregion, 49f

climate change, international treatiesrelated to, 46t

environmental problems and, 10–13

greenhouse effect actions, 45–48

international conventions, treaties,declarations related toenvironment, 11t

Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gasemission reduction targetsunder, 47t

Montreal Protocol, 59–62

Montreal Protocol phase-out schedulefor ozone-depletingsubstances, 59t

International Convention for thePrevention of Pollution fromShips, 129

International Energy Annual 2003 (U.S.Department of Energy), 48

International Organization forStandardization (ISO), 5

International Radon Project, 145

Invasive species

biodiversity and, 165

West Nile virus cases, 166f

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change

IRIS (Integrated Risk InformationSystem), 136

Irrigation

freshwater use, 122

water use, 118, 119

withdrawals by state, 123f

ISO (International Organization forStandardization), 5

Isotopes, 109

JJobs

antiregulatory movement and, 6

environmental protection and, 4, 5

Johnson, Stephen, 8

KKaufman, Scott M.

recovery rates of MSW, 91–92

‘‘The State of Garbage in America,’’ 81

Kiely, Timothy, 140

Kudzu, 157

Kyoto Protocol

greenhouse gas emission reductiontargets under, 47t

provisions of, 47–48

public opinion on, 53

public opinion on whether U.S. shouldabide by Kyoto agreement onglobal warming, 53 (f3.16)

U.S. cities’ support of, 51

LLa Nina, 44

Ladybird beetles, 156

Lakes

acid rain and, 66

acid rain, recovery from, 72

contaminated fish, number of lakeacres under advisory due to, 148f

toxins in, 147

water quality assessment, 124, 125

Land degradation, 121–122

Land disposal

for hazardous waste management, 102

municipal solid waste managementwith, 81, 82f

Land use

battles, 161

distribution of, 162 (f11.8)

farm acres by crop, 162 (f11.9)

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

Landfill Methane Outreach Program, 83

Landfill Practice (American Society ofCivil Engineers), 75

Landfills

design standards, 83

development trends, 84–86

environment and, 83

environmental justice and, 7

generation, materials recovery,combustion, discards ofmunicipal solid waste, 82t

groundwater protection and, 127

for hazardous waste management, 102

hazardous waste regulations for, 105

history of, 73

imports/exports of garbage, 83–84

landfill gas energy projects by state,status of, 84f

landfill, properly closed, 85f

municipal solid waste management,81–82

number in U.S. by year, 86f

organic matter, decomposition of, 82–83

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct and, 76

scrap tires in, 98

Lawsuits

environmental policy and, 6–7

against Monsanto, 8

on ocean dumping, 129

over Yucca Mountain, 116

Leachate, 83

Lead

as air pollutant, 18

air quality, 20 (f2.4)

blood lead concentration in children,toxicity of, 139 (f10.1)

blood lead concentrations in childrenaged 5 and less for various years,139 (f10.2)

blood lead levels, 138

blood lead levels <10 ug/dl,percentage of children aged 1–5years with, by race/ethnicity andsurvey period, 140f

drinking water and, 130

The Environment Index 185

emissions, 20 (f2.3)

emissions, sources, air quality, 20

health effects from, 33

human exposure to, 137–138

in landfills, 83

lead disclosure law violations, 138

Lead-Based Poisoning PreventionAct, 138

Lead Contamination Control Act of1988, 130, 138

Leafy spurge, 157

Legislation and international treaties

Air Pollution Control Actof 1955, 17

Antarctic Treaty, 168

antiregulatory movement and, 5–6

Asbestos Hazard EmergencyResponse Act, 143

Atomic Energy Act, 110–111

Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act, 29

Beaches Environmental Assessmentand Health Act, 125

Biodiversity Treaty, 165

Clean Air Act, 17–18, 18t, 25,76–77, 143

Clean Air Act Amendments, 18, 26,33–34

Clean Air Act Amendments,automobile emissions and, 28

Clean Air Act Amendments, ozonedepletion and, 62, 63

Clean Air Mercury Rule, 27

Clean Water Act, 76, 124,126–127, 161

Clear Skies Act, 18

Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, andLiability Act, 106–108, 127

on drinking water, 129–131

Electronic Waste Recycling Act, 100

Emergency Planning and CommunityRight-to-Know Act, 103, 136

Energy Security Act, 70

Farm Act, 162

federal environmental, wildlifeprotection acts, 9t

Federal Food, Drug and CosmeticAct, 135

Federal Hazardous SubstancesLabeling Act, 136

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act, 127, 135

Federal Water Pollution ControlAct, 76

Global Change ResearchAct, 49

Grand Canyon Protection Actof 1992, 121

Indoor Radon Abatement Actof 1988, 145

Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act, 96

International Convention for thePrevention of Pollution fromShips, 129

international conventions, treaties,declarations related toenvironment, 11t

international treaties related to climatechange, 46t

Kyoto Protocol, 47–48, 47t, 51, 53, 53(f3.16)

Lead-Based Poisoning PreventionAct, 138

Lead Contamination Control Act of1988, 130, 138

Low-Level Radioactive Waste PolicyAct, 113–114

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 164

Marine Protection, Research, andSanctuaries Act, 129

Mercury-Containing andRechargeable BatteryManagement Act, 83, 97

Montreal Protocol on SubstancesThat Deplete the Ozone Layer,59–61, 59t

National Highway SystemDesignation Act, 96–97

notable environmental laws, 2

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 115

Ocean Dumping Act, 129

Oil Pollution Act, 129

Oregon Recycling Opportunity Act, 96

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,102, 103

Pure Food and Drug Act, 135

Reinventing Drinking Water Act,130–131

Residential Lead-Based Paint HazardReduction Act, 138, 139

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct, 75–76, 83, 96, 104–105, 127

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct outline, 75 (t6.2)

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct’s interrelated programs, 75(t6.3)

Rivers and Harbors AppropriationAct, 161

Safe Drinking Water Act, 5, 76, 127,129–130, 131

Safe Drinking Water ActAmendments, 127, 130, 143

Solid Waste Disposal Act, 75

Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act, 127

Swamp Land Acts, 159–160

Toxic Substances Control Act, 136

Transportation Equity Act for theTwenty-First Century, 167

United Nations EconomicCommission for EuropeConvention on Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution, 70

United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Changetreaty, 46–47

Uranium Mill Tailings RadiationControl Act, 112

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant LandWithdrawal Act, 114

Water Quality Act of 1987, 76

Water Quality Control Act of1987, 130

Licensing Support Network (LSN), 116

Light-Duty Automotive Technology andFuel Economy Trends: 1975 through2004 (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 29

Light trucks, 29–30

LLW (low-level radioactive waste),113–114

Logging

in Pacific Northwest, 165

timber harvesting, replanting,157–158

London Amendment, 59

London, England, 73

Los Alamos, New Mexico, 154

Los Angeles, California

ozone nonattainment area, 22

smog attacks in, 17

smog in, 1, 23

Los Angeles Times, 8

Low-income population, 7–8

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW),113–114

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act,113–114

LSN (Licensing Support Network), 116

Lucas, David, 7

Lucas v. South Carolina CoastalCouncil, 7

Lumber, 157–158

Lung cancer, 145

MMaine

recycling in, 96

wetlands of, 159

Malina, Mario, 55

Maliti, Tom, 60

Malls

malls, shopping centers, marketconditions for materialscommonly recycled at, 95t

recycling guide for, 95

Mann, Michael E., 43

Manufacturing

industrial nonhazardous wastefrom, 77

Toxics Release Inventory and, 103

Marine debris, 129

Marine Mammal ProtectionAct, 164

186 Index The Environment

Marine Protection, Research, andSanctuaries Act, 129

Materials, acid rain’s effects on, 69

Materials recovery. See Recovery

Materials recovery facilities (MRFs),94, 95

Maximum containment level goals(MCLGs), 130

Maximum containment levels (MCLs), 130

Mead, Paul S., 147

Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge(National Invasive Species Council), 165

Mega sites, 108

Melanoma skin cancer, 57

Mercury

in batteries, ban on, 97

Clean Air Mercury Rule, 27

in food, 147

incinerator, WTE emissions, 87, 88

in landfills, 83

sources of atmospheric mercuryemissions, 28f

water pollution from, 125

Mercury-Containing and RechargeableBattery Management Act, 83, 97

The Mercury News (newspaper), 100

Metals

from computer recycling, 99–100

generated/recovered, 93 (f7.4)

municipal solid waste composition, 80

recycling rates, 92–93

from WTE plants, 88

Methane

atmospheric concentration of, 42

concentrations, global average,43 (f3.7)

as greenhouse gas, 39

from landfills, 82, 83

Methane (CH4), 51

Methanol, 30

Methyl bromide, 62

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), 28

Mexico, 13, 45

Midgley, Thomas, Jr., 58

Mile-a-minute weed, 157

‘‘Milestones in Garbage’’ timeline(Environmental Protection Agency), 73

Millrath, Karsten

recovery rates of MSW, 91–92

‘‘The State of Garbage in America,’’ 81

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 132–133

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2005 (U.S.Geological Survey), 143

Minerals, 167, 168

Mining, 167–168

Monsanto, lawsuit against, 8

Montreal Amendment, 59

Montreal Protocol on Substances ThatDeplete the Ozone Layer

agreement of, 59–60

phase-out schedule for ozone-depleting substances, 59t

problems, 60–61

Morbidity and Mortality Week (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention),145–146

Mortality rates, 3

Moths, gypsy, 155, 157

Mount Pinatubo volcano, Philippines, 45

MRFs (materials recovery facilities),94, 95

MSW. See Municipal solid waste

MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), 28

Muir, John, 151

Multi-exposure contaminationpathways, 76f

Municipal Solid Waste Generation,Recycling, and Disposal in the UnitedStates: Facts and Figures for 2003(Environmental Protection Agency)

findings of, 78

materials recovery rates, 91, 94

Municipal solid waste (MSW)

breakdown of materials generatedin, 81f

composition of, 78–81

computers/components, what happensto obsolete, 100f

generated, breakdown by waste type,79 (f6.6)

generation, materials recovery,combustion, discards of, 82t

generation, materials recovery,composition, discards of, inmillions of tons and percent oftotal generation, 78t

generation of, 78

generation, trends in total/per capita,79 (f6.5)

glass generated/recovered, 93 (f7.3)

incineration, combustion of, 86–88

landfills, 82–86

malls, shopping centers, marketconditions for materialscommonly recycled at, 95t

management, 81–82

management, federal role in, 88

management methods, 82f

marine debris, 129

materials generated/recovered byweight, 92t

metals generated/recovered, 93 (f7.4)

paper generated/recovered, 93 (f7.2)

paper, paperboard products generated,breakdown by type of, 80t

paper products, EPA’s recommendedrecovered fiber content for, 96t

plastics generated/recovered, 94f

recovery, 91

recovery rates, 91–94

recycling, electronic waste, 98–100

recycling, history, current strength of,97–98

recycling of scrap tires, 98

recycling programs, 94–97

recycling rates, 92f

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct and, 76

scrap tire disposition, U.S., 99 (f7.7)

scrap tires, generated, recycled,recovered, U.S., 99 (f7.6)

Mutagen, 135

NN2O. See Nitrous oxide

NAAEC (North American Agreement onEnvironmental Cooperation), 13

NAAQS (National Ambient Air QualityStandards), 17–18

NAFTA (North American Free TradeAgreement), 13

Names/addresses, organizations, 171–172

National Acid Precipitation AssessmentProgram (NAPAP), 70

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA)

Earth Science Enterprise, 44

on HFCs, 63

Scientific Assessment of OzoneDepletion: 2002, 62

on warming trend, 43

National Air Toxic Assessment, 27

National Air Toxic Trend Site(NATTS), 27

National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS), 17–18

National Atmospheric DepositionProgram, 65, 67f

The National Biennial RCRA HazardousWaste Report (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 101–102

National Biological Service, 142

‘‘National Coastal Condition:Report II’’ (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 125

National Commission on WildlifeDisasters, 154

National Conference of StateLegislatures, 34

National Emissions Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAPs), 18

National Environmental Education andTraining Foundation (NEETF), 16

National Fire Plan, 157

The National Fire Plan (U.S. ForestService), 155

National Highway System DesignationAct, 96–97

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, 29

National Invasive SpeciesCouncil, 165

The Environment Index 187

‘‘National Listing of Fish Advisories’’(Environmental Protection Agency), 125

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA)

on atmospheric changes, 42

on El Nino, 44

ocean protection and, 129

ozone depletion monitoring, 61–62

Scientific Assessment of OzoneDepletion: 2002, 62

National Park Service

Cape Hatteras lighthouse and, 163

management of federal land, 161

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska(NPRA)

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

oil in, 167–168

National Priorities List (NPL)

site actions and milestones, numberof, 106t

sites on list, 106–107

National Safety Council (NSC), 145

National Water Quality AssessmentDatabase (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 124–125

National Water Quality AssessmentProgram, 140

National Water Quality Inventory(Environmental Protection Agency),124, 126

Native insects, 155

NATTS (National Air Toxic TrendSite), 27

Natural resources, 3

Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC), 152

Natural resources, depletion/conservation of

biodiversity, 163–167

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign, 164t

farm acres by crop, 162 (f11.9)

Federal agencies that oversee naturalresources, 152t

forests, 151–153

forests, acres of land to be treated byForest Service, by pest, 158f

forests, location of protected forests/other forests in U.S., 154f

forests, ownership of U.S. forests, 155f

forests under stress, U.S., 153–158

history of, 151

land use, 162 (f11.8)

land use battles, 161

minerals, oils, 167–168

national forest and grassland areas,156f

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National Petroleum

Reserve in Alaska and ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge, 168f

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species, 169(t11.4)

public concern about loss of tropicalrain forests, 169 (t11.3)

public opinion about, 169

soils, 161–163

West Nile virus cases, 166f

wetland acres lost annually, numberof, 160 (f11.7)

wetlands, 158–161

wetlands’ contribution to improvingwater quality, reducing stormwater runoff, 160 (f11.6)

wildland fires, number of, acresaffected, 157f

Nature Conservancy, 164

Needs Assessment for Industrial Class 1Nonhazardous Waste CommercialDisposal Capacity in Texas (2000Update), 78

NEETF (National EnvironmentalEducation and TrainingFoundation), 16

‘‘A Neighborhood of Poisoned Dreams’’(Barry), 8

Nelson, Gaylord, 2

Nervous system

pesticides and, 140

toxins in food and, 147

NESHAPs (National EmissionsStandards for Hazardous AirPollutants), 18

Nevada, 115–116, 116f

New Mexico

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 114–115,115f

wildfire in, 154

New Source Performance Standards(NSPS), 18

New York

acid rain in, 65, 69, 70, 72

export of MSW, 83–84

reformulated gasoline and, 28, 29

New York City, New York, 97

New York Times, 1

Newspaper, recycling rate for, 92

Nichols, Greg, 51

Nitrate, 65–66

Nitrogen dioxide, 21

Nitrogen oxides

acid rain from, 65

Acid Rain Program and, 70

air quality, 21 (f2.6)

Clean Air Interstate Rule and, 26

emissions, 21 (f2.5)

emissions, decrease in, 72

emissions, sources, air quality, 21

as major air pollutant, 18

ozone emissions and, 22

sources in atmosphere, 65–66

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

acid rain from, 65

as greenhouse gas, 40–41

greenhouse gas emissions, 51

Nixon, Richard

Endangered Species Act and, 163

environmental protection laws, 2

‘‘No-net-loss,’’ 161

NOAA. See National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration

Nondurable goods, 80

Nonferrous metals, 93

Nonhazardous waste

biomass fuels, average heat content ofselected, 87t

consumer electronics, estimated life ofselected, 74t

consumer electronics, total unitsshipped of selected, 75f

history of, 73–75

incineration, combustion of, 86–88

industrial, 77–78

landfill gas energy projects by state,status of, 84f

landfill, properly closed, 85f

landfills, number in U.S. by year, 86f

laws governing, 75–77

multi-exposure contaminationpathways, 76f

municipal (or sanitary) landfills, 82–86

municipal solid waste, 78

municipal solid waste, breakdown bytype of paper, paperboardproducts generated in, 80t

municipal solid waste, breakdown ofmaterials generated in, 81f

municipal solid waste composition,78–81

municipal solid waste generated,breakdown by waste type, 79(f6.6)

municipal solid waste, generation,materials recovery, combustion,and discards of, 82t

municipal solid waste, generation,materials recovery, composition,discards of, in millions of tons andpercent of total generation, 78t

municipal solid waste generation,trends in total/per capita, 79 (f6.5)

municipal solid waste management,81–82

municipal solid waste management,federal role in, 88

municipal solid waste managementmethods, 82f

nonhazardous waste distribution, 77(f6.4)

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct outline, 75 (t6.2)

188 Index The Environment

Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct’s interrelated programs, 75(t6.3)

solid waste, distribution of, 77 (f6.3)

waste combustion plant with pollutioncontrol system, 87f

waste combustion process, 89f

waste, energy consumption associatedwith fuel from, 88f

See also Recovery

Nonnative invasive insects, 155–156

North American Agreement onEnvironmental Cooperation(NAAEC), 13

North American Development Bank, 13

North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), 13

North Carolina

Cape Hatteras lighthouse, 163

landfill and environmental justice, 7

North Pole. See Arctic

North Slope Reserve, 167

‘‘Not In My Backyard: Executive Order12,898 and Title VI as Tools forAchieving Environmental Justice’’(United States Commission on CivilRights), 7–8

NPL (National Priorities List)

site actions and milestones, numberof, 106t

sites on list, 106–107

NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve inAlaska)

Northern Alaska, locations/relativesizes of National PetroleumReserve in Alaska andArctic National WildlifeRefuge, 168f

oil in, 167–168

NRC. See Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRDC (Natural Resources DefenseCouncil), 152

NSC (National Safety Council), 145

NSPS (New Source PerformanceStandards), 18

Nuclear fission, 109

Nuclear power plants

high-level radioactive waste from,112–113

location of commercial operatingnuclear power reactors, 111f

nuclear fuel cycle for, 110f

radioactive waste from, 109–110

uranium mill tailings and, 112

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

low-level radioactive waste and, 113

on radiation exposure, 144

radioactive waste management by, 109

uranium mill tailings and, 112

Nuclear Waste Policy Actof 1982, 115

Nuclear weapons

radioactive waste from military/defense sources, 110–111

transuranic waste from, 114

OO2 (oxygen)

decomposition of organic materialsand, 82

ozone formation with, 55

‘‘Obsolete Computers, Gold Mine orHigh-Tech Trash?’’ (U.S. GeologicalSurvey), 99–100

Ocean Dumping Act, 129

Oceans

as carbon sinks, 39

effect on temperature, 44

garbage dumping in, 73

protection of, 129

sea level rise, areas of Gulf Coastlying at low elevations vulnerableto, 52f

sea level rise from warming climate, 51

water quality assessment, 125

ODP (ozone depletion potential),57–58, 59

Off-stream use

definition of, 117

freshwater use, 119

trends in population, use ofgroundwater, surface water, 120f

use trends, 120

water users, 118

Office of Environmental Justice, 7

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, andToxic Substances (OPPTS), 136

Ohio, 1, 124

Oil

in Arctic, 167–168, 168f

spills, 129

Oil Pollution Act, 129

OPEC (Organization of PetroleumExporting Countries), 29

Opinion Research of Princeton, NewJersey, 2

OPPTS (Office of Prevention, Pesticides,and Toxic Substances), 136

Oregon

recycling in, 96

sudden oak death in, 156

Oregon Institute of Science andMedicine, 49

Oregon Recycling Opportunity Act, 96

Organic foods, 141

Organic material, 82–83

Organization of Petroleum ExportingCountries (OPEC), 29

Organizations, names/addresses of,171–172

Organochlorines, 140

Organophosphates, 140

Ownership

land use battles, 161

of U.S. forests, 155f

See also Private property

Oxygen (O2)

decomposition of organic materialsand, 82

ozone formation with, 55

Ozone

Air Quality Index (AQI): Ozone, 23t

altitude profile, distribution of, 56(f4.2)

in Earth’s atmosphere, 56 (f4.1)

Earth’s protective ozone layer, 55

emissions, sources, air quality, 22

engineered gases and, 42

forests and, 158

as greenhouse gas, 39

health effects, 23

as major air pollutant, 18

new Clean Air Act standards on, 35

ozone air quality, trends in eight-hour,22 (f2.7)

ozone air quality, trends in one-hour,22 (f2.8)

ozone pollution, American LungAssociation’s list of 25metropolitan areas with worst, 24t

smog from, 22–23

Ozone depletion

chemicals, lifetime and ozonedepletion potential of various, 58t

chemicals, trends in atmosphericconcentrations of controlledozone-depleting chemicals, 61f

concern about, 2

consequences of, 57

Earth’s protective ozone layer, 55

evidence of, 55–57

Montreal Protocol, 59–60

Montreal Protocol phase-outschedule for ozone-depletingsubstances, 59t

ozone, altitude profile, distribution of,56 (f4.2)

ozone-depleting chemicals, 57–59

ozone-depleting substances, U.S.emissions of, 63t

ozone destruction, 58f

ozone hole over Antarctica, trends insize of, 56 (f4.3)

ozone in Earth’s atmosphere,56 (f4.1)

progress, 61–62

public concern about damage toEarth’s ozone layer, 64t

public opinion about, 64

scientific assessment of, 62

substitute chemicals, new technologies,63–64

U.S. efforts to end, 62–63

The Environment Index 189

Ozone depletion potential (ODP),57–58, 59

Ozone hole

definition of, 55

over Antarctica, 56

scientific assessment of, 62

trends in size of ozone hole overAntarctica, 56 (f4.3)

PPacala, S. W., 152

Packaging, recycling of, 94

Paint, lead in, 137–138

Paper

generated/recovered, 93 (f7.2)

materials recovery facilities and, 95

municipal solid waste, breakdown bytype of paper, paperboardproducts generated in, 80t

municipal solid waste composition, 79

paper products, EPA’s recommendedrecovered fiber content for, 96t

recycling rates, 92

trends in MSW composition, 81

Paracelsus, 135

Parakeets, 166

Parasites, 149 (t10.3)

Paris, France, 73

Particulate matter (PM)

air quality, 24–25

emissions, sources, 24

health effects, 25

less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter,air quality for, 25 (f2.11)

less than 10 micrometers in diameter,air quality for, 25 (f2.10)

as major air pollutant, 18

new Clean Air Act standards on, 35

smaller than 10 micrometers indiameter, emissions of, 24f

types of, 23

Pathogens

acres of land to be treated by ForestService, by pest, 158f

bacterial and parasitic infection casesunder surveillance by site,compared with national healthobjectives, 149 (t10.3)

disease caused by tainted water, 132

in food, 147–150

foodborne organisms, number ofcases/deaths due to specific, 150t

forests threatened by, 155, 156

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated diseases, 132t

West Nile virus, 165, 166f

PBT (persistent bioaccumulative toxic)chemicals, 137

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 8, 147

PCs. See Computers

Peregrine falcons, 163

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 41, 42

Perlman, Howard A., 117

Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)chemicals, 137

Personal computers. See Computers

Pesticides

chromated copper arsenic, 142

in food, 147

government regulation of, 135

health problems from, 140–141

pesticide active ingredient, estimatedamounts of, used by pesticidetype, 141f

pesticide usage by type of pesticide,estimated breakdown of, 142f

regulation of, 127

types of, 139–140

Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2000and 2001 Market Estimates(Environmental Protection Agency), 140

Pests

acres of land to be treated by ForestService, by pest, 158f

from biodiversity loss, 163

forest wildfires and, 155

insects and forests, 155–156

PFCs (perfluorocarbons), 41, 42

pH scale. See Potential hydrogen (pH) scale

Philippines, Mount Pinatubo volcano, 45

Photosynthesis

of forests, 151

ozone exposure and, 158

Pickling, 101

Pierce, Robert R., 117

Plant ecosystems, 57

Plants

acid rain’s effects on, 68–69

acres of land to be treated by ForestService, by pest, 158f

biodiversity, 163–167

forests, invasive plant species and, 157

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species, 169, 169(t11.4)

wetlands support, 159

Plastics

from computer recycling, 100

generated/recovered, 94f

municipal solid waste composition, 80

recycling rates, 93–94

trends in MSW composition, 81

PM. See Particulate matter

Poisons. See Toxins in everyday life

Pollution

attitudes toward environmentand, 1–3

effects on forests, 158

government regulations and, 4–5

from mining, 167

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by mediaprotected, 4t

wetlands and water quality, 159

See also specific types of pollution

Pollution credits, 34

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

hazardous waste management and, 102

toxic chemicals data and, 103

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 8, 147

Population

environment and, 3

growth from Industrial Revolution, 1

world population growth in more/lessdeveloped countries, 3f

Potential hydrogen (pH) scale

acid rain’s effects on environment,67–68

chart of, 66 (f5.2)

measurement of acid rain on, 65

pH values, field measurements of,from National AtmosphericDeposition Program/NationalTrends Network, 67f

Power plants

emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrousoxide, 70, 71–72

nuclear fuel cycle for power plants,110f

See also Nuclear power plants

PRDOE (Puerto Rico Department ofEducation), 143

President’s Task Force on EnvironmentalHealth Risks and Safety Risks toChildren, 138

Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD), 18

Primary Drinking Water Standards, 130

Private property

environmental regulations and, 5

land use battles, 161

Private water supply, 131

‘‘Progress Made in Monitoring AmbientAir Toxics, but Further ImprovementsCan Increase Effectiveness’’(Environmental ProtectionAgency), 27

Property rights, 70

See also Private property

Protecting and Restoring America’sWatersheds (Environmental ProtectionAgency), 128

PSD (Prevention of SignificantDeterioration), 18

Public opinion

about acid rain, 72

about air pollution, 35t

about extinction of plant and animalspecies, 169 (t11.4)

190 Index The Environment

about loss of tropical rain forests, 169(t11.3)

about natural resources, 169

about water issues, 133

Americans’ concern aboutenvironmental problems, 16f

drinking water, public concern aboutpollution of, 133t

on environment, 13–16

environment, historical attitudestowards, 1–3

on global warming, 53

on level of understanding ofgreenhouse effect, 53 (f3.15)

on ozone depletion, 64

on problems facing country, 15f

public concern about damage toEarth’s ozone layer, 64t

on quality of environment,14 (f1.7)

on success of environmentalmovement, 14 (f1.8)

on whether U.S. should abide byKyoto agreement on globalwarming, 53 (f3.16)

Public water supply

drinking water sources, 131

water use, 118

Puerto Rico Department of Education(PRDOE), 143

Pure Food and Drug Act, 135

Pyrethroid pesticides, 140

RRacial minorities, environmental justice,

7–8

Radiation

aerosols and, 45

average radiation exposure by type,144 (f10.7)

clouds effect on global temperatureand, 43–44

Earth’s temperature and, 37

greenhouse gases and, 37–38

human exposure to, 144–145

ozone depletion consequences, 57

ozone formation and, 55

radon zones, EPA map of, by county,146f

role in greenhouse effect, 38 (f3.1)

solar radiation changes caused byvolcanic eruptions, 45f

Radioactive waste

classes of, 111–114

geologic repositories for,114–116

nuclear fuel cycle for powerplants, 110f

nuclear power reactors, locations ofcommercial operating, 111f

radioactivity definition, 109

sites storing spent nuclear fuel,high-level radioactive waste, and/or surplus plutonium, 113f

sources of, 109–111

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in NewMexico, layout of, 115f

Yucca Mountain, 116f

‘‘Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage,Disposal’’ (Nuclear RegulatoryCommission), 112

Radioactivity, 109

Radioisotope, 109

Radon

exposure to, 144–145

zones, EPA map of, by county, 146f

Rags, 74

Rain

drought in U.S., 122–123

fluctuation fromwarming climate, 51–52

rainfall, field measurements of pHvalues from NationalAtmospheric DepositionProgram/National TrendsNetwork, 67f

rainfall pH, 65

See also Acid rain

Rain forests

destruction of, 152–153

public concern about loss of tropicalrain forests, 169 (t11.3)

public opinion about loss of rainforests, 169

RCRA. See Resource Conservation andRecovery Act

Recovered Materials Advisory Notices(RMANs), 96

Recovery. See Recycling

Recycling

composting, 97

computers/components, what happensto obsolete, 100f

description of, 91

early forms of, 74

electronic waste recycling, 98–100

flow control laws and, 88

glass generated/recovered, 93 (f7.3)

for hazardous waste management, 102

history, current strength of, 97–98

malls, shopping centers, marketconditions for materialscommonly recycled at, 95t

metals generated/recovered, 93 (f7.4)

municipal solid waste managementmethods, 82f

municipal solid waste managementwith, 81

municipal solid waste materialsgenerated/recovered byweight, 92t

municipal solid waste recyclingrates, 92f

paper generated/recovered, 93 (f7.2)

paper products, EPA’s recommendedrecovered fiber content for, 96t

plastics generated/recovered, 94f

programs, 94–97

rates, 91–94

scrap tire disposition, U.S., 99 (f7.7)

scrap tire recycling, 98

scrap tires, generated, recycled,recovered, U.S., 99 (f7.6)

of Toxics Release Inventory chemicals,103

Recycling programs

buy-back centers, deposit systems, 95

collection, sorting, 94–95

components of, 94

government’s role in, 96–97

materials recovery facilities, 95

Reduction, 102

Reformulated gasoline (RFG), 28–29

Regulations. See Government regulations

Reinventing Drinking Water Act, 130–131

REM (roentgen equivalent man), 109

Renner, Michael, 5

Replanting, forest, 158

Reregistration Review Process, 141, 142

Residential Lead-Based Paint HazardReduction Act, 138, 139

Resin types

plastic recycling and, 94

of plastics, 80

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)

groundwater protection under, 127

hazardous waste regulations,101, 104–105

interrelated programs, 75 (t6.3)

landfills and, 83

outline, 75 (t6.2)

recycling requirement of, 96

requirements of, 75–76

waste generation and, 77

Resources. See Natural resources,depletion/conservation of

Respiratory problems, 146

RFG (reformulated gasoline), 28–29

Rivers

dams and, 121

garbage dumping in, 73

toxins in, 147

water quality assessment, 124, 125

Rivers and Harbors AppropriationAct, 161

RMA (Rubber ManufacturersAssociation), 86, 98

RMANs (Recovered Materials AdvisoryNotices), 96

Roadkill, 166–167

Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 158

Roads

The Environment Index 191

highways, 96–97

logging, 158

wildlife and, 166–167

Roentgen equivalent man (REM), 109

Roosevelt, Theodore, 151

Rowland, F. Sherwood, 55

Royal Caribbean, 129

Rubber Manufacturers Association(RMA), 86, 98

Rubber Pavement Association (RPA),96–97

Russia, production of asbestos, 143

SSafe Drinking Water Act

antiregulatory movement and, 5

groundwater protection under, 127

protections of, 76

requirements of, 129–130

sources of drinking water and, 131

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

‘‘endocrine disrupters’’ language in,143

groundwater protection under, 127

requirements of, 130

Saline water, 119

Salmon

acid rain and, 67–68

as threatened species, 163

San Joaquin Valley, California, 22

Schoenberger, Karl, 100

Science (journal), 152

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion:2002 (World MeteorologicalOrganization), 62

Scrap tires. See Tires, scrap

Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 42

Sea level rise

areas of Gulf Coast lying at lowelevations vulnerable to, 52f

from warming climate, 51

Sea turtles, 163

SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride), 41, 42

Shopping centers

malls, shopping centers, marketconditions for materialscommonly recycled at, 95t

recycling guide for, 95

Shoreline, 159

See also Coastline

Sick-building syndrome, 147

Sierra Club, 151

Significant New Alternative Policyprogram, Environmental ProtectionAgency, 63

Silent Spring (Carson), 1

Sivertsson, Anders, 49

16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Supportof the Climate Convention(Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange), 46

Skin cancer, 57

Small businesses

hazardous waste from, 102

typical hazardous waste generatedby, 103t

Smith, Robert Angus, 65

The Smithsonian, 82–83

Smithsonian Tropical ResearchInstitute, 152

Smog

air pollution legislation and, 17

auto-induced, 28

ozone contribution to, 22–23, 39

particulate matter in, 24

Smuggling, of CFCs, 60

Snails, 69

SO2. See Sulfur dioxide

A Social History of Trash (Strasser), 74

Soils

acid rain, recovery from, 72

acid rain’s effects on, 68, 69

composting and, 97

erosion, 162–163

farm acres by crop, 162 (f11.9)

importance of, 161

land use, 162 (f11.8)

soil acidity/nutrients relationship, 69f

Solar cycles, 44

Solar energy, 43–44

Solar radiation. See Radiation

Solid waste

distribution of, 77 (f6.3)

generation of, 77

hazardous waste, 101

RCRA definition of, 75

See also Municipal solid waste

Solid Waste Disposal Act, 75

Solid Waste: State and Federal Efforts toManage Nonhazardous Waste (U.S.Government Accountability Office), 77

Solley, Wayne B., 117

Sorting, of recyclable materials, 94–95

South Carolina, 7

South Carolina Coastal Council, Lucas v., 7

South Pole. See Antarctica

Southern pine beetles, 155

Southwest Research and InformationCenter (SRIC), 114

Special waste, 77

Species loss, 164–165

Sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), 29–30

Spotted owl, 164, 165

SRF (State Revolving Fund), 130

SRIC (Southwest Research andInformation Center), 114

State government, 96

‘‘The State of Garbage in America’’(Kaufman, Goldstein, Millrath, andThemelis), 81, 91–92

State of the Air: 2005 (American LungAssociation), 23, 24t

State of the World 2000 (Renner), 5

State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture,2004 (FAO), 167

State Revolving Fund (SRF), 130

States

automobile emissions standardsof, 28

export/import of MSW, 83–84

fish consumption advisories, 126f

industrial hazardous waste generators,101–102

irrigation withdrawals by state, 123f

National Water Quality AssessmentDatabase, 124–125

recycling in, 96

recycling rates of, 91–92

Toxics Release Inventory chemicalsrelease, 103–104

water quality reports of, 124

West Nile virus cases, 166f

Statistical information

acid rain, generalized short-termeffects of acidity on fish,68 (t5.2)

air pollutant emissions, EPA estimatesof national, 19t

air pollutants, health risks, andcontributing sources, 26t

alternative fuel vehicles in use, numberof, 32t

alternative fuels, characteristics of, 31t

asbestosis, number of deathsattributed to, 144 (f10.6)

bacterial and parasitic infection casesunder surveillance by site,compared with national healthobjectives, 149 (t10.3)

blood lead concentration in children,toxicity of, 139 (f10.1)

blood lead levels <10 ug/dl,percentage of children aged 1–5years with, by race/ethnicity andsurvey period, 140f

carbon dioxide concentration, trend inglobal average, 42f

carbon dioxide emissions fromconsumption/flaring of fossilfuels, world, 48f

carbon dioxide emissions, projectedsources of, 50 (f3.13)

carbon dioxide emissions, world, byregion, 49f

carbon monoxide air qualityconcentrations, 20 (f2.2)

carbon monoxide emissions, 19f

chemicals, lifetime and ozonedepletion potential of various, 58t

chemicals, trends in atmosphericconcentrations of controlledozone-depleting chemicals, 61f

consumer electronics, estimated life ofselected, 74t

192 Index The Environment

consumer electronics, total unitsshipped of selected, 75f

dioxins, EPA’s estimates of averageadult’s daily exposure todioxins from dietary intake,149 (t10.2)

drinking water, public concern aboutpollution of, 133t

drinking water sources, public, 131t

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign, 164t

environmental industry market,U.S., 5f

environmental industry sectors, U.S.,growth expected in, 6t

EPA civil enforcement program, 11f

EPA criminal enforcement program,10f

farm acres by crop, 162 (f11.9)

fish consumption advisories, 126f

fish, contaminated, number of lakeacres under advisory due to,148f

food, number of cases/deaths due tospecific foodborne organisms,150t

forests, acres of land to be treated byForest Service, by pest, 158f

forests, location of protected forests/other forests in U.S., 154f

forests, national forest and grasslandareas, 156f

forests, ownership of U.S. forests, 155f

greenhouse gas emissions, by gas,41(f3.5)

greenhouse gas emissions, projectedU.S., by gas, 50 (f3.12)

greenhouse gas emissions, sinks, interagrams of carbon dioxideequivalents, trends in U.S.,40t–42t

hazardous wastes included in ToxicsRelease Inventory, managementmethods for, 105 (f8.4)

hybrid-electric vehicle diagram, 32f

international conventions, treaties,declarations related toenvironment, 11t

irrigation withdrawals by state, 123f

Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gasemission reduction targetsunder, 47t

land use, 162 (f11.8)

landfill gas energy projects by state,status of, 84f

landfills, number in U.S. by year, 86f

lead air quality, 20 (f2.4)

lead concentrations in blood ofchildren aged 5 and less forvarious years, 139 (f10.2)

lead emissions, 20 (f2.3)

legislation, federal environmental/wildlife protection acts, 9t

mercury, sources of atmosphericmercury emissions, 28f

methane concentrations, globalaverage, 43 (f3.7)

municipal solid waste, breakdown bytype of paper, paperboardproducts generated in, 80t

municipal solid waste, breakdown ofmaterials generated in, 81f

municipal solid waste generated,breakdown by waste type, 79(f6.6)

municipal solid waste, generation,materials recovery, combustion,and discards of, 82t

municipal solid waste, generation,materials recovery, composition,discards of, in millions of tonsand percent of total generation,78t

municipal solid waste generation,trends in total/per capita,79 (f6.5)

municipal solid waste managementmethods, 82f

nitrogen oxide emissions, 21 (f2.5)

nitrogen oxides air quality, 21 (f2.6)

nonhazardous waste distribution, 77(f6.4)

NPL site actions and milestones,number of, 106t

nuclear power reactors, locations ofcommercial operating, 111f

ozone air quality, trends in eight-hour,22 (f2.7)

ozone air quality, trends in one-hour,22 (f2.8)

ozone-depleting substances, U.S.emissions of, 63t

ozone hole over Antarctica, trends insize of, 56 (f4.3)

ozone pollution, American LungAssociation’s list of 25metropolitan areas with worst, 24t

particulate matter less than 2.5micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.11)

particulate matter less than 10micrometers in diameter, airquality for, 25 (f2.10)

particulate matter smaller than 10micrometers in diameter,emissions of, 24f

pesticide active ingredient, estimatedamounts of, used by pesticidetype, 141f

pesticide usage by type of pesticide,estimated breakdown of, 142f

pH values, field measurements of,from National AtmosphericDeposition Program/NationalTrends Network, 67f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by mediaprotected, 4t

population, world population growthin more/less developedcountries, 3f

public concern about airpollution, 35t

public concern about damage toEarth’s ozone layer, 64t

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species, 169(t11.4)

public concern about loss of tropicalrain forests, 169 (t11.3)

public opinion, Americans’ concernabout environmentalproblems, 16f

public opinion on level ofunderstanding of greenhouseeffect, 53 (f3.15)

public opinion on problems facingcountry, 15f

public opinion on quality ofenvironment, 14 (f1.7)

public opinion on success ofenvironmental movement,14 (f1.8)

public opinion on whether U.S. shouldabide by Kyoto agreement onglobal warming, 53 (f3.16)

radiation, average exposure by type,144 (f10.7)

radon zones, EPA map of, by county,146f

recycling, computers/components,what happens to obsolete, 100f

recycling, glass generated/recovered,93 (f7.3)

recycling, malls, shopping centers,market conditions for materialscommonly recycled at, 95t

recycling, metals generated/recovered,93 (f7.4)

recycling, municipal solid wastematerials generated/recovered byweight, 92t

recycling, municipal solid wasterecycling rates, 92f

recycling, paper generated/recovered,93 (f7.2)

recycling, paper products, EPA’srecommended recovered fibercontent for, 96t

recycling, plastics generated/recovered,94f

recycling, scrap tire disposition, U.S.,99 (f7.7)

recycling, scrap tires, generated,recycled, recovered, U.S., 99 (f7.6)

sites storing spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/orsurplus plutonium, 113f

The Environment Index 193

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

solar radiation changes caused byvolcanic eruptions, 45f

solid waste, distribution of, 77 (f6.3)

sulfur dioxide air quality, 26f

Superfund budget sources, 108f

Superfund site constructioncompleted, 107f

temperatures, trend in annual globalmean, 43 (f3.8)

Toxics Release Inventory, distributionof, 105 (f8.5)

Toxics Release Inventory, sources ofmaterials disposed or otherwisereleased in, 106f

toxins, pediatric exposures reportedto poison control centers,substances most frequentlyinvolved in, 136t

vehicle fuel economy by model, 29f

vehicles, sales/specifications ofavailable advanced technologyvehicles, 33t

waste, energy consumption associatedwith fuel from, 88f

water use, surface water, estimated useof, 121 (f9.3)

water use, trends in estimated, 119t

water use, trends in population, use ofgroundwater, surface water, 120f

water uses, groundwater, estimated useof, 121 (f9.4)

West Nile virus cases, 166f

wildland fires, number of, acresaffected, 157f

Steinforth, D. A., 52

Stockholm Conference

description of, 10–11

greenhouse effect dialogue at, 45–46

Storage

geologic repositories for radioactivewaste, 114–116

of high-level radioactive waste,112–113

of low-level radioactive waste, 113

sites storing spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/orsurplus plutonium, 113f

of transuranic waste, 114

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, layoutof, 115f

Yucca Mountain (Nevada), 116f

Strasser, Susan, 74

Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate ChangeScience Program (Interagency ClimateChange Science Program), 50–51

Stratosphere

ozone-depleting chemicals and, 58

ozone depletion and, 56

ozone depletion consequences, 57

ozone in, 22, 39

ozone layer of Earth, 55

Sudden oak death, 156

Sulfate, 65–66

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

acid rain from, 65

Acid Rain Program and, 70

air quality, 26f

air quality, health effects, 26

allowance bank, 71f

allowance trading, 71

emissions regulated under Acid RainProgram, 72f

emissions, sources, 25–26

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), 41, 42

Sulfur oxides, 18

Sun, 44

Sunspots, 44

Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act, 127

Superfund program

antiregulatory movement and, 5

cleanup of hazardous waste sites,106–108

NPL site actions and milestones,number of, 106t

site construction completed, 107f

Superfund budget sources, 108f

Superfund Trust Fund, 107–108, 108f

Surface water

estimated use of, 121 (f 9.3)

fishable/swimmable goal for, 125

freshwater supply, 120

irrigation use of, 122

public concern about pollution of, 133

trends in population, use ofgroundwater, surface water, 120f

use trends, 119

Surveillance for Waterborne-DiseaseOutbreaks–United States, 1999–2000(Centers for Disease Control andPrevention), 132

SUVs (sport-utility vehicles), 29–30

Swamp Land Acts, 159–160

TTambora volcano, Indonesia, 45

TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System), 167

Taxes, 12

Technical Aspects of Wetlands: History ofWetlands in the Conterminous UnitedStates (Dahl and Allord), 160

Temperature

climate, 43–45

of Earth, 37

global temperature warming trend,42–43

trend in annual global meantemperatures, 43 (f 3.8)

warming climate, effects of, 51–52

warming rate prediction, 46

See also Greenhouse effect

Teratogen, 135

Terrorism, 3

TESS (Toxic Exposure SurveillanceSystem), 136

Texas

alternative fuel stations of, 30

industrial nonhazardous waste in,77–78

water use, 118, 119

Themelis, Nickolas J.

recovery rates of MSW, 91–92

‘‘The State of Garbage inAmerica,’’ 81

Thermoelectric power generation, 118,119

Threatened species

cases of, 163–164

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign, 164t

wetlands and, 159

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), 109

Throw-away society, 74–75

Timber harvesting, 157–158

Tires, scrap

disposition, U.S., 99 (f7.7)

generated, recycled, recovered, U.S.,99 (f7.6)

recycling, 98

rubber-modified asphalt for highways,96–97

Toepfer, Klaus, 12

‘‘‘Too Little Oil’ for Global Warming’’(Coghlan), 49

Topsoil, 162

Toxic compounds, 104 (t8.3)

Toxic Exposure Surveillance System(TESS), 136

Toxic materials, 88

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),136, 138

Toxic Waste and Race in the United States(United Church of Christ), 7

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)

chemical toxins on, 137

distribution of, 105 (f8.5)

establishment of, 136

hazardous waste regulation with,103–104

management methods for hazardouswastes, 105 (f8.4)

report findings, 27

sources of materials disposed orotherwise released in, 106f

2003 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) PublicData Release Report (EnvironmentalProtection Agency)

on air toxins, 27

194 Index The Environment

on chemical toxins, 137

findings of, 103–104

Toxins in everyday life

asbestos, 143–144

asbestosis, number of deathsattributed to, 144 (f10.6)

bacterial and parasitic infection casesunder surveillance by site,compared with national healthobjectives, 149 (t10.3)

blood lead concentration in children,toxicity of, 139 (f10.1)

blood lead levels <10 ug/dl,percentage of children aged 1–5years with, by race/ethnicity andsurvey period, 140f

chemical toxins, 136–143

contaminated fish, number of lakeacres under advisory dueto, 148f

dioxins, EPA’s estimates of averageadult’s daily exposure to dioxinsfrom dietary intake, 149 (t10.2)

in food, 147–150

food, number of cases/deaths due tospecific foodborne organisms,150t

government regulations, programs,funding, 135–136

indoor air toxins, 145–147

lead, concentrations of, in blood ofchildren aged 5 and less forvarious years, 139 (f10.2)

pediatric exposures reported to poisoncontrol centers, substances mostfrequently involved in, 136t

pesticide active ingredient, estimatedamounts of, used by pesticidetype, 141f

pesticide usage by type of pesticide,estimated breakdown of, 142f

radiation, 144–145

radiation, average exposure by type,144 (f10.7)

radon zones, EPA map of, by county,146f

reasons for toxicity, 135

Trade

in CFCs, 60

endangered/threatened species and,163–164

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS),167

Transportation Equity Act for theTwenty-First Century, 167

Transuranic waste, 114–115

Treaties. See Legislation and internationaltreaties

Treatment

for hazardous waste management, 102

of Toxics Release Inventory chemicals,103

Trees

acid rain’s effects on, 68–69

as carbon sinks, 39

See also Forests

TRI. See Toxics Release Inventory

‘‘Trinity’’ bomb, 110

Tropical rain forests. See Rain forests

Troposphere

CFCs and, 58

ozone-depleting chemicals in, 62

ozone in, 22, 39

ozone layer of Earth, 55

Trucks, light, 29–30

TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act),136, 138

Tuna, 164

Two Decades of Clean Air: EPA AssessesCosts and Benefits (National Conferenceof State Legislatures), 34

Tyndall, John, 42

UU-235 (Uranium 235), 109

Ultraviolet-B (UVB), 57

Ultraviolet light (UV)

ozone and, 39

ozone formation and, 55

radiation, 57, 62

UN. See United Nations

UN Commission on SustainableDevelopment (CSD), 12

‘‘Uncertainty in Predictions of theClimate Response to Rising Levels ofGreenhouse Gases’’ (Steinforth etal.), 52

‘‘Understanding Environmental Literacyin America: And Making It a Reality’’(National Environmental Educationand Training Foundation), 16

UNECE (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe) Conventionon Long-Range Transboundary AirPollution, 70

UNFCCC (United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change),46–47, 49

Union Carbide pesticide plant, Bhopal,India, 136

United Church of Christ, 7

United Nations Climate ChangeConference, 47–48

United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development, 165

United Nations Development Program, 60

United Nations Economic Commissionfor Europe (UNECE) Convention onLong-Range Transboundary AirPollution, 70

United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)

establishment of, 11

on Montreal Protocol problems, 60

Scientific Assessment of OzoneDepletion: 2002, 62

World Meteorological Organizationunder, 46

United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC),46–47, 49

United Nations (UN)

Earth Summit, 1992, 12, 165

Stockholm Conference, 10–11

on world population, 3

United States

acid rain improvements, 72

acid rain politics and, 70

attitudes towards environment, 1–3

automobiles of, 27–28

CFCs, illegal trade, smuggling of, 60

fish consumption advisories, 126f

forests under stress, 153–158

global warming and, 49–51

greenhouse gas emissions, projected,by gas, 50 (f3.12)

greenhouse gas emissions, sinks, interagrams of carbon dioxideequivalents, 40t–42t

greenhouse gas emissions trends, 51

international environmentalagreements and, 12

irrigation withdrawals by state, 123f

Kyoto Protocol provisionsand, 47–48

landfills, number in U.S. by year, 86t

natural resources, depletion,conservation of, 151

nuclear power reactors, location ofcommercial operating, 111f

ozone-depleting substances, U.S.emissions of, 63t

ozone depletion, efforts to end, 62–63

public opinion on problems facingcountry, 15f

radon zones, EPA map of, by county,146f

rainfall, field measurements of pHvalues from NationalAtmospheric DepositionProgram/National TrendsNetwork, 67f

rainfall pH in, 65

sites storing spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/orsurplus plutonium, 113f

West Nile virus cases, 166f

See also Economy, U.S.

United States Commission on CivilRights (USCCR), 7–8

United States–Canada Air QualityAgreement: 2004 Progress Report(Environmental Protection Agency), 72

University of New Mexico’s Institute ofPublic Policy, 114

The Environment Index 195

Uranium, 144

Uranium 235 (U-235), 109

Uranium mill tailings, 112

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation ControlAct, 112

Urban development, 160

Urban runoff, 126

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ocean protection and, 129

rebuilding of eroded beaches, 163

U.S. Climate Action Report2 (U.S.Department of State), 50

U.S. Climate Change ResearchInitiative, 50

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program:Vision for the Program and Highlights ofthe Scientific Strategic Plan (InteragencyClimate Change Science Program),50–51

U.S. Coast Guard, 129

U.S. Congress, 5–6, 34–35

U.S. Constitution, 7, 161

U.S. Consumer Product SafetyCommission, 142

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

on erosion and agriculture, 162

on irrigation water use, 119

U.S. Department of Commerce

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, 4–5

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by industry, 4f

pollution abatement costs,expenditures, by mediaprotected, 4t

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

on alternative fuels, 30

fuel economy estimates, 29

geologic repositories for radioactivewaste, 114

high-level radioactive waste and,112–113

on hydroelectric generating dams,118–119

on hydrogen-fueled vehicles, 32

International Energy Annual 2003, 48

nuclear weapons development, 111

radioactive waste, sources of, 109

uranium mill tailings and, 112

on waste-derived energy, 86

Yucca Mountain and, 115, 116

U.S. Department of Energy IndustrialTechnologies Program, 167

U.S. Department of Transportation

on fuel economy, 29

on roads and wildlife, 166–167

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

on ducks and acid rain, 69

management of federal land, 161

U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA)

ban on ozone-depleting substances, 63

pathogens in food and, 148–149

regulation of toxins, 135

U.S. Forest Service

forests under stress, 153–158

management of federal land, 161

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

on asbestos production, 143

assessment of NPRA, 167

on electronic waste recycling,99–100

on MTBE, 28

on pesticides, 140

water use in U.S., 117–120

Yucca Mountain and, 116

U.S. Global Change Research Program(USGCRP), 49

U.S. Government Accountability Office(GAO)

on dioxin exposure, 147

report on acid rain, 72

on wildfires and forests, 153–154

U.S. Scrap Tire Markets—2003 Edition(Rubber Manufacturers Association), 98

U.S. Supreme Court

ban of dumping in oceans, 73

C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown, 88

Chemical Waste Management Inc. v.Hunt, 84, 88

ruling on Clean Air Act standards, 35

U.S. Surgeon General, 145

USCCR (United States Commission onCivil Rights), 7–8

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)

on erosion and agriculture, 162

on irrigation water use, 119

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram), 49

USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey

Utilities

acid rain and, 70–72

SO2 allowance bank, 71f

SO2 emissions regulated under AcidRain Program, 72f

UV. See Ultraviolet light

UVB (ultraviolet-B), 57

VVegetation, 68

See also Plants

Vehicles. See Automobiles

Volatile organic compounds(VOCs), 22

Volcanic activity, 45, 45f

WWadeable Streams Assessment

study, 125

Wal-Mart Corporation, 63

Waste combustion plant, 87f

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant LandWithdrawal Act, 114

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico

layout of, 115f

storage of transuranic waste, 114–115

Waste management, hierarchy, 104f

Waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities

emissions, 87–88

energy consumption associated withfuel from waste, 88f

number in U.S., 86

waste combustion plant with pollutioncontrol system, 87f

Waste-to-energy (WTE) process, 86

Water

acid rain’s effects on aquatic systems,67–68

availability, 117–124

contaminated fish, number of lakeacres under advisory due to, 148f

drinking water, 129–133

drinking water, public concern aboutpollution of, 133t

drinking water sources, public, 131t

estimated use of, 121 (f9.4)

fish consumption advisories, 126f

fish, generalized short-term effects ofacidity on, 68 (t5.2)

garbage dumping in, 73

groundwater, estimated use of, 121 (f9.4)

groundwater in hydrologic cycle, 122f

importance of, 117

irrigation withdrawals by state, 123f

laws to protect, 76

lead in, 138

ocean protection, 129

pesticides in, 140

point, nonpoint sources of pollution,127f

public opinion about water issues, 133

suitability, 124–129

surface water, estimated use of, 121(f9.3)

toxins in food and, 147

trends in population, use ofgroundwater, surface water, 120f

water cycle, 118f

water use, trends in estimated, 119t

waterborne pathogens found in humanwaste, associated disease, 132t

watershed approach for managementof water resources, land drawingdemonstrating, 128f

wetlands, 158–161

Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflictin the West (Bureau of Reclamation),123–124

Water 2025 program, 123–124

Water management

future of, 128–129

196 Index The Environment

watershed approach for managementof water resources, land drawingdemonstrating, 128f

Water pollution

Americans’ concern about, 15

Clean Water Act and, 124

drinking water legislation, 129–131

groundwater quality, 126

point, nonpoint sources of pollution,127f

sources, 125–126

water quality assessment, 124–125

Water quality

National Water Quality AssessmentDatabase, 124–125

wetlands and, 159

wetlands’ contribution to improvingwater quality, reducing stormwater runoff, 160 (f11.6)

Water Quality Act of 1987, 76

Water Quality Control Act of 1987, 130

Water users, 118–119

Water vapor

as greenhouse gas, 38

rainfall fluctuation from warmingclimate, 51–52

Watersheds

approach for management of waterresources, land drawingdemonstrating, 128f

protection of, 128–129

Weather

definition of, 37

rain forests and, 153

See also Climate

West Nile virus, 165, 166f

West Virginia, chemical release in, 136

West, water issues in, 122–124

Western National Forests—A CohesiveStrategy Is Needed to AddressCatastrophic Wildfire Threats (U.S.Government Accountability Office),153–154

Wetland banking, 161

Wetlands

contribution to improving waterquality, reducing storm waterrunoff, 160 (f11.6)

definition of, role of, 159

as fragile ecosystems, 158

history of wetlands use, 159–161

wetland acres lost annually, numberof, 160 (f11.7)

White pine blister rust, 156

WHO (World Health Organization), 145

Wildfires

forests under stress from, 153–155

wildland fires, number of, acresaffected, 157f

Wildlife

biodiversity, 163–167

endangered/threatened species,number of, U.S. and foreign, 164t

forests as habitat for, 153

public concern about extinction ofplant and animal species, 169(t11.4)

toxins contamination, 147

West Nile virus cases, 166f

wetlands support, 159

See also Animals

Wildlife protection acts, 9t

Wisconsin, 132–133

WMO. See World MeteorologicalOrganization

Wood preservatives, 142

Wood thrush, acid rain and, 69

Work-Related Lung Disease SurveillanceReport 2002 (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention), 143

World Bank, 60

World Health Organization(WHO), 145

World Meteorological Organization(WMO)

on greenhouse effect, 45–46

on ozone depletion sources, 57

Scientific Assessment of OzoneDepletion: 2002, 62

World Trade Organization(WTO), 12–13

World War II, 110

WTE facilities. See Waste-to-energy(WTE) facilities

WTO (World Trade Organization),12–13

YYard trimmings

composting, 97

municipal solid waste composition,79, 81

Yucca Mountain, Nevada,115–116, 116f

ZZebra mussels, 165

The Environment Index 197

File not found (FNF)