New 2013

** Q.Being an international student I struggled a little bit on the government system of U.S, it would be nice if you can brief about the different agencies and their role in the hierarchy of the government.
A. “Hierarchy” is an interesting concept for our regulatory agencies.  For the federal agencies with each other, unless the enabling statute specifies differently, the agencies are equal.  Generally, during the regulation-making process, the agencies are aware of each other’s proposed regulations and testify or otherwise make clear any overlaps or conflicts before the regulations are promulgated.  Often, unless there is a definite contraction, the regulated industry may need to follow both sets of regulations.  In the US, between state and federal agencies, if there is a direct contradiction, the federal will govern.  Again, if it is not a direct contradiction, one may be required to follow both sets of regulations.  If it is an overlap, one must follow the more burdensome regulations. 

Quiz. Q. question number 2 “Passive monitoring is usually the best for determining the STEL” why the answer is no, and also were this was found in the modules. Since I could not find the information I ended up googling methods for determining STEL, and the majority of the sites I looked at mentioned passive devices. 
A. STEL are short term limits, usually 30 minutes.  How in an 8 hour day could you use passive monitoring, like a film badge?  You would need 16 of them and at the end of each 30 minute cycle, take the badge and get it read? There are two ways, both in common use, depending on the situation.  One is when you know when during the work day the high exposures take place, say at 11 O’clock when you open the cover to the vat.  In that case, you can use a passive monitor and send it out to get a baseline on that particular operation.  The second and more common situation is to use real time monitoring with an alarm.

NEW 2009

**  Q. The thing that disturbs me the most would be how inaccurate of a science risk assessment seems to be. There is no possible way for them to test all the effects some chemical will have on every level of an ecosystem at the present moment or in the future. Also, when just deal with human risk assessment, it lends itself to quite a bit of personal opinion.
A. Oh yes.  The practical situation is daunting.  The way it is usually handled is to make “conservative assumptions.”  That is, assumptions that are more protective of human health.  The issue then becomes the “pyramiding of conservative assumptions.” Then it becomes weird and maybe dangerous since “everyone knows that model is grossly conservative.”

** Q. One thing that was still a little foggy to me was whether or not there are really specified steps for a risk assessment. Are there steps would fork for any risk assessment? The on the RAIS website seems good for risk assessment of containments, but may not be applicable to other areas. 
A. The definition of “risk” is the probability and severity of some harm.   Evaluating these or assessing them is risk assessment.  Stating the risk is known formally as “risk characterization.”  The EPA established formal steps for its superfund process that these have become standard for many types of environmental risk.  But we do a risk assessment when we are driving and decide to pass or not pass the car ahead. 

* Q. One thing that I thought was interesting was the differences in identifying human vs. ecological risks. I did not realize that it sometimes may be more difficult to determine the ecological risks because it needs to encompass so much and there are so many varying factors.
A. Yes, this might be ameliorated by assuming that butterflies are less important than people, but you’ll get an argument on that from some quarters.  Regardless of your opinion of the Order Lepidoptera, we realize that butterflies can’t sue in court – people can.  Thus there is often more time and money devoted to human health risk assessment than ecological risks. 

* Q. Muddy:  in the RISK reading on p19, there is a phrase: “non-cancerous effects of carcinogens”.
A. Many chemicals are both carcinogens and have other health hazards.  Lead, for example, is both neuro-toxic and carcinogenic.  Many of the nerve gas insecticides are both as well.

*.Q. New:  that a prior exposure to dioxin may reduce the incidence of cancer upon subsequent exposure.  Maybe dioxin stimulates the immune system in some way?
A. I’ve never heard of that.  There are many chemicals that have a beneficial dose and a toxic dose – almost all drugs.  Some substances have a hormetic dose-response.  The noun is “hormesis”   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormetic  Careful with this wiki entry – hormesis can be very controversial. 

 END NEW 2009

**Q. One question I had was concerning ecological assessments.  Is it critical to evaluate each trophic level?  What if you have a site in remote Alaska where a certain trophic level doesn't exist?  Do you only have to evaluate each trophic level that could be impacted by your contamination?
A. All the trophic levels are inter-related, so you don’t want to damage any of them significantly.  However, the point is that damaging one level might harm another level, directly, or it may not.  Killing all the willow near Big Lake may only encourage the moose to migrate somewhere else, thus not harm the moose population as a whole.  It may wipe out the local rabbit population and thus the lynx. 

**Q. One thing that I found foggy was why the EPA considers global warming a high hazard and hazardous waste sites a low hazard for the public health. Is it because the hazardous waste sites are considered to be “under control” and global warming is not? 
A. At the high end, “global warming,” is, in my opinion, not a hazard at all, but it is highly political.  At the other end, most hazardous waste sites do not expose the public to any measurable dose of chemicals and thus are of little of real health concern.

**Q. I read a lot of different Superfund cases, all interesting, but none of them really said much about the Assessment Process.  They seem to focus on the result, whether it was decided later that it is safe or that some sort of cleanup is happening/did happen.  Sometimes the party who does the assessment isn’t even named (or is it always the government?).  Who checks up on this to be sure the process is conducted thoroughly and correctly?
A. The EPA has to reach a “decision.”  That is a risk management decision, based on, among other things a risk assessment.  If there is no PRP (potentially responsible party), the EPA must fund the process through Superfund.  The EPA will hire a contractor to manage the project, who will likely subcontract specific portions, like the risk assessment.  The prime contractor will have a QA/QC plan and the sub that does the actual risk assessment will have its own.  If there is a PRP and they are funding the cleanup – the EPA may let them do the risk assessment, but they will hire a contractor/consultant to do that and usually the EPA must approve the contractor.  As a practical matter, many of the projects get messy because the preliminary investigations are always limited, so the actual cleanup often finds more gunk and/or a different kind of gunk that was planned for.  It gets worse if the money is not available to clean up the new material that is found.  Also, as a practical matter, the contractor has an incentive to find extra gunk because then they get paid extra.

**Q. One thing I did not fully understand is the liability of the companies especially in the RODs.  One of my RODs dealt with a woolen company that had contaminated a significant area in Maine.  This company had been running since the late 1800s.  This company used to dispose of its waste directly into the river.  I was wondering if companies are responsible for actions it took in the past when the regulations were not as stringent during that time period. 
A. Yes, that is the point of CERCLA.  Almost all of the CERCLA sites were quite legal when they were dumped.  When one dumped in the river or some common land, there was always a common law prohibition against poisoning the local well.  However for contamination on one’s own property, that does not leave the property, there is nothing in the common law.  CERCLA invented responsibility retroactivity.  In the Environmental Law class, ENVE 644, we go into that a little. 

**Q. One thing that was unclear to me is who is financially responsible for the remediation of superfund sites.  I imagine that responsibility will vary on a case to case basis.
A. CERCLA is all about liability.  Any party that has contributed anything, even a very small amount, to the hazardous waste at a superfund site (CERCLA site) is responsible for 100% of the cleanup costs.  All the EPA has to do is find one party who contributed to the mess.  Typically they will look for a “deep pocket,” who the EPA also feels they can prove dumped at the site, even if they were only a minor contributor to the mess.  That party will be forced to pay for the entire cleanup.  Now that party will try to find others and make them contribute, but that is a separate matter.  If no solvent responsible party can be found, the EPA can pay for the cleanup with money from the superfund.

*Q. My question would be if you knew how high in the Government the DOR’s  RODs go?  Do they reach the political level of Government officials?  Probably on the big sites but can the little sites be decided ‘in house’?
A. There is a decision process.  The ROD is issued in a draft and comments are solicited.  If a high government official protests in writing – it will surely get a close look.  More often it is the state and local environmental and public health agencies who make substantive comments. 

*Q. One thing I found foggy was number 3 on the RAIS (http://rais.ornl.gov/minicourse/rap_q3.shtml)
I see that they got their information from a U. S. General Accounting Office report to Congress, Environmental Protection: Meeting Public Expectations with Limited Resources (GAO/RCED-91-97, June 1991); however, I wondered what type of public opinion poll they used to determine what the perceived risks are from the public’s viewpoint.  I also wonder if they developed a plan of action to bring the risks to public attention.  I know global warming has been brought to public awareness but I have heard very little about indoor air pollution or the risks of household chemicals.
A. Yes.  You’ll get some more insight when you do the risk communication module.  The public often perceives risks quite differently than scientists.  One factor is WHO is responsible.  For something that people do themselves, like smoke cigarettes, smokers are very tolerant of a level of risks that would be a felony if someone else did it to them.  I’m going to come out of the closet and expose my global warming views soon.  Hope you aren’t offended.

*Q. One of the sites listed in my homework assignment was listed on the NPL after the parent company went bankrupt.  From news reports on TV, it always seems like the company presidents and CEOs always leave the bankrupt firms with a lot of money in their pocket.  I do not understand why the federal government cannot go after their personal bank accounts (money that they received as compensation and pay from the company during the years they were driving it into the ground) to pay for the cleanup.  It seems a little unfair that us taxpayers, who have a lot less money, are required to pay.
A. It is very hard to get at those folks.  CERLCA cleanups are supposed to be funded by a small tax on chemical manufacturers, but again, the responsible will pay for the irresponsible.  Similarly, if it was a common dump, any one of the dumper will have to pay for the whole cleanup.  Hopefully the other law, RCRA, will end this kind of thing for the future.